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

June 20, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L092 - Tue 20 Jun 1978 / Mar 20 jun 1978

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD ABUSE

COST REDUCTIONS

OIL AND GAS PRICES

CITY OF HAZELDEAN-MARCH

WASTE DISPOSAL

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE DISPOSAL

OIL AND GAS PRICES

PROVINCIAL FINANCES

AUTO PACT

LONDON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

CHILD ABUSE

TOURISM

OIL AND GAS PRICES

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

OHC SALARY AWARD

SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET

REPORTS

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF HAZELDEAN-MARCH ACT

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

COUNTY OF LENNOX AND ADDINGTON ACT

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTERS REPEAL ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DISCRIMINATORY BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD ABUSE

Hon. Mr. Norton: In February I announced the appointment of a task force chaired by Dean Ralph Garber of the Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, to examine the services provided by Ontario’s children’s aid societies with regard to the management of child abuse cases.

The task force was appointed because we recognized that there were problems in the handling of child abuse in Ontario. The mandate was to inquire into the management of child abuse cases by the 50 children’s aid societies and into the services offered to abused children and their families.

In fulfilling this function the task force commissioned research to provide it with necessary information. In addition, opinions, viewpoints, and submissions were invited from children’s aid societies, community groups, staff associations, interested citizens and professionals throughout Ontario.

I am pleased to table the report of that task force today. It is one which my ministry is considering very seriously. We are analysing the recommendations and their implications and we will act promptly on them wherever possible.

At this time I would like to thank Dean Garber and the other members of the task force on child abuse, all of whom volunteered their time, for having undertaken a great deal of work and for having produced a comprehensive report in a short period of time.

I would also like to thank all those people and groups who submitted their views to the task force. I particularly would like to thank the children’s aid societies for their cooperation throughout. Without their thoughtful and sincere contribution, the work of the task force and the report -- copies of which are being distributed today -- would not have been possible.

I want to draw the attention of members to the first paragraph in the

summary of recommendations, since it appears not only to raise concerns about the present arrangement of services but to find them completely wanting in their ability to protect children.

While my ministry can see merit in the recommendations, I cannot, as minister, accept the blanket nature of the

summary’s first sentence. I think we have to recognize that a great deal of good work has been done over the years by the children’s aid societies. I am confident that a very great number of children have been and are being well protected.

I want to stress as well, however, that I am very concerned about the substantial variations in the levels of service among the societies, and the fact that many societies have not developed guidelines to assist in critical decision-making. Both of these areas are identified in the report.

The need is identified for greater supervision of societies by the province and for my ministry to develop guidelines and standards of service. Historically, our role has been to support and to assist the children’s aid societies rather than to direct or to require. This is the approach taken with other quasi-private agencies.

Recent developments have led me to the conclusion that greater ministry involvement is called for. To make this possible, I have authorized additional staff for the child welfare branch. Active recruiting has been taking place over the past one-and-a-half to two years and staff has been augmented. We now have eight full-time professional staff appointed to the supervision of the children’s aid societies. In addition to this, the child abuse program increased its capability to five full-time professional staff. I accept the principle of an increased ministry role and recognize that this is a departure from past policy, but one which is warranted.

The task force developed 21 specific recommendations to improve the situation. As I have noted, these will be given careful and urgent consideration. Already we are taking action in the direction proposed by the task force.

Several recommendations place responsibility on my ministry for the development of guidelines and standards of service for all aspects of child protection practices of children’s aid societies, and for more intensive monitoring and supervision of the societies. I am pleased to note that standards development in all aspects of children’s services is one of our priorities.

The children’s services division has appointed a standards development advisory committee which is at work on the development of standards. A consultation paper on residential care standards will be released this summer.

The child welfare branch recently circulated a memorandum of guidelines respecting child abuse cases. These are necessary steps, and the task force has identified additional areas where standards development is required.

Certain recommendations have implications for other ministries -- for instance, in the development and operations of interdisciplinary teams and in incorporating child abuse training into the curricula of various educational institutions. I assure the Legislature I will bring these matters to the attention of my colleagues in government and to the interministerial committee on children’s services which has been designated by the government to carry responsibility for the interministerial aspects of child abuse, and which has a child abuse subcommittee.

The report recommends further child abuse training for professionals in the field and the establishment of interdisciplinary teams to advise on the management of child abuse cases. Over the past two years my ministry has been encouraging and funding local interprofessional seminars on child abuse, and providing active consultation to assist communities to establish planning committees and interdisciplinary teams. In order to promote this work an additional $460,000 has been allocated to the child abuse program this fiscal year.

At the present time at least 30 interdisciplinary teams have been established in Ontario. In addition, a minimum of 20 hospital-based teams have been established to advise on the treatment of the abused child and the abusing family. We are pleased with the progress that has been made so far and will be continuing to support these necessary additional efforts.

The report recommends that more attention be paid to services in the north and to native children. We have previously identified this as one of our priorities in 1978 and we have had a group studying the needs of northern areas of the province where there are disproportionate numbers of native children in care.

Several of the recommendations call for legislative changes and I am pleased to report that most of these, such as legal representation for children in protection hearings and authority for the child abuse registry, are included in the bill to revise the Child Welfare Act which I introduced two weeks ago and which received second reading last night.

The task force recommendations are extremely helpful to my ministry and they convince me we have much work to do. Both the report itself and summarized research highlight the urgent need for action. Staff of the ministry are studying the report with care and will formulate proposals for action which we will discuss with the children’s aid societies this summer.

In addition to working with children’s aid societies to improve the handling of cases of known or suspected child abuse, we are also as a ministry focusing our attention on prevention strategies so that we can deal with the roots of the problem.

We have commissioned the chief of child psychiatry at War Memorial Hospital of Western Ontario, Dr. Naomi Rae-Grant, to undertake a project to develop prevention strategies for application within the children’s services division of my ministry.

Mr. McClellan: You’ve changed your tune since last night.

Hon. Mr. Norton: A flexible new proposal has been presented to children’s aid societies to encourage the reallocation of money for child care into prevention initiatives. I will, of course, keep the House and the public informed about progress.

COST REDUCTIONS

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that my ministry has reduced energy consumption by approximately 25 per cent over the past two years. This reduction, which exceeds by five per cent our goal for this 24-month period, has resulted in a cost avoidance totalling $685,000.

In addition to my ministry’s commitment to reduce energy consumption by a further seven per cent during the fiscal year, I have set targets for reductions in food, clothing, and other supplies. There will be no reduction in the size of portions of food served to inmates, but efforts will be stepped up to ensure there is no wastage of food. Stricter regulations will also be applied to the issuance of clothing, linen, and the cleaning and maintenance supplies. This year’s cost avoidance target for these resources I have mentioned will be $679,000.

I am sure that honourable members will be pleased to learn that one of our correctional facilities, the Ontario Correctional Institute in Brampton, is involved in a project aimed at making it more self-sufficient through the use of solar energy. Through the experimental use of solar collector panels, the institute hopes to meet most of its hot water needs. This experiment is being conducted in co-operation with the Ministry of Energy, Ontario Hydro, and the Ministry of Government Services.

Efforts to conserve resources can only be successful if staff participate fully, and I am very pleased with the work performed to achieve our goals by staff at all institutions and field offices.

In

summary, if we achieve our cost avoidance targets for this year -- and I am confident that we will -- this will represent a total savings to the taxpayer over three years of more than $1.3 million.

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House on the Ontario government’s position concerning the announced crude oil price increase of $1 per barrel scheduled for July 1 which, after a 60-day price freeze to use up existing stocks, could result in an increase of approximately 3.5 cents per gallon in the cost of gasoline on September 1. Home heating oil would increase by about three cents per gallon.

Yesterday, the Canadian Press reported that the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had announced that the price increase results from an agreement negotiated last spring wherein the federal and provincial governments plan to continue to gradually move domestic oil prices towards world price.

Mr. Bradley: That’s your friends in Alberta.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Contrary to that report, the Ontario government strongly opposed any such agreement last year and continues to do so.

Mr. Deans: That’s shameful. You got us into this mess four years ago.

Mr. Ruston: Tell your friend Peter Lougheed.

Mr. Haggerty: What did you do about Ontario Hydro’s increase?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: For the recollection of the House, I’m tabling a copy of Ontario’s position taken at the federal-provincial conference last year.

Mr. Deans: You got us into this at the first ministers’ conference. You agreed to this nonsense.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We did not agree to it.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: In essence, we stated a price increase was not justified at that time for a number of reasons. Today, those reasons are even more valid than ever.

Mr. Mancini: You are kissing cousins.

Mr. Nixon: Send the money to Alberta.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I might also say that it seems very strange to me that the federal government would in early May of this year urge the OPEC nations to maintain a freeze on world prices because the western economies were just recovering from the sharp increases of 1973, and then turn around one month later and impose such an increase on Canadian consumers.

Mr. Deans: You are just as bad.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I should like to advise the members that during the past few weeks I have had discussions with the Minister of Energy for Alberta and with the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about the proposed price increases of crude oil for July 1 and for proposed increases in the price of natural gas.

Mr. Kerrio: Darcy understands that kind of management.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Those discussions have been followed up by my officials. At these meetings we have made strong representation against any price increase at this time while the Canadian economy is soft and unemployment is high, and when inflation is still not under control.

Mr. Haggerty: What are you doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I would like to assure the members of this House that I will continue to press Ontario’s case with Mr. Gillespie. Even though Mr. Gillespie has already taken unilateral action on this increase, there is yet another increase proposed for next January 1, and it would help considerably if members on the other side of this House would support the government in its efforts to prevent still a further increase.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, go away.

Mr. Breithaupt: What’s Joe Clark’s position?

An hon. member: Look after our dear friends from Alberta.

Mr. Samis: Always passing the buck.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Now is not the time to increase the price of crude oil or natural gas.

[2:15]

Mr. Ruston: Blame it on Lougheed, your buddy.

Mr. MacDonald: You have made your bed, now you’ve got to lie on it.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Such a price increase is not needed to increase the supply of either energy source and can only further undermine the economy.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister finally figured it out.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Ontario has many times been accused of taking a narrow view with respect to energy pricing. Such is not the case. It is as much in the consumers’ interest as it is in the producers’ interest to ensure supply. Price and supply go hand in hand.

Mr. Roy: No, they don’t.

Mr. S. Smith: It is our view of respective politics.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I am very confident that we don’t need an additional price increase to encourage further exploration and development.

Mr. Makarchuk: This is a lot of bunk.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Exploration and development are already happening at an unprecedented level. As a result of my recent visit to Alberta, I was impressed by the optimism displayed about this country’s ability to meet its future domestic crude oil and gas requirements.

Mr. Deans: Talk about flip-flopping.

Mr. Nixon: They can’t wait for you to send them money.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: My discussions with the Canadian Petroleum Association, the Independent Petroleum Association and the Canadian Association of Oil Well Drilling Contractors --

Mr. Nixon: That’s a Conservative government out there, isn’t it?

Mr. Breithaupt: Keep Alberta green.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- indicate that 1977 was a record year for activity, and projections suggest that 1978 will be even better. Indications of the growth in activity in Canada in 1977 over 1976 are that --

Mr. Deans: They have lied to us for years.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- the availability of drilling rigs peaked at 336, for an increase of approximately 10 per cent; the number of exploration and development wells drilled totalled 5,381, for an increase of approximately 11 per cent; and the footage drilled totalled approximately 18 million feet, for about a 12 per cent increase.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s because the price went up.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: New reserves of crude oil and natural gas have been found and every effort is now being directed to prove up these findings so that they can be connected to transportation systems and made available to markets.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the Treasurer tell him the realities?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Although recent findings of crude oil are potentially significant, at best they might reduce our dependency on offshore supplies and not replace it. High exploration activity for conventional crude oil must, therefore, be maintained --

Mr. Swart: That was all in the paper two weeks ago.

Mr. Samis: Support Joe Clark.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- and must be supplemented by the development of synthetic crude oil from the oil sands and heavy oil deposits.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s expensive oil, for heaven’s sake. That is only going to go on stream if the price goes up. Will the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) explain it to him?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: It will take a concerted national effort for Canada to become self-sufficient in crude oil.

Mr. Laughren: Tell us about uranium now.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Without such self-sufficiency, Canada could be subjected to considerable inconvenience and hardship should another oil embargo on imported oil occur.

In February 1977, the National Energy Board reported that the remaining reserves of conventional crude oil in Canada totalled approximately 6.5 billion barrels, for a decrease of about six per cent over the previous year.

Mr. Deans: Their figures aren’t accurate either.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We hope the growth in exploration and development activity will reverse this downward trend, but even if the trend is reversed it will become increasingly necessary to develop synthetic supplies. Present Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board estimates show that some 26 billion barrels of synthetic crude oil, or four times our known reserves of conventional crude oil, could be recovered by surface mining of the oil sands, as is being done by the Great Canadian Oil Sands and Syncrude projects.

Mr. Samis: Is that last week’s figure or this week’s?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Members will recall that Ontario has a five per cent investment in the Syncrude project through the Ontario Energy Corporation. It will be going into production in July and will achieve about 109,000 barrels daily by early February. For the two non-believers across the House, I am going to send them a sample from the oil sands that I picked up in Alberta last week.

Mr. Cunningham: Is this a credit course?

Mr. Nixon: What did they give you, dark glasses?

Mr. Breithaupt: They only gave you a candle and a sweater.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The Cold Lake and similar heavy oil deposits must be developed using in-situ schemes, rather than the Syncrude mining approach. These have an estimated potential of 15 billion to 30 billion barrels of synthetic crude oil.

Mr. Nixon: What an impact this is making.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: My discussions in the past few weeks also suggest that Canadians have an opportunity to benefit significantly from this industrial activity which would produce an investment of $8 billion in such projects. As members know, a major portion of that investment would be spent right here in Ontario to purchase equipment, material and services.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you start all over again?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Ontario, therefore, has a major stake in the development of Canada’s oil reserves and we must take every advantage of the opportunities which are available. In this regard, I have met with the Honourable Don Getty, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources for Alberta --

Mr. Conway: Not even the Argonauts wanted him.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- and discussed in considerable detail the status of proposed oil sand and heavy oil projects. Mr. Getty was most encouraging about the prospects for Ontario industry and how favourably placed it is to compete for business.

Mr. Sargent: Sure he would when you gave him $100 million.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I have discussed Mr. Getty’s comments and suggestions with my colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Rhodes) and I am confident that Ontario’s industrial interests will continue to be vigorously pursued. We have heard much in the past few years of an energy crisis.

Mr. Roy: What a soft touch you are.

Mr. Samis: What did you say to Getty?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: In my view, we have no shortage in western Canada of crude oil reserves, nor are we limited by technology.

Mr. Conway: Who wrote that for you?

Mr. Ruston: Did Joe Clark write that for you?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: In our view, price is not the key issue at this time to ensure our future supplies, but rather there appears to be a serious lack of will and commitment frustrating the timely development of those reserves.

I should add, as members know, that the National Energy Board is currently conducting hearings into Canada’s energy supply and demand, with particular emphasis on crude oil. Yesterday my officials presented the government of Ontario’s submission to the National Energy Board. At the appropriate time later this afternoon I shall table a copy of that submission for the information of the House.

Mr. Makarchuk: Where do you stand on exports?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: In line with what I mentioned earlier, one of the principal recommendations in our submission is the need for Canada to become self-sufficient in crude oil no later than by 1995 and we believe this to be a realistic goal. Our submission also stressed the need for a new process for addressing and solving energy supply, demand, transport and price problems in Canada, a process based on collaborative planning amongst the provinces and the federal government.

Mr. Makarchuk: Are you supporting exports or not?

Mr. Sargent: Are you planning a price increase?

Mr. Nixon: Boy, you should have heard McKeough when he delivered those statements. We all listened in, eh, Darcy?

CITY OF HAZELDEAN-MARCH

Mr. Roy: Darcy, are you going backwards today?

Mr. Bradley: Blow the bugles of retreat.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that later today I will introduce

an Act to establish the new city of Hazeldean-March.

Mr. Bolan: Sounds like a swamp.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This will be a new municipality within the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, composed of the former March township and portions of Goulbourn and Nepean townships which contain the western urban growth areas designated in the regional official plan.

The bill contains the following provisions: that the new municipality have the boundaries as indicated and have the status of a city for all purposes, save initially for having to maintain a local police force under the Police Act; that the council of the city be composed of the mayor elected at large and six aldermen elected by wards --

Mr. Nixon: We will deal with that next Tuesday.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- that the composition of councils established or affected by the above proposal be provided through minister’s orders, including such adjustments respecting wards and related matters as are necessary for the council of the city of Hazeldean-March and the township of Goulbourn; and that the name of the new city may be changed with a provision for a general vote.

The creation of the new city of Hazeldean-March has followed much discussion with the three existing municipalities involved, namely, the townships of March, Goulbourn and Nepean.

Everyone has agreed that establishing a single municipality for the suburban areas now growing together in this western part of the region is one of the soundest proposals made in the Mayo report.

Mr. Roy: Why don’t you call it McKeough’s folly?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The adjustments to the boundary proposals originally made in the Mayo report result from practical considerations, and with the understanding that future changes can be made after further study and when appropriate. This understanding applies, for example, to the northern portion of March township about whose ultimate boundaries there is not yet a consensus.

Substantial financial assistance can and will be made available under existing policy to the municipalities affected by this restructuring proposal to ensure that no municipality is left in difficulty by the fact of restructuring itself. Goulbourn township has been especially concerned about this. The council of Goulbourn has indicated by a resolution adopted on Monday, June 12, that it favours the proposal subject to the financial understandings that had been reached as of that date. The new city itself will be on a sound financial footing, assisted by the startup and transitional moneys to which it will be entitled.

With the above in mind, the government agrees with local views that it would be well to end uncertainties and establish the new municipality now. We wish the new city of Hazeldean-March well, and we are confident the city can become one of Ontario’s best-governed urban municipalities within its appropriate boundaries and scope of responsibility.

I would like to re-emphasize that the planning process in the areas affected by this bill should proceed as usual and that this legislation not become a reason for delaying plans now pending approval. I am sure that other amendments to this act and to the Ottawa-Carleton Act may be necessary but they can be dealt with at the fall session.

Mr. Conway: Next Tuesday. That’s a phoney war if ever there was one.

Mr. Roy: You really don’t know what you are doing.

Mr. Conway: Are you going to make Hazeldean-March part of Gatineau?

WASTE DISPOSAL

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) asked a question which has a fairly long answer which I will give as a statement rather than using question period time. I would like to answer those questions and attempt to settle some of the apparent confusion on this important issue.

The development and operation of waste management facilities have traditionally been a municipal responsibility, and it should remain so. The province’s job is to see that municipal collection and disposal of garbage is conducted safely and without environmental damage. Our future responsibility is to provide guidance and to co-ordinate the efforts of municipalities in the development of shared waste management systems when required.

Mr. Deans: Are you reading this for the first time?

Ms. Gigantes: We can’t hear the minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If you would keep quiet over there, you would be able to hear him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If we had a little more quiet it would be much easier to hear.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why didn’t I say that?

Mr. Peterson: The Dennis Timbrell school of mumbling.

Hon. Mr. McCague: In determining these roles we have established clear provincial objectives. Simply stated, we want less garbage and we want to recover more from the waste we produce.

An hon. member: Get rid of the Tories if you want less garbage.

Hon. Mr. McCague: We want to reduce our dependence on landfill and we want to effect all of these changes by the most efficient and economic means, and with minimum displacement of the work force.

Mr. Nixon: Go on; it’s good stuff.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It gets better.

Mr. Roy: Don’t be shy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will never get out of here on Friday if you don’t cut it out.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The major means of achieving these objectives is reclamation, which is the basis of my ministry’s resource recovery program. We have a number of projects now under way in the Toronto area which are intended to prove the viability of reclamation and to open the door to the construction of major resource recovery facilities which ultimately will lessen our dependence on landfill as a means of disposal.

Under development in Metro Toronto is the Watts from Waste project, which has reached the final design stage with construction expected to begin this year. Its purpose is to recover the energy value from about a quarter of a million tons of garbage each year by using refuse-derived fuel as a partial replacement for coal at the Lakeview generating station. This facility will have a capacity to handle approximately 1,200 tons of waste per day, and approximately 80 per cent of this flow will be recovered for energy purposes.

The glass gobbler program of the Glass Container Council is now in operation in Metro Toronto. During May 260 tons of glass were recycled. Currently, collections are made at 90 commercial establishments in Toronto, and this program will be extended to Mississauga as equipment becomes available.

In addition, plans are proceeding in connection with the Toronto district heating scheme, which is based on using approximately 1,200 tons of refuse per day to produce energy. My ministry’s resource recovery plant, now in full operation, can process 600 tons of waste per day and reclaim approximately 90 per cent of this flow for reuse in one form or another. At 150,000 tons per year, the percentage recovered would be 7.5 per cent of Metro’s total solid waste. In addition, a large quantity of commercial wastes, such as corrugated cardboard, is recycled directly by the private sector.

We have concentrated a number of resource recovery projects in the Metro area. We believe it is expedient that Metro lead the way for other municipalities in moving away from landfill as a principal disposal method.

Of the approximately two million tons of waste produced each year in Metro, about three quarters of one per cent was recycled in 1977, the figure to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) referred. About one half of this is made up of newspapers recovered through collection in the city of Toronto and the boroughs of Etobicoke and Scarborough; the other half comes from cans reclaimed from the ash at the Commissioner Street incinerator.

That total of less than one per cent for Metro Toronto is a long way from ideal, I agree. But the current state of resource recovery is far from ideal, not only in Ontario but in North America. Resource recovery is an undertaking which requires huge initial capital investment. At a time of economic instability, municipal governments are hesitant to make major long-term commitments involving large expenditures, despite my ministry’s 50 per cent subsidy program which Ontario has offered to municipalities for the construction of resource recovery plants.

Because resource recovery is so critically dependent upon reliable markets for reclaimed material, the current economic constraints are also hindering the establishment of these markets. While resource recovery is a proven philosophy, the technology for efficient, comprehensive recycling remains unproven. A lot of work has to be done.

[2:30]

At a conference I recently attended in the United States, the technical director of the National Solid Wastes Management Association summarized the situation by saying of existing resource recovery facilities: “The results of the first generation of projects indicate that the best of them can be characterized as limited successes, while others have proven to be outright failures.”

Of about 40 resource recovery facilities in the US and Canada, more than two thirds are less than fully operational today. Even the well-publicized system in the city of Milwaukee has experienced some difficulty.

The fact is that resource recovery is not an instant solution to our waste management problems in this province. We have never regarded it as such, although we do believe that resource recovery, when fully developed, will be an integral part of the efficient solid waste management system of the future.

There is a danger in looking to resource recovery as an immediate panacea and rushing into widescale construction of resource recovery plants based on the soundness of the philosophy alone. What we must do now is to test and develop workable technology and work at the development of marketable products, and the markets themselves which are required for a viable resource recycling industry. We are making progress in this direction through the ministry’s experimental plant in Downsview and through our involvement in several other projects.

Mr. Samis: Jimmy Auld has met his match.

Hon. Mr. McCague: In addition to the projects in the Metro area, which I have already mentioned, today I am pleased to announce that through partial ministry funding, a study in the region of Peel is being undertaken to examine the feasibility of generating steam and energy from domestic garbage and waste paper to fuel a manufacturing plant, and to generate additional energy in the form of electricity.

Though markets for this form of energy are well established, the technology under study is unique in North America. It is highly complex, which is why we are anxious to have a detailed engineering study of the process to explore the potential that it holds for Peel, and later for other municipalities in dealing with their problems.

As we develop resource recovery, there will be a continuing need for landfill capacity in Ontario, including Metro, to accommodate waste which cannot be recycled or which has no energy value. This landfill capacity will have to be obtained in co-operation with Metro’s neighbouring municipalities and the sites must be environmentally acceptable. We have established a working committee involving Metro Toronto, York, Durham, Peel and Halton region with the objective of developing an effective and integrated waste management plan for the greater Metro area.

With respect to regional waste disposal studies, we offer a 50 per cent subsidy for area planning studies so that municipalities can determine the most effective means of waste disposal for their unique circumstances.

Regarding the recent proposal by Crawford Allied Industries Limited to erect a recycling plant at the Maple pit, the firm’s proposal was conditional upon approval of the Maple pit landfill site application.

Mr. Sargent: Time, George.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Quiet.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Since this was not approved, the firm will not be proceeding with construction of the reclamation plant.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. I take it that the minister is explaining the discrepancy in the comments he made earlier in the House when he estimated that about 10 per cent of Metro’s waste was not being recycled; he then lowered that estimate in a private communication to 7.5 per cent. I take it that what he is saying now is that it was, in fact, only three-quarters of one per cent last year, but that with the Downsview resource recovery plant he expects that it will be 7.5 per cent this year. I take it that’s what he’s saying.

May I therefore ask the minister to confirm that as of the end of last week -- from January 1 to the end of last week -- the input to the Downsview plant has been 69,239 tons, and of that, 67,448 tons went to landfill sites, with a small amount to incineration? Isn’t it a fact that the Downsview station is virtually a transfer station, and that in point of fact since the loss of moisture accounts for about 1,000 tons it’s really up from 0.75 per cent to 0.8 per cent and nowhere near the 10 times that amount the minister is suggesting?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The honourable member is correct in that up until the end of 1977 it was 0.75, as he suggested in a statement made on June 1 in the House. The fact is that the capability of Downsview does increase that to the 7.5 per cent. I admitted at the time that I was not sure of the 10 per cent figure and within three or four minutes I did send across to him the figure of 7.5 per cent.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s true.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I said in my statement that the resource recovery plants are not the ideal solution at this point in time. He will well recognize that our plant in Downsview is an experimental one. It does have the capacity, as the statement said, to handle 600 tons of garbage per day on a two-shift basis; and yes, a good deal of it is going to landfill sites on a much compacted basis. If five truckloads come in, it goes out in one.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary, would the minister not accept that, compacted or not compacted, in point of fact waste recovery recycling is virtually minimal at Downsview and that 67,500 out of 69,000 tons has gone, compacted or not, into landfill sites and therefore can hardly be held up as 7.5 per cent? Would he please check with the people in his ministry and make sure they are informing him correctly?

May I just ask in passing as well, does the minister not think that the time has come, instead of just having co-ordinating committees of Halton and Peel and all that, for the province to take responsibility for obtaining those landfill sites that are necessary?

Mr. Hennessy: We’ll let the Leader of the Opposition take care of it.

Hon. Mr. McCague: That was a long statement, and a quick answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: Regarding resource recovery, which we were talking about, could the minister give us the name of the firm in the Peel region which is to be assisted in the development of experimental technology to generate steam and energy for manufacturing purposes from garbage and waste paper, and also the amount of the funding from the ministry and whether there will be any rights to any patents that are developed from this new technology?

Hon. Mr. McCague: What was the latter part of the question, Mr. Speaker -- will there be any patents?

Ms. Bryden: I understood the minister said it would be a new and experimental technology that he was assisting this manufacturing firm in developing. If any patents arise from that will the province of Ontario have any right to a share in the patents or proceeds?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, it’s a co-operative study between Peel region, the government of Ontario and Reed Limited. Our contribution towards the cost is $300,000 and the designs will be ours on completion.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister could tell the House why on earth his ministry has been so limiting itself to the technology studies when we know, for instance, that there are open-grate garbage burners that generate steam and electricity that have been operating successfully for 30 years? What’s the big holdup about this whole business of resource recovery, or energy recovery? The technology has been in Europe, it’s been all over the world; and Ontario is the last place to get it.

Hon. W. Newman: You’re a real expert, aren’t you? We know all about it. You don’t know what you are talking about.

Mr. J. Reed: They’ve been doing it in Europe for years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All of the interjections add nothing at all to the question period.

Mr. Kerrio: Neither do the answers.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I don’t agree with that statement.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could tell us what the province gets for the $300,000 which it is going to pay to the Reed paper company for developing what appears to be, as my colleague from the Liberal Party said, a project that has already been proved in many areas on how to use garbage for steam and energy?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the technology for the reclamation of fibre as a form of energy is not developed. It will be to not only do the design, but it will also be to assess the needs as they affect Peel region.

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, who has sent over a few packages of crude material.

Mr. Nixon: Is that his statement?

Mr. S. Smith: This is apparently the dividend to the people of Ontario for our investment in Syncrude. I might just say parenthetically that since to bring it on stream --

Mr. Roy: Can’t tell which was his statement.

Mr. S. Smith: -- is going to cost $21 a barrel, I wonder how the far-sighted policy of the minister is going to bring this stuff on stream.

Mr. Nixon: He’s got $200 million sunk into this.

Mr. S. Smith: But may I ask the minister --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are disappointed that Syncrude is working, aren’t you?

Mr. Peterson: Not at all.

Mr. S. Smith: It won’t if you freeze the price, you know that; you know that very well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If it is going to be successful the taxpayers will be the beneficiary. You people are all wrong.

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to ask the minister whether Ontario, in view of the surplus that appears to be developing in natural gas as opposed to oil, is now proposing to unhinge or change the level at which the price of natural gas is hinged to the price of oil. Is the government making any proposals, apart from the political statement the minister made today, to separate the price of oil and natural gas and allow natural gas to fall a little closer to a market price in view of the surplus that seems to be developing in Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Davis: World market price.

Mr. Conway: Check with Joe Greene first.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We have on a number of occasions, in as forceful a way as we can, proposed to the federal government and the government of Alberta that the price of natural gas and oil should no longer continue in locked step, to loosen it up, but so far with no success whatsoever -- deaf ears, just stonewalling.

Mr. S. Smith: May I, by way of supplementary --

Mr. Roy: That sounds like the leadership you have been giving.

Mr. S. Smith: I am pleased that such initiatives have been taken, and could I ask by way of supplementary --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Come on, you people were all in favour of the increase at world price two years ago.

Mr. S. Smith: I should allow the Premier the right to interrupt with a few interjections --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just speaking to my friend.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Look at your comments on world prices two years ago May.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s been a long day and there are a lot of pressures on the job.

Mr. Ruston: What is Joe Clark’s position on this, Bill?

Mr. S. Smith: Could the minister table some of Ontario’s interventions in this regard so the Legislature can see them? And will Ontario be intervening before the National Energy Board with regard to oil prices, and also with regard to the application that is expected from the province of Alberta to export so-called surpluses of natural gas to the United States? Will Ontario be taking a strong position against Alberta’s desire to export to the United States?

Will Ontario suggest instead a lower price for natural gas, so that we as a consuming province will be able to benefit from the natural gas that exists in our country rather than have it sent to the United States of America for higher prices by the province of Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We will continue to do everything within our power to protect the consumer of Ontario as well as the well-being of all Canadians; to try to keep the price of natural gases down; and also certainly to prevent any kind of short-term exports, the benefits of which would accrue only to a very small segment of our society. That’s been our stance; that will continue to be our stance.

Mr. Deans: Are you intervening?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: And incidentally, since the Leader of the Opposition skated a little bit on the first question, I would like to skate a little bit in reply. The fact is --

Mr. Roy: You are always skating -- backwards!

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- Syncrude is coming in, and coming in extremely well. The Ontario government’s very small investment is paying off very handsomely so don’t be sceptical about it. We could sell our small share any time. It’s going to be a huge success.

Mr. S. Smith: But at a high price.

Mr. Nixon: They have used heavy water up there.

[2:45]

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary to the minister -- and I hope also he would tell us whether or not he does intend to intervene, but further to that: In view of the minister’s vociferous and rather passionate opposition to the price increase as he articulated it today -- and the minister seems to agree with this party that the present price is adequate to guarantee future supplies -- is he prepared to implement a price freeze on gasoline across Ontario at this time?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We indicated our position on that subject some weeks ago when there was a private member’s bill before this House. We frankly don’t think that kind of an artificial --

Mr. Peterson: You never did it before, did you, Reuben?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- very small price freeze would help the broader problem at all.

Mr. Peterson: If we had an election would you do it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If there was an election would you still be in favour of world price?

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary to the minister: If he is going to keep on whacking us with increases every six months on the price of oil --

Mr. Yakabuski: Trudeau.

Mr. Sargent: -- why doesn’t he pull out the $100 million from Syncrude and get his money back?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This is your leader’s policy.

Mr. Roy: What does Joe Clark say?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, can the minister answer that question?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t hear that question, I’m sorry. There was a little noise back here.

Mr. Speaker: The question was, are you going to take your money out of Syncrude?

Hon. Mr. Davis: A great investment.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We will take that under consideration.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I can say, just to show how wrong members were across the House, we could probably sell that $100 million investment in Syncrude for $140 million or $150 million right now. How’s that for performance?

Mr. Roy: Just a lot of talk. Tell it like it is, Reuben, you are just going to talk a lot.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would care to elaborate on his statement that the government to which he is related is prepared to do everything in its power to protect the consumer in Ontario against unjustified increases. Given he has said he believes the petroleum industry does have sufficient cash flow and profit to meet the 1995 objectives of self-sufficiency; and given that the only thing left to him is to protect the consumer at the consumer level, what is it that he intends to do?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I think we are going to have to continue to negotiate with the federal government.

Some hon. members: And Alberta.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We hope in due course they will begin to see the wisdom of our ways.

Mr. Deans: Negotiate? Negotiate what?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Further, we will have to negotiate with the producing provinces, particularly Alberta --

Mr. Deans: That’s just idle rhetoric.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: There are some leverages available to us on that score, which I frankly wouldn’t want to reveal at this time. I think there are constitutional constraints that have been placed upon us here, but within that we will certainly continue our efforts to protect the consumers of Ontario.

Mr. Deans: What the minister means is there is nothing he can do. He is talking a lot of political bull.

Mr. Breithaupt: Will the Minister of Energy encourage his federal leader to make some statement on this subject so that we will have the benefit of his intervention?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We will certainly --

Mr. S. Smith: Sign a letter.

Mr. M. Davidson: You are not going to get off the hook that easily.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The interjections are completely irrelevant.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We will certainly do our share to talk to our party in Ottawa, but I would hope that members opposite would do more than they have done in the past to talk to theirs --

Mr. S. Smith: Table the results.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- because for a short period at least they will still form the government. They had better convince them they should take some enlightened action.

Mr. Roy: Are you embarrassed by Joe Clark, Bill?

PROVINCIAL FINANCES

Mr. Laughren: I have a question of the Treasurer. I wonder if in the three months and some time that has passed since he introduced his budget, the Treasurer has had an opportunity to review the performance of the economy in relation to the budget he laid before us? Could he say whether, in view of the fact that the economy is not performing along the lines of some of the assumptions in the budget, he intends to lay before this chamber a new set of budgetary policies in September or early October?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have no such present plans.

Mr. Laughren: By way of supplementary: Has the Treasurer taken a look at some of the specific revenue figures and growth projections which have been made?

If so, is he aware, to be specific, that the mining tax revenues which he projected at $33 million are going to be substantially reduced to $19 or $20 million; that corporation taxes will be down over $100 million, probably $150 million; that growth projections by independent forecasting bodies such as the Conference Board in Canada have been reduced since the time he brought down his budget -- and they already were lower than the Treasurer’s; that his deficit is going to be considerably higher than he had predicted; and further, that he is going to have some public borrowing which he indicated he would not have to do when he brought down his budget?

Does he not think it is time that he laid before this chamber in late September or early October a new set of figures so that we know that the economy is being directed on a set of accurate figures?

Mr. Peterson: Will he be here in September?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Will you?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, no. I can only repeat, I see no such reason at this moment. I would take issue with the member. In the next few days we shall receive reports on the first quarter, but the economy generally is performing along the lines forecast in the budget. It is true that the conference board have lowered their forecast somewhat and their forecasts now tally with our forecasts, which is interesting. My own view at the moment is that the economy, other than the serious problems of unemployment and the still continuing problems of inflation, prompted for the most part by food prices --

Mr. S. Smith: Apart from that everything is fine.

Mr. Breithaupt: Other than those two things.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The target, the forecast figures, are pretty well, with some variation, as we had laid out in the budget. But there are two substantial differences. Members are aware that from the time of the budget until the end of the fiscal year there was, as I reported, a further drop off in our revenues, which has somewhat lowered the base on the corporate side, and a small reduction, as I recall at the moment, in the retail sales tax side.

In addition, there were changes, of course, brought about by the decisions with respect to health-care financing; and there is also a large change, of course, brought about by our paralleling the federal move with respect to the retail sales tax to the extent of $143 million which necessitated -- and I announced that night that we would run up the treasury bills for the time being, perhaps not for the whole year --

Mr. Sargent: And the $600,000 you gave Toronto, too.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- but for at least part of the year, to finance that run-down in revenues. But I see no reason at the moment to contemplate a change of policies.

Mr. S. Smith: Change of government would be more like it.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary: I wonder if, when the Treasurer is talking about his projections, he could tell us as well why it was, when he tabled his report on the Ontario Youth Employment Program, he used a different set of projected employment figures for the next 10 years than those laid out by the Ontario Economic Council; where did he obtain those figures and on what basis he arrived at those numbers?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will have to get an answer to that for the member. I am not sure which figures he is using from the economic council, but I would be glad to take a look at them.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member with his second question.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the answer which was tabled yesterday from the ministry in response to a question from my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr.

Wildman) concerning the submissions which his ministry might have made to the federal government concerning the Canada-United States Automotive Trade Pact, and in view of the fact that in that answer which was tabled the ministry indicated there had been no formal proposals by the federal government to this government, and no response made by this government to the incentives proposed by the federal government; and further, that not since 1975, when the sector analysis was done by his ministry on the automotive sector, has there been any studies or any commissions conducted to look into the whole question of the fair share which Ontario should be receiving in the automobile sector?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I heard the statement, which I assume is a fact, but what is the question?

Mr. Laughren: Let me rephrase it. How is it the minister can respond to a question, indicating that absolutely nothing has been done by his ministry to look into the problem of the auto pact, and how does he justify that kind of abysmal inactivity on the part of the officials of his ministry?

Mr. Breaugh: Did the minister get the question this time?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As I recall, the question placed on the order paper was to submit the information we had submitted to the federal government. That was done. That’s what was provided.

As the honourable member has pointed out, that document indicates we had had no response from the federal government. He’s quite correct, as we have indicated, that we have not responded to the incentives program of the federal government because, quite frankly, there hasn’t been one. There has not been an incentive program. The only incentive program we are aware of -- and I think we’re correct -- is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion funding that is available for incentives to companies to locate in Canada. The federal government does not have an incentive program.

Mr. Laughren: In view of the fact that there are problems, as evidenced by the announcement by the federal government of the appointment of the Reisman commission and the announcement by General Motors to delay the decision on the new facility, is the minister really surprised, given the difference of opinion between himself and the Treasurer, that this kind of activity is going on both in the private sector and at the federal level? Further, is he going to make a presentation to the Reisman commission? If so, which position is going to be presented -- his or the Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough)?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t think the member will find any great difference between my position and that of the Treasurer. As far as a submission to the Reisman commission is concerned, we will have to wait and see whether the gentleman wants to hear from us. I understand part of his responsibility is to talk to all the areas involved in the automotive industry, including the industry itself and the provinces with their positions. Obviously, he’ll be discussing the matter with us.

I don’t understand what the honourable member is referring to when he talks about a difference of opinion between the Treasurer and me. I don’t think there is anything of any great consequence.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Laughren: Is the Minister of Industry and Tourism telling us he’s in agreement with the Treasurer that we should be entitled to our fair share without having to buy it and without jumping into bed with Jack Horner and going along with the sellout he’s announced?

Is the minister fully aware of the TEIGA document, which indicated there were 25,000 jobs at stake and further, that there’s as much as $60 billion in investment going to be made in the auto industry between now and 1985? Does he really think Ontario or Canada is going to get its fair share if he and the Treasurer can’t come to a general agreement as to what position should be put to the industry and to the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the honourable member is imagining certain things. The Treasurer and I, along with other of our colleagues, have met with the industry. We have not been presenting opposite views. We think there is more than one way to approach this particular problem.

I certainly wouldn’t be jumping in and out of bed with Jack Horner because I’m not too sure what bed Horner is in most of the time.

Mr. Peterson: That’s it. Get personal.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: You are trying to get Horner.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I will certainly bow to the expertise of the member for Oshawa, who’s more familiar with beds than I am.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is that true?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Concerning the other part of the question, as far as the sellout Mr. Horner has announced, unless the member was referring to the establishment of the recent commission, there haven’t been any real statements made by Mr. Horner.

Mr. Laughren: Only on incentives.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As I understand it, Mr. Horner has not made any announcement on incentives. I’ve had a number of discussions with him.

Mr. Cooke: A million dollars to Ford.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We’ve discussed with his staff about what possible incentives might be involved, but no decision has been made in that area at all. There’s been no announcement by the federal government relating to incentives. The only incentive we have heard of was the possibility of funds being made available to General Motors through the DREE program if they locate a plant in a designated area.

[3:00]

Mr. Breaugh: Montreal.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The other one was the possibility of some funds being made available on an ad hoc basis to Ford Motor Company if a plant were to be located in Ontario. In either one of those particular cases there was no involvement of the province of Ontario. Certainly we would not be involved in an incentive program for a plant going into Quebec.

Mr. Laughren: It’s not a spectator sport.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Secondly, there was no request of the province of Ontario to give funds towards the development of a plant by Ford. If and when such a suggestion is made to us, then a decision can be made.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the minister gets an opportunity to further discuss this matter with the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, would he indicate to him the information that he has been given from the industry and from the unions in terms of the impact that any of these incentives would have on existing plant facilities such as now exist in the Niagara Peninsula?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s a matter we have been discussing with him all along. I think the honourable member is probably well aware, because of his particular interest in the industries in his particular riding, that the incentives being offered would not necessarily involve the creation of new jobs but could very well mean the relocation of existing jobs, and that is a concern of ours.

Secondly, something was suggested previously about a $60 billion investment. I think most members in this Legislature are aware of the fact that the $60 billion investment, or whatever the figure is that they have been throwing around, is not necessarily new plant construction. A very substantial amount of it is to be used on retooling and modernizing existing lines in order to produce the new automobiles required to meet the energy consumption regulations that are being imposed by governments at this time.

Mr. Laughren: It’s still dollars and investment.

LONDON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Premier, in the absence of the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As long as it’s not a legal opinion.

Mr. Peterson: No, no. We don’t even ask him for legal opinions any more, because they’re no good.

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Mr. S. Smith: Or a policy of any kind.

Mr. Peterson: In view of the fact that the capital works budget of the city of London was submitted to the Ontario Municipal Board on January 14 for 11 specific proposals and only two have been approved, and in view of the fact that this is holding up construction and jobs and all sorts of things in London, would the Premier intervene or get involved to make sure that the OMB hurries up on that approval process?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member is asking me whether I or the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) endeavour to expedite some problems emanating from the city of London, I have never been reluctant to try to assist any member of the House in the determination of a constituency problem.

Mr. Nixon: The problem is with the OMB.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly I’ll take this up with the Attorney General.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: This obviously speaks to a much wider problem than just London’s problem. This administrative tardiness is costing London in the order of $2,000 a day. To offer a specific suggestion, would the Premier consider sending some people from the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs -- now that they’ve scrapped every major program in the TEIGA portfolio, they must have a lot of people not doing anything -- would he possibly consider sending them over to assist the OMB in working out these figures, getting back quick approvals and getting construction and jobs going again?

Mr. Nixon: Sounds reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Ruston: Darcy’s withdrawing.

Mr. Conway: He is going to Hazeldean-March for a holiday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You were indeed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to confer with the Attorney General and determine to what extent communities other than London -- I must confess that I know of several communities where their capital budgets have been approved and work is in progress. I will endeavour to find out if there are other communities besides London with this difficulty and so inform the honourable member.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the Premier give us some indication of his priority system in the selection of the two out of the 11 projects? Given his dedication to a policy of local autonomy, could he indicate to us when he provides that answer what kind of priority criteria were used in selecting these two projects out of the 11?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would have thought the honourable member would be somewhat familiar with the activities of the Ontario Municipal Board. I don’t make those determinations of priorities. They are, of course, made by the board. I don’t direct the board in terms of what particular project from the City of London is approved or not approved --

Mr. Nixon: McKeough does, though.

Mr. Kerrio: Darcy does.

Mrs. Campbell: Darcy does.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is what the OMB does and does quite well.

Mr. S. Smith: The Treasurer sends them a letter. Darcy says, “No parks, no -- ”

Mr. Breithaupt: “Dear Mr. Chairman -- ”

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly the Treasurer sets out general areas of concern. There’s no question about that.

Mr. Van Horne: Why don’t you just find out and get us an answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think one of our areas of concern, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, is some development in downtown Hamilton. He is more concerned about Toronto than London; I learned that the other day.

CHILD ABUSE

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services on the report of the Task Force on Child Abuse. The task force says in the opening sentence: “It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the present arrangement of services are not effective in protecting children from child abuse or violent death.”

The minister challenged the truth of that statement in his own statement. I want to ask him whether he does not understand that that inevitable conclusion was based on evidence of the task force’s own research report to the effect that the majority of children’s aid societies in this province have no standards, no guidelines and no procedures for identifying and treating child abuse cases?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the honourable member recalls my comments, I was taking some exception with the generality and the sweeping nature of that opening statement. I do not disagree with the recommendations. In fact, although I have only very recently received a copy of the report myself and we and the committee were in some considerable rush to be able to table it before the House rose for the summer, my concern was that the opening sentence, in a careful reading of the recommendations, is not necessarily borne out or supported by those recommendations.

It does not make any exception for the fact that there are many children in the province of Ontario who have been and probably are being well served by the protection afforded by the children’s aid societies. I just think that statement, as a blanket statement, would have been more accurate had it been qualified to suggest that it was true in some cases, but not as a blanket statement implying, as one might interpret it, that under no circumstances does the system provide protection.

I don’t deny there are cases where there have been failures, but I also think the members opposite and I and everyone else who shares a concern in this area must recognize that although there can be and will be improvements in the system, there can never be a guarantee of a perfect system. Wherever human judgement is involved, even with the most complete and thorough guidelines, there will always be room for some error in human judgement, especially when that judgement relates to the anticipated acts or the

interpretation of acts of other human beings. There is just no way that I know of to provide for a foolproof predictability in human behaviour.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the task force indicts the ministry’s failure to properly supervise the work of children’s aid societies, will the minister agree as a minimal response to implement the first two recommendations and bring forward guidelines and standards of service for children’s aid societies, and present them to the social development committee by the time we begin hearings on the Child Welfare Act in September 1978?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure that is a realistic time frame.

Mr. McClellan: You’ve had since 1974.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will indicate, if the honourable member can control his apoplexy for a moment --

Mr. M. Davidson: It’s sincere concern, not apoplexy.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We share his sincere concern, if that’s the case. I would like the honourable members to bear that in mind.

There have been many policy directives and memoranda go out to children’s aid societies over a lengthy period of time indicating approaches and guidelines, if you wish, in dealing with cases of child protection. One of the things that have come to our attention is that in some instances it is questionable whether these have been circulated or whether in fact they have even been maintained in a file by some of the societies.

At the moment we have a group within the ministry working on a manual, using as a base some of the material that has already been prepared. As I indicated in my statement in the House earlier, we are working on the development of guidelines. I cannot guarantee it at this point, because I think that as a social worker the member would understand that it is not always possible to develop full and complete guidelines within a very limited time frame. We are working on them, and I hope it will not be long before guidelines will be available; at least in the form of a compilation, in the form of a handbook of recommendations that can be referred to by the children’s aid societies.

Mr. McClellan: You are in a fog. You are floating in a fog.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Can the minister explain how it is that between his predecessors and himself there could still be what is referred to on page eight as the ministry being “remiss in setting standards and monitoring their performance,” “the fact that the unevenness of service has persisted and is so pervasive is most disturbing,” and on page 13: “There exists a lack of consistent ministry guidelines for abuse investigation and disposition”?

I realize he has been minister a relatively short time, but how does he account for the fact that with child abuse having been with us for so long there still persists such a situation in Ontario? Have his predecessors not been on the job? Has there been a problem within the organization of the ministry? What has the minister done about it within the ministry? Has there been some upheaval? These are very serious indictments.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member realizes that I view these as very serious matters. I would agree that child abuse has been with us a long time; in fact, probably since the beginning of time or the beginning of man. Perhaps a more relevant time frame is the time at which a growing awareness of the rights of children has come about, and that may have been delayed in our society, or North American society, or western society generally. But the fact of the matter is that since that perception has grown, we in Ontario, as in other jurisdictions, have moved really quite quickly in terms of trying to come to grips with this problem.

In a more specific response to the Leader of the Opposition’s query, I have not yet had a chance, because of the very short period of time I have had the report, to evaluate or to review all of the background material that the task force had at its disposal, but I think part of that very problem may relate to the traditional organization of the children’s aid societies in our province, in that they have been --

Mr. McClellan: No, it has to do with your ministry. You are responsible.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- established traditionally and historically as having a degree of autonomy that perhaps allowed for a limited amount of supervision.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, come on. You can’t use that one.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I have indicated in my statement, I believe now that it is time to review the role and perhaps seek some changes in the role of my ministry vis-à-vis children’s aid societies in this province.

TOURISM

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mrs. Campbell: He is leaving.

Mr. Conway: He is going back to the Premier’s chair, where he was the other night.

Mr. Eakins: Has his ministry conducted any studies geared to reducing the provincial tourism deficit this year, similar to the study in British Columbia, where they have found that if just one resident in 10 who normally travels outside of BC could be convinced to stay at home the provincial deficit could be reduced by 30 per cent? Is the ministry undertaking any studies that would reveal similar findings in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not have such a study.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Since British Columbia and Ontario together make up over half of the national travel deficit and yet BC is ahead of us by one year in attempting to reduce its deficit, has the minister been made aware of some of BC’s more successful efforts, such as the Bonus Blitz in which the provincial government would purchase newspaper space in which members of the private sector in turn would submit discount coupons for their particular operations? If he is aware of these programs, would the minister consider such a measure before the summer season is upon us in Ontario?

[3:15]

Mr. Ruston: Tomorrow is the first day of summer.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We are aware of some of the programs that are being started in the province of British Columbia. They have taken several steps. We have monitored what they have been doing. We have attempted to do some similar things to what they have done, but we have not embarked upon quite as expensive a program as they have.

Mr. Laughren: I don’t think you are doing much over there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We have put a great deal of our money into the advertising budget as opposed to what they are doing in BC.

Mr. Martel: You are not doing much about the auto pact either. What are you doing?

Mr. Conway: They’re sinking without the former minister. Bring back Bennett, buggy and all.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The member for Renfrew North is suffering from terminal dandruff.

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Minister of Energy related to his statement earlier today. I wonder if the minister could tell us, firstly, whether or not in the deliberations within his ministry he has taken into account that there will likely be a loss of approximately 4,300 jobs as a result of the increase that will take place this year in the price of petroleum-based products.

Secondly, has he done a calculation to determine whether or not there is in the inventory 107 days’ supply, as opposed to the 60 days’ supply in the period of grace that is permitted by the federal government? Since $23 million will, therefore, flow to the oil companies as a gift, will he consider extending the freeze period in the province of Ontario for at least the 107 days in order that we not further reduce the capacity of the province of Ontario to maintain its relative economic position both in terms of jobs and in terms of income?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Certainly we will do all we can to extend the freeze period beyond the 60 days that has now been agreed to.

Mr. Martel: Permanently.

Mr. Laughren: Do it.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: On the matter of the percentage of funds from the increase going to the industry itself, if the member opposite would look into that in some more detail he would find that only about half of the increase goes to the industry itself. A very big chunk of it goes to the government of Alberta and a smaller percentage goes to the federal government.

Mr. Conway: Lougheed will balkanize this country yet.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Does the minister believe it is within his competency, his power and his jurisdiction to extend the freeze unilaterally in the province of Ontario to the 107 days in terms of the impact of the increase? If he does believe that, what other course of action can he take in order to protect the consumers of the province of Ontario for the period of time during which there is an inventory sufficient to meet the needs of the Alberta producers?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I frankly don’t think --

Mr. Haggerty: You don’t know.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- that applying a unilateral freeze on price increases here in Ontario --

Mr. Deans: You can’t apply it anywhere else.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- and disregarding the increases that will be taking place outside is a solution at all. That is simply running away from the broader problem.

Ms. Gigantes: That’s what you do all the time.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That is just a Band-Aid approach.

Mr. Deans: What’s your alternative?

Mr. Martel: Nothing.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Sargent: I have a question for the Minister of Energy.

In view of the very serious news story in this morning’s Globe and Mail, headlined “Emergency Coolers for Atomic Units Can’t Do Full Safety Job, Reports Say,” which goes on to say that the Bruce plant is now shut down to 65 per cent power; and in view of our concern that the interorganizational working group for the past nine months did not volunteer to the royal commission on electric power planning the fact that it had discovered serious inadequacies in the emergency system design, I ask the minister if it is his concern that we can guarantee to the people of Ontario that criminal negligence charges will be laid against scientists or those in the nuclear program who withhold information from the public?

Why can’t we have a full disclosure of the whole situation?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I certainly share the concern of the member opposite about the story that appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning. I think that probably every member in the House who read the story is equally concerned.

Ms. Gigantes: We were concerned two weeks ago and we were concerned two years ago.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Even though I have a very high regard for the Globe and Mail, and peddled it as a boy myself, and a regard for the reporter --

Mr. Cunningham: That is the best thing the minister ever peddled.

An hon. member: When the minister was a boy?

Mr. Conway: It must have been the Globe then.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- I would like to say that I do not believe the story that appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning. Until such time as I can get evidence to prove something to the contrary, I will continue to believe what the chairman of the board of Ontario Hydro tells me and what the president of the Atomic Energy Control Board, Dr. Prince, tells me.

Ms. Gigantes: What did Dr. Prince say?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: And this morning, following my reading of that story in the Globe and Mail, I talked to both of those gentlemen. I asked them a very direct question and I wanted a direct answer.

I said, “Are you withholding anything? Is there a concern here? Is there something that I should be concerned about, or the people of Ontario?”

The chairman of the board of Ontario Hydro said, “Categorically, no. There is no room for concern.” The president of the Atomic Energy Control Board said, “Look, if I was concerned about the safety, I would close those plants down or I would de-rate them. There is no reason for concern.” Therefore, until such time as further evidence is available, I’m going on the assumption that, in fact, that story was erroneous in many of its aspects and that the information I got directly from the Atomic Energy Control Board and from Ontario Hydro is the correct information.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary: Due to the fact that there are billions of dollars involved and that the lives of 10 million people in this province are involved --

Hon. B. Stephenson: We have only eight million.

Mr. Sargent: -- eight million people, Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: Not according to our OHIP files; we may have 11 million.

Mr. S. Smith: There are visitors here during the summer, Bette.

Mr. Sargent: -- in view of the fact that the minister makes a very serious charge, and it says here, and I quote: “However, leaked documents indicate official worry about how Parliament and the public might react.”

Mr. MacDonald: You were dismissing them last week, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: The thing is that I would hope that the minister would get a full investigation, get the names of these people and get them on the carpet and find out what the hell’s going on.

Mr. Hennessy: Atta boy, Ed. Go right ahead.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I would like to do precisely what the member opposite wants us to do and that is to find out what is going on; and that is precisely what we’re doing right now. I can simply say in this House at this time that on the basis of the information that I’ve received from the Atomic Energy Control Board and from Ontario Hydro, that that report in the Globe and Mail this morning was largely -- not entirely --

Mr. Deans: Ontario Hydro has not told the truth in 20 years.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- erroneous and misleading and it is unfortunate it was written in the way it was.

Mr. Sargent: The minister had better back that up.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The very fact that the scientists today are not in total agreement with each other about what constitutes adequate criteria for safety is to me a sign of real assurance. If they are all complacent about safety and there was never an argument about it, then I think we should have cause to worry. But, really, it is most unfortunate that that report in the Globe and Mail this morning was written the way it was and I fully expect that after we hear more from Dr. Porter, after we have a statement from the Atomic Energy Control Board, which is forthcoming, that report will be largely disproven.

Ms. Gigantes: After a lot of unfortunate incidents.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary: the member for Carleton East.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister if he is saying, in the light of Dr. Porter’s letter in which he mentioned his concern that information relevant to the vital subject -- and he was speaking of the safety of existing nuclear power plants -- may not have been brought to our commission’s attention by the responsible organizations and the other source -- that this may be true, which is the Globe and Mail story, apparently confirmed by sources in the AECB, that there may, in fact, have been an attempt to “rewrite regulations in such a way that the existence of an escape clause on the safety requirement could be covered up”?

Is the minister satisfied to tell us that if information is being withheld he will sit tight and feel calm and we should all feel calm until the people who withheld the information come forward with the information? It’s illogical and inconsistent, it seems to me.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has quoted from Dr. Porter’s original letter to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. I expect on Thursday of this week the minister, my colleague, will be tabling Dr. Porter’s further letter where he will elaborate on what he meant in the first one. I think when that letter comes, the honourable member will see the subject from a somewhat different point of view.

In the meantime I can only say, as I said earlier here, other statements will be coming out of the Atomic Energy Control Board and from Ontario --

Ms. Gigantes: When?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- probably from Ontario Hydro to my ministry to make it very clear that there is no prevailing danger and as a matter of fact the standards set by Ontario Hydro for their own nuclear reactors were higher than those the Atomic Energy Control Board finally imposed and the level at which they licensed those stations to operate.

Ms. Gigantes: There was a mistake.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: There is at this point nothing -- nothing -- to indicate that there is any danger or that in fact we are compromising on our safety standards; there is nothing to that story whatever.

Ms. Gigantes: They are not rushing forward to confess.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Quit grandstanding until you get the facts.

Mr. J. Reed: I wonder if the minister is saying by his answer that really what is happening here is that the

article represents another point of view regarding the same subject, or is he suggesting that the

article is definitely erroneous? Because of the sensitive nature of this whole nuclear issue and because these stories elicit such a strong response and because they provoke such a deep concern among the people of Ontario -- and rightly so -- would the minister see to it that these articles are answered factually and concretely, so we know that we are dealing with either an erroneous statement or simply a divergence of viewpoint?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: It is our full intent to issue a statement coming from the Atomic Energy Control Board, possibly from our ministry, but a statement which will clarify the issues. There is no doubt that in this particular story there are differences in points of view and nobody argues with that. I think what has been unfortunate in this and earlier stories, but particularly in this one, is an innuendo, a suggestion, that there’s something very clandestine and undercover going on here and that they are fooling around with the safety and the lives of the workers and the people of Ontario. We are determined to get to the bottom of that so people will know just what is what.

An hon. member: And you run them at 100 per cent capacity?

OHC SALARY AWARD

Mr. Bounsall: A question for the Minister of Housing, Mr.

Speaker: In the contract reached between Ontario Housing Corporation and the housing authority employees across Ontario, members of the OHC employees’ union, CUPE Local 761 -- the nine per cent salary increase in the contract received as an arbitration award in December 1977, rolled back by the AIB to six per cent in February 1978 and that decision reinforced upon appeal in April 1978, with that contract signed the day after April 4 -- why has that contract not been implemented and those employees paid, it now being almost two years since most of them have had an increase in salary and they have been working now without a contract for some 17½ months?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Most members of the House will realize that CUPE 167 is in two divisions as far as the Ontario Housing Corporation is concerned. The first division is the employees who are gainfully employed here in the metropolitan area and the rest of the province is under a second contract.

Mr. Bounsall: I said across Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very clearly and very carefully, the contract for one CUPE organization has been agreed to under the arbitration agreements and the points that were made by the arbitrator at the time.

On the second contract that went to arbitration the union did not agree, or could not come to a common understanding with the Ontario Housing Corporation, as to the

interpretation of the order or report by the arbitrator. At this very moment, Mr. Speaker, that particular recommended settlement is back before the arbitrators for clarification.

[3:30]

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: That being the case, would the minister intervene personally, if he hasn’t already, to ensure that the long-delayed contract is implemented without further delay so these workers will not continue to feel frustrated or in any way develop disincentive feelings about working at their maximum capability?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I trust the union and the Ontario Housing Corporation will present their cases before the arbitrator. As minister, I do not intend to interfere with the regular procedure of negotiating a contract.

Mr. Deans: It is taking a long time.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s your union fellows. Don’t blame me. Sure, they drag their feet all the time.

SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET

Mr. Conway: My question is to the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. It deals with the Treasurer’s supplementary budget of April 25, in which the Treasurer indicated very specifically that as part of his permanent reductions in expenditures to refinance the OHIP increase, one item involving a cut would be the Ministry of Northern Affairs’ regional priorities program in the extent of $9 million.

I would like the Treasurer to indicate why it was that in mid-May the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), who I believe did not at the time provide a full explanation of the situation which indicated that the intention of the supplementary budget was largely altered and that, in fact, the $9 million was not taken, as he indicated, from the regional priorities program in its entirety, although several millions were taken from other parts -- why was that supplementary budget paper of April 25 altered? That is my first question.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that we could probably find several other changes --

Mr. Peterson: It’s not very easy running backwards, is it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and I think some changes, perhaps, are still being finalized. Ministries obviously had the option of going over the list. The dollar amounts didn’t change; they looked at where best they could take the money from.

Mr. Conway: Well, supplementary to that, surely the Treasurer would appreciate that if the estimates process is going to mean anything -- and I am sure there are many on that side of the House who would expect it not to mean very much in terms of financial accountability -- it is surely the responsibility of the government, to the best of its ability, to indicate where those changes are going to be made and why. I would ask the Treasurer to indicate to this House, in the light of what he has just said, how much of that supplementary budget is in fact negotiable.

How many of the other seven items are not going to be as they were presented to us on that occasion? Because surely if the Minister of Northern Affairs --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Conway: -- is free to change as he has, then others can be expected to do likewise.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am sure the Minister of Northern Affairs would be delighted to answer the question during the course of his estimates.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, if I may, arising out of this situation in regard to the estimates.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Ashe: The member is.

Mr. Conway: I rise, Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. Surely it affects the privileges of all members of the House when we are presented on April 25 with a supplementary budget paper which we are now led to believe is not going to be proceeded with quite the way suggested at the time. I think the privileges of all members of the House are greatly affected by this haphazard, cavalier dismissal this afternoon by the Treasurer of his supplementary budget paper. I would invite the Treasurer --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh Sean, you’re being silly.

Mr. Conway: I do not think --

Hon. Mr. Davis: His point is silly.

Mr. Conway: -- I do not think that it is a silly matter, though the Premier may not agree with me.

Surely the privileges of all members of this House are directly affected when we are led to believe, as we were on April 25, that there was a supplementary budget which was going to make cuts in seven specific areas, and in fact we have evidence that we continue to vote moneys in ways that are not squared with that supplementary budget. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the fact that the budget presented by the Treasurer at that time is not being proceeded with --

Mr. S. Smith: It was a political document.

Mr. Conway: -- quite in the way we were led to believe. I would certainly invite the Treasurer to take the opportunity of one of the remaining days in the session to indicate what other changes are going to be made and why.

Mr. Roy: We are being misled around here.

Mr. S. Smith: It was a political document,

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am sure that at the conclusion of that statement, which I don’t have in front of me -- I think I brought it with me for some little time. Obviously, nearly two months later we are now getting the first question, which says something about the interest of the Liberal Party in these matters.

Hon. Mr. Davis: A slow day, a slow day.

Mr. Roy: You should talk.

Mr. S. Smith: Specific, and it turns out to be phoney.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would simply say that I am sure at the end of that statement I indicated that I would be able to give more precise details as to where the reductions totally had been achieved and would do so, in any case, not later than the first quarterly finances, which I would expect we would be putting in the mail some time in July.

I am quite sure the ministers, as their estimates come up, can give up-to-date figures as to not only what changes might be made on April 25, but perhaps also other changes which might occur during the course of the year, either by way of underspending or overspending, handled by the possibility of supplementary estimates or, if the amount is small enough, by Management Board order.

Finally, addressing the point of privilege raised by the member for Renfrew North, I would just say that in my view it is not a point of privilege and what he needs is a good summer holiday.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Maybe a day camp.

Mr. Roy: The Treasurer is the one who needs a holiday more than anyone else.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to that point of privilege, if I might. In regard to the point of privilege raised by the member for Renfrew North, two things occur. First of all, the questions were asked of the Minister of Northern Affairs as to how the budget cuts were going to affect his budget. He was not able to tell us during his estimates what programs were going to be cut down or by how much.

I would agree with my friend from Renfrew North that we have been presented with a document by the Treasurer outlining the requirements of the province of Ontario, and at the whim of the various ministers these can be changed, and the document that we and the public at large are supposed to follow is nothing but a falsification of the actual requirements of the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, get off it!

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: There is no falsification, and that should be withdrawn.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That was raised with the Minister of Northern Affairs --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member stands there trying to defend his inadequacy in the estimates --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the member for Rainy River to withdraw any intimation that there was a falsification of anything.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hennessy: It is about time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Certainly the Treasurer and the Minister of Northern Affairs did not mean to mislead the House; it is simply incompetence.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s your incompetence that you don’t know how to ask questions.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I could clarify the point, Mr. Speaker. I regret the memory of the member for Rainy River is that short. This particular point was discussed in detail during the course of the examination of my ministry’s estimates when we talked about the $9-million cut.

Mr. Nixon: You didn’t have any answers then either.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I pointed out to the honourable member that $5 million was coming out of the community priority budget, $3 million out of the regional priority budget and $1 million out of the capital construction program for highways in northern Ontario. He knows that. It’s on the record for him to look at.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s not the point.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is on the record and if he checks the record he will find it is correct.

Mr. Speaker: I have come to the conclusion there is no prima facie case for a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Patrick, you must have been away that day.

Mr. Conway: Darcy will float out to the tune of the Hazeldean March.

REPORTS

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Van Horne, on behalf of Mr. Gaunt from the standing social development committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr18,

An Act to revise the Hamilton Civic Hospitals Act, 1961-62.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr29,

An Act to revive Poly Aire International Limited.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a letter today that I have received from Dr. Arthur Porter, chairman of the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning.

Dr. Porter’s letter provides information on matters that ware raised in his letter to me of June 9 last that related to the safety of nuclear power stations and to the viability of the Canadian nuclear industry which were subsequently raised in the House last week and again today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF HAZELDEAN-MARCH ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 131,

An Act to establish the City of Hazeldean-March.

Motion agreed to.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Peterson moved first reading of Bill 132,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Peterson: The purpose of the bill is to require a medical practitioner and a health facility to inform every patient of the cost of the medical services incurred by the patient and paid by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

It seems to me if we are going to provide some kind of “visible link” between the high cost of services and consumption on a patient basis, the first step we have to undertake is to inform the patient of the cost of the services consumed. That is the intention of this bill. I hope it receives a quick passage.

COUNTY OF LENNOX AND ADDINGTON ACT

Mr. Hennessy, on behalf of Mr. J. A. Taylor, moved first reading of Bill Pr27,

An Act respecting the County of Lennox and Addington.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Samis moved first reading of Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1977.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Samis: The purpose of this bill is to establish limits on the amount of contributions that can be made to the election campaign of municipal candidates. The bill requires that all contributions to a municipal candidate must be made by individual persons only. All contributions of $100 or greater are to be recorded and subsequently reported. The contributor is limited to a maximum contribution of $1,100 in an election year and $550 in any year that is not an election year.

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTERS REPEAL ACT

Mr. Walker moved first reading of Bill 134,

An Act to repeal the Income Tax Discounters Act, 1977.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Walker: The bill repeals the Income Tax Discounters Act, 1977 because the act is no longer necessary by reason of paramount legislation brought in and introduced and passed by the Parliament of Canada.

[3:45]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table the answers to questions 37, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 97 standing on the notice paper and call the 11th order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DISCRIMINATORY BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Davis moved second reading of Bill 112,

An Act to prohibit Discrimination in Business Relationships.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few brief observations to make. Actually, the intent of the bill, which was modified somewhat from the previous bill that was introduced, was stated upon its introduction.

We were not able to really use any existing legislation in other jurisdictions as the guideline for the bill that is before us, in that we were not able to go the route of economics or trade and commerce which would have been the appropriate approach, we believe, and properly done by the government of this country.

Of necessity and bearing in mind the extent of the constitutional limitations imposed upon us, we have established in this bill the principle of anti-discrimination. I think it’s fair to state there are very few similar pieces of legislation, and we are particularly interested in the principle that this bill establishes.

I have received communication from one of the members opposite. I expect perhaps two or three others may, as they study this bill carefully, express certain concerns; although I sense in the letter from the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) his support of the bill in principle, but outlining two or three areas of a technical and legal nature that he would like to raise --

Mr. Samis: Pretty fundamental.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- during the course of the discussion of the bill. I would make it quite clear to the members opposite that I have no objection, and the government has no objection, to consideration of some of the issues raised by the member for Riverdale. It is difficult in drafting legislation of this kind to anticipate the examples that could be developed, and that may be when this bill gets before committee.

My concern is that the principle of the bill remains intact. Certainly as far as I’m personally concerned, we would welcome either from members opposite or those who might appear before the committee any suggestions as to its improvement, or ways and means to see that in the pursuit of this principle and objective we are not contravening the rights of individuals within this province as well.

It is perhaps at first glance not that complicated a bill, but having lived with it now for several months I suggest to the members opposite that there are some implications here that I would hope all members are aware of and that we have an opportunity to discuss when this bill goes before committee. The principle is very simple. It is an expression, hopefully by this Legislature and by all members, of our opposition to a policy or policies created other than in our own country which has an impact of a discriminatory nature on citizens of this province.

This is the intent and principle of this bill.

If some of the members opposite prior to, I would hope carrying of second reading in the next short period of time, have any basic concerns to which they wish me to reply, I’d be delighted to try but I would think that really detailed discussion would be much better served in the committee. I’m sure there will be ample opportunity for discussion there of some of the questions raised, particularly by the member for Riverdale who has communicated them to me.

Mr. Conway: Daniel Moynihan and Scoop Jackson would be so happy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member not going to vote for it?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, the matter of this boycott situation first arose in January, 1977 upon the return of the Premier from a visit to Israel.

The headlines in the Toronto Star of January 22 were: “Firms That Boycott Israel To Lose Ontario Contracts.” The body of the comment made there is as follows: “Ontario will refuse to give government business to companies which comply with the Arab boycott against Israel, Premier William Davis said yesterday.” The Premier went on to be quoted as follows: “It is my intention to take certain steps to lessen the effect of the boycott in so far as firms over which Ontario has jurisdiction are concerned.” That, sir, was on January 22, almost exactly 17 months ago.

The next matter that came before the House in a formal way was the bill introduced during the spring session of 1971. This was Bill 39, introduced by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), since which he has joined the ministry. The bill was introduced on April 19, almost exactly 14 months ago. In that bill, the honourable member set out his particular concerns and attempted, through the means of the private members’ system, to bring this matter before the House in a form not dissimilar from what we have with us today.

However, two weeks later, a provincial election was called. I recall it had something to do with rent review, that stays in my mind.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s my recollection.

Mr. Roy: That was the excuse.

Mr. Breithaupt: In the event, of course, the election campaign saw several comments made during its time. One of which I have record, is a comment made by the Premier during an interview on Radio Noon with respect to the bill which had been introduced by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. The premier mentioned at that time that this bill was the only representation of any action by anyone in the province and he said, quite properly, that it should be a matter of national concern. My leader was particularly involved in this matter on two occasions during that election campaign; the first in a private way, one might say.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is he speaking on it today?

Mr. Breithaupt: I expect so. The first, in a private concern, was made by addressing a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada; a letter dated May 31.

Mr. Roy: What is the Premier trying to suggest?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He said it was phoney.

Mr. Roy: He comes in here and speaks up.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is meeting with the press right now.

Mr. Roy: Don’t be so phoney.

Mr. Breithaupt: My leader at this time commented as follows to the Prime Minister:

“Dear Mr. Prime Minister: In the interest of the civil liberties of all Canadians I am appealing to you for federal government legislation to discourage compliance with the Arab boycott. Experience in our country, the United States and elsewhere has proven that unless the federal government provides to all of its citizens a strong, governmentally- supported base from which to resist application of the boycott, such resistance will never be fully successful.

“The guidelines set up on January 21, 1977, are insufficient. Evidence has been presented by the Commission on Economic Coercion and Discrimination that the business community in Canada has complied with the boycott. This has occurred because the guidelines substantially narrowed the grounds upon which your own policy statement of October 21, 1976, could be applied. The guidelines have failed to combat Canadian corporate compliance with boycott provisions of both a restrictive trade and discriminatory nature.

“The United States experience with compulsory reporting of requests for compliance with the boycott resulted in almost 170,000 requests within the first year, October 1, 1975, to October 1, 1976. This was in connection with over 97,000 transactions involving $7.7 billion. Compliance with the requests was cited in over 90 per cent of the cases reported. This information indicates the very serious extent to which the boycott intrudes upon the normal functioning of the American economy.

“The Export Administration Act of 1965 expired on October 1, 1976. This act enunciated the principled opposition of the United States government to restrictive trade practices and boycotts furnished or imposed by foreign countries against other countries friendly to the United States. However, a reporting mechanism and other prohibitions against boycott compliance were maintained in anticipation of a new bill. I understand that anti-boycott legislation is now before the House of Representatives and the Senate and is expected to be signed imminently by President Carter.

“I have been informed by the trade commissioner in Damascus that he no longer requires a negative certificate of origin in all cases because the United States usually refused to meet this requirement in the past. Due to the tough stand that the United States government has taken, the impact of the boycott has been reduced and business in the United States has not suffered.

“I urge you, therefore, to enact legislation for Canada incorporating the following proposals: That the government prohibit itself and its agencies from assisting or supporting the boycott; that the government prohibit Canadian firms from complying with any foreign-imposed boycott directly against a country which is friendly to Canada; that the government prohibit Canadian firms from answering or complying with discriminatory boycott requests regarding the religious or ethnic character of their personnel; that the government prohibit Canadian banks from processing letters of credit containing boycott clauses; that Canadian firms be required to report receipt of boycott requests within 30 days, including an indication of the disposition of each request; and that the government require public disclosure of information concerning boycott activities in Canada.

“The boycott has a discriminatory impact upon Canadian citizens. By creating an invidious distinction between Canadians of different religious origins, it undermines the quality of Canadian citizenship and divides Canadians from other Canadians. It requires Canada to violate its own principle of nondiscrimination in international trade. It demands that Canada forgo its policy of balance and objectivity in foreign disputes and puts our resources at the disposal of one of the belligerents to the conflict.

“Compliance with the boycott constitutes taking a stand against Israel, which is in opposition to our stated foreign policy in the Middle East. Non-compliance is a refusal to take sides. The issue is not whether Canada is pro Israel or pro Arab, but is simply one of basic fairness. This is a time for strong nationhood for Canada. The boycott is a threat to our country’s sovereignty. I urge you to immediately enact definitive legislation to ensure that the political, economic and moral character of our society is not in danger.”

That letter was sent to the Prime Minister of Canada by my leader on May 31. It outlined the position which this party has taken throughout the involvement in this particular situation. The opportunity came forward several days later, on June 3, to re-emphasize our position in a speech which my leader made in north Toronto to a B’nai B’rith meeting.

I would quote just briefly from the comments, which were reinforced publicly at that time. “Specifically, I want to appeal today, in the interests of the civil liberties of all Canadians, for federal government legislation to discourage compliance with the Arab boycott, and to pledge that the Ontario government under my leadership would do everything within its power to encourage resistance of the boycott. Experience in our country, the United States and elsewhere has proven that unless the government provides to all of its citizens a strong, governmentally-supported base from which to resist application of the boycott, such resistance will be never fully successful.

“The guidelines set up by the federal government on January 21, 1977 are insufficient. Evidence has been presented by the Commission on Economic Coercion and Discrimination that the business community in Canada has complied with the boycott. The guidelines have failed to combat Canadian corporate compliance with boycott provisions of both a restrictive trade and discriminatory nature.”

Further, my leader said: “The boycott has a discriminatory impact upon Canadian citizens. By creating an invidious distinction between Canadians of different religious origins, it undermines the quality of Canadian citizenship and divides Canadians. It requires Canada to violate its own principle of non-discrimination in international trade. It demands that Canada forgo its policy of balance and objectivity in foreign disputes and puts our resources at the disposal of one of the belligerents to the conflict.”

Those were two involvements which the leader of this party took during the time of the last general election campaign. Professor Irwin Cotler of Montreal served as chairman of the Commission on Economic Coercion and Discrimination. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of that commission have been publicized. We, as Liberal members of this Legislature, associate ourselves with them.

[4:00]

The legislation that should be enacted by the federal government had really to be meaningful in order that it might be effective. It should not, for example, simply be a restatement of the federal guidelines, since those guidelines are deficient. They substantially narrowed the grounds upon which the October 21 policy statement could be applied. They certainly stated that federal government support and facilities would be denied to companies after boycott clauses had been signed; thus government support would be provided up until the actual time when the contracts were signed.

Promotional services, market information and all facilities would continue, under the federal government’s terms, to be made available for any transaction so long as the boycott clauses, known to be required, were not yet signed.

I believe that the absence of a serious reporting mechanism has been a significant undermining of the federal government’s position. The application of the federal government’s policy is limited and narrow. It will do nothing to compile general information on the boycott situation in Canada, or to substantially combat Canadian corporate compliance with boycott provision of both a restrictive trade and a discriminatory nature.

Professor Cotler concluded his report of the commission with the following remarks: “The issue at this point goes beyond the question of the protection of Canadian sovereignty, the affirmation of free trade and the protection of the civil liberties of our citizens, though this alone would be enough. The issue, in effect, goes beyond the question of the boycott. What is at stake now is the credibility of our commitments and the integrity of our policies. At some point we must say the sovereignty of this country is not for sale. In defining our policy on the Arab boycott, we are really making a statement of ourselves as a people.”

Mr. Nixon: That answer was a year ago?

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, almost exactly a year ago as we go through the chronology of this matter.

Mr. Conway: The fullness of time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Finally, on December 16, Bill 129 was introduced. A government bill, at last, was on the order paper, almost a year after that excursion to Israel. It was at the very end of the session, where of course unfortunately it could not be dealt with further in a prompt fashion.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We still had hopes that the member’s friends might do something.

Mr. Breithaupt: But Bill 129 was placed on the order paper of the House almost exactly six months ago. There was a general feeling that this was a good bill. Certain sections were worded in a way that might have shown some hasty draftsmanship, but the only fears the Jewish community had within Ontario particularly appeared to be that there might be a strong lobby by businesses which feared a loss of trade from the legislation, and that that would either delay the reintroduction of the bill or cause it to be substantially altered when the matter came before the House again.

Mr. Philip: They wouldn’t dare.

Mr. Breithaupt: It should be noted, I would suggest, that the business community, in its response, was aware of the fact that during the time period, according to the findings of that Commission of Economic Coercion and Discrimination, there had been no substantial loss of trade as a result of resistance to the boycott, especially within the United States.

Basically, Bill 129, as it was brought before us six months ago, designated certain business practices as discriminatory and prohibited such practices. It also, of course, provided designated information about other persons, as well as negative certificates of origin, which were both prohibited at the same time.

As I have said, there was a feeling half a year ago that that bill as introduced was the prospect of good legislation. Now we have Bill 112, introduced to this House on June 8, 1978, almost exactly a year since the previous election and almost exactly 17 months since the Premier returned from Israel. It was known at that time that this session of the House would end just two weeks later, indeed a couple of days from now.

So here we are, in the last few days of this portion of the session before the expected adjournment on Friday of this week, considering the principle of this legislation.

In this overall situation, the federal government has clearly been inadequate in giving the necessary leadership in this matter. We therefore seem forced to follow the approach taken within the United States. After some 10 or more state legislators had introduced bills which were passed by their assemblies on their own, the federal government finally got its act together. We know that in Canada the only effective resolution of this matter will be with the commitment of Parliament to act. The American experience shows that a strong approach, a national approach, is the best policy and that it alone can work.

Yesterday, in the Toronto Star, there appeared an

article by Mr. Ron Atkey which I would commend to all members of the House.

Mr. Conway: A fine fellow.

Mr. Breithaupt: I’ll quote only a brief portion:

“ ... the principal fact that can no longer be disguised is that many Canadian firms, particularly large ones, are simply ignoring the policy. The reason for this is that the policy, without legislation, lacks teeth. The only sanction for non-compliance is the possibility of withdrawal of Canadian government services and financial assistance in performing a contract in the boycotting countries. Large Canadian or multinational firms don’t usually require governmental assistance, so are free to comply with any boycott demands no matter how much they may discriminate against Canadians on the basis of racial or religious criteria.”

Mr. Conway: Did you hear that, Sidney?

Mr. Breithaupt: In supporting this bill in principle, we do so recognizing that there are certain problems of drafting which will have to be considered in committee.

It is the intent of the legislation to avoid having foreign powers impose their views on our business organizations. However, we do have situations where our residents in Ontario may wish to gather together and encourage other residents not to buy certain products. It may be because the products may not have union labels, or they may have come from some nation whose internal social policies are abhorrent to the protesters.

If this legislation is to apply to these cases, then this may go beyond the resolution of the problem as suggested and perceived by the government and, indeed, I think, by the majority of the members of the House.

The Premier, in his introductory comments, mentioned a letter received from the honourable member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who had shared the correspondence with certain other members of the House. The member is not here but may be attending on the debate, and I dare say he will be able to place on record the comments in his letter, which set out quite explicitly those examples which I have briefly cited for the benefit of all the members of the House. I hope he will have the opportunity of placing the contents of this letter on the record of the House.

I would not presume to do so, but if he is not able to speak perhaps one of his colleagues would be prepared to have that information provided to the House.

When this bill was introduced by the Premier on June 8, he mentioned in his statement certain comments which may also cause us concern as we deal with the bill at the committee stage. The comments dealt particularly with some legitimate concerns of the business community that would have to be addressed as the bill was drawn and developed, in order to achieve the attitude that we would wish to have.

As the Premier stated in his comments two weeks ago, the bill was tabled prior to the end of this session, and I quote: “ ... so as to give members of the business world and others who might be interested ample time to put forward constructive suggestions.”

Indeed, we support the principle of this bill. As I have mentioned, the approach of the federal government has been most inadequate on this subject. A strong provincial decision may encourage an effective national approach. The committee hearings which will eventually deal with the particulars of this bill will, no doubt, bring forward other concerns in addition to the ones I’ve mentioned, raised by the member for Riverdale, and the comments by the Premier with respect to legitimate business concerns.

I commend the legislation, in principle, to the members of the House, and I can assure the members it will be supported on this side.

Mr. Lawlor: My colleague the member for Riverdale has done yeoman service in connection with this particular bill in terms not of its central principle but with respect to certain ramifications or side effects that flow from it, which I am sure weren’t in the minds of the government when it was drafted and which require rectification. He cannot be here today and he asked me to say on his behalf that he desires -- and I suppose we all desire in this kind of measure -- a certain transcende