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

April 26, 1977

30th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L022 - Tue 26 Apr 1977 / Mar 26 avr 1977

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MANPOWER CONTROL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

POINTS OF ORDER

ORAL QUESTIONS

MERCURY POLLUTION

REED PAPER

RESTITUTION BY COURTS

INSULIN PRICES

AID TO THE THIRD WORLD

RESTITUTION BY COURTS

FIRE PREVENTION

WOMEN IN LABOUR FORCE

WINTARIO FUNDS

DOWNSVIEW AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES

RACISM IN SCHOOLS

NORTHSTAR YACHTS LIMITED

INCO EMISSIONS

AGGREGATE RESOURCES

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

ATIKOKAN HYDRO PLANT

HOUSING PROGRAMME

SERVICES TO THE HANDICAPPED

BENEFITS RATES

YORK REGIONAL COUNCIL

VOLUNTARY FIRE DEPARTMENTS

SALES TAX ON INSULATION MATERIALS

HYDRO BLACKOUTS

CANADIAN HISTORY

POINT OF ORDER

PETITIONS

POINTS OF ORDER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BOROUGH OF SCARBOROUGH ACT

BOROUGH OF NORTH YORK ACT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

CASGRAIN TOWNSHIP LANDS ACT

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

POINT OF ORDER

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MANPOWER CONTROL

Hon. Mr. Auld: In the budget address last week, the Treasurer announced that I would make a statement outlining the government’s new manpower policy. Today, Mr. Speaker, I have tabled a paper on manpower control in Ontario. The paper describes the new manpower control policy and outlines the ways that it can contribute to significant improvement in human resource management and manpower control in the civil service.

This paper also sets out details of the present manpower control system and outlines its method of operation during the period of expenditure constraint, commencing with the 1975 budget.

It also covers the opportunities for improvements to the present system, keeping in mind the requirements of ministries, Management Board and the Legislature.

Then, the new manpower control policy is described. The policy consists of three elements -- annual salary and wage dollar control, classified staffing control, and staffing information system. The paper explains each of these elements and describes how they contribute to the requirements of the Legislature, Management Board and the ministries.

The implementation of the new manpower control system will be gradual and will take place on a ministry-by-ministry basis throughout the 1977-78 fiscal year.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Later today, Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing an amendment to The Environmental Assessment Act which permits a broad inquiry into various developments in northern Ontario, including the Reed proposal for the harvesting and use of timber resources. The amendment will allow the government to appoint Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt to conduct an inquiry into major developments north or generally north of the 50th parallel north latitude. By the broad definition of the environment in the Act, the amendment will authorize the inquiry to consider both the natural and human environments including the cultural, social and economic aspects of a proposed development.

As soon as this amendment is passed by the Legislature, a recommendation for an order in council will be presented to the Ontario cabinet appointing Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt to conduct the inquiry.

Mr. Lewis: When will we have it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Under the terms of the order in council, Mr. Justice Hartt will have the discretion to decide which major enterprises located north of the 50th parallel will be inquired into; the government will also have the discretion to refer to Mr. Justice Hartt developments located in the north that it feels should be considered. The order in council will refer the Reed proposal to the inquiry.

The terms of the amendment and of the order in council are acceptable to Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt and the representatives of the native people concerned.

We are looking for a number of positive benefits from this inquiry: a broader range of information on the full environmental implications of the Reed Limited proposal to guide the Environmental Assessment Board and the government in their future considerations of this project; an extensive public forum in which many of the issues in this and other proposed developments can be identified and to some extent resolved; the recommendation of new approaches to planning and assessing resource-based development in the sensitive environment of northern Ontario.

I also expect some indication of the extent to which The Environmental Assessment Act should be applied to various types of development in the north.

This new approach to evaluating northern development is a much broader application of the principles of environmental assessment. We are depending on the Hartt inquiry to break new trails and guide us further towards a better future for northern Ontario.

The conduct of the inquiry is in Mr. Justice Hartt’s hands. He is authorized to call and examine witnesses, produce and review any relevant documents and conduct any meeting or public hearings required in any location he chooses for the inquiry. In public reports he will provide me with information and advice on the issues referred to him. His reports will, I am sure, provide valuable information and guidance to the government and the Environmental Assessment Board in his subsequent hearings and decisions on any proposals studied in the inquiry.

Mr. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order?

POINTS OF ORDER

Mr. Reid: Actually, I have three, Mr. Speaker. I’ll begin with the one relative to the statement just made. Does the minister have any relevant documents to table with the Legislature in regard to his statement today as to the terms of reference? Will they be part of the amendment or is the minister going to table those as the new rules of the Legislature require?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am introducing a bill, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member realizes; it’s not just a statement. The compendium will be attached to the bill, and it was my intent to table the terms of reference before second reading.

Mr. Reid: A further point of order, Mr. Speaker: On the introduction of the bill setting up the Ministry of Northern Affairs, there was no relevant material tabled at that time --

Mr. Lewis: But there isn’t any.

Mr. MacDonald: Table the minister.

Mr. Reid: -- I presume it’s because there is none and that there wasn’t really any background studies except the horizontal rise of the former Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier). I wonder if there is any material to be tabled.

Mr. Lewis: It is a job security programme. You get activated, don’t you, Leo?

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a point of order. If there was material to be presented, it must have been presented. If there was no material, then it is impossible to present nothing.

Mr. Reid: There is no material; that was my point. I just wanted to know.

Mr. Lewis: A job-creation programme for one minister.

Mr. Reid: I have a further point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A further point?

Mr. Reid: I have in my hand a report sent out by a member of the Legislature, an NDP member, under the guise of being a constituency report, which contains three questions that are of an extreme political nature. One of them I can’t fathom any intelligent person replying to in the affirmative: “Would you like to learn more about the Ontario New Democratic Party?” I think everybody knows too much, or enough, about them already. But I want to bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is a crass political document and that public funds are being used to proselytize a particular party and ideology. I would hope that you would look into it. I’ll send it to you.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member does not have a point of order, but I’ll check into it and, if so, I’ll take the necessary action.

Mr. Reid: A point of privilege then, if you like.

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be nothing out of order here as far as the operation of the House is concerned. However, we will study the document and report if necessary.

Mr. Nixon: It’s just a waste of public funds -- misappropriation.

An hon. member: Whose report is it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: No, it’s over with.

Mr. Lewis: -- in my riding report --

Mr. Nixon: He said there wasn’t a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: -- I invited people to say if they’d like to help the Conservative and Liberal Parties and got seven responses out of 700 replies.

Mr. Reid: It is still public funds.

Mr. Lewis: But in a good cause, you will admit.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is uncertain.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MERCURY POLLUTION

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it’s not possible for me to indicate anything today. I wasn’t aware that the chiefs were meeting this morning, but I had heard that this possibility might exist. It’s a matter that is presently being discussed by cabinet. As soon as I have some information to share with the House and the public I shall do so, but I haven’t anything that I can usefully say to the House today.

Mr. Lewis: If I may ask the Premier, by way of a supplementary, since this matter has been under discussion now for a couple of years and has passed back and forth, federally and provincially, for several months while the native peoples have waited for a reply, and since the government commissioned a study through the former Minister of Health (Mr. F. S.

Miller) to send a study team on mercury poisoning to Iraq and Japan, and since that study paper said about mercury-contaminated fish and its effect on human health, in recommendation No. 2: “It is recognized that the most effective method of achieving recommendation 1” -- that is, not to use fish for human or animal food -- “is to close the waterway to all forms of fishing. In particular, this would protect the fishing guides who are the population most at risk,” why is there the endless resistance to the arguments when his government has itself documented the position in June of 1976?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think it’s a question of endless resistance to some of the arguments. I think it’s a case of the government endeavouring to come up with a workable solution that is in the interests of the native people themselves. I’m aware of this report and other discussions. As I said to the hon. member, it is a matter that is presently before cabinet and when we have some further information to share, either I shall, or the minister will, be prepared to do so.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask which minister would report on this matter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Probably the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: Can the Premier indicate whether the problem is an agreement between the province and the federal government as to the closing down, and exactly who has the authority to close the river? Is it the federal government, the provincial government or both of them in combination?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m going by memory. I think, legally or technically, it is the federal government which must effect the closing. I think I’m right in that.

Mr. Foulds: I have a supplementary: Can the Premier share with us at this time what he and his cabinet would consider the factors that need to be taken into account in their “workable solution”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I endeavour to share as much as I can with the members opposite, but I have to say to the hon. member on this occasion that I really can’t prejudge for him some of the matters that will be discussed and I really just can’t help him with that particular question.

Mr. Lewis: One quick, last supplementary: Could I ask the Premier, in case he hasn’t seen it -- and it’s possible he hasn’t, because it’s very recent -- to take a look at the Study on the Detection of the Effects of Methyl Mercury on Man, done by Clarkson, Marsh and Myers of the Environmental Health Sciences Centre at the University of Rochester and supplemented by Dr.

Prichard at the University of Toronto, with several scientists in Iraq, who point out that present clinical methods for detection of mercury effects are minimal, and end up by saying: “In short, were we to rely on current clinical methods, a major outbreak of poisoning could occur without any prior warning”? Since it is, in a sense, new scientific evidence of the dilemma up there, could it be considered among the cabinet documents?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure that some members of cabinet would be quite prepared to familiarize themselves with that particular information. I can’t say that all of us in cabinet will become completely knowledgeable with respect to it, but certainly we would be quite prepared to have the group assess that particular document.

REED PAPER

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of the Environment, referring to his statement. If Justice Patrick Hartt in his inquiry were to find, over the course of the next two years and prior to the actual environmental studies material relating to Reed being available, that there were various small developments -- economic and social -- of benefit to that part of the north, independent of any particular project, would the minister be prepared to accept that as a basis on which to proceed -- providing jobs and all the other things this Legislature wants -- without waiting for a final document four or five years down the road?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: That is a different tune, isn’t it?

Mr. Reid: That is what you call a flip-flop.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the hon. minister is to answer.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It may be assuming that The Environmental Assessment Act --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- now applies to the private sector.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. minister is trying to answer the question here.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is a weak reed to lean upon.

Mr. Lewis: You have moved full circle on this one.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition -- order, please.

An hon. member: Ask the Premier to stop --

Mr. Roy: Show your independence.

Mr. Bullbrook: Send them both out

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister will continue.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: In the event -- and I would expect that this would be so -- that The Environmental Assessment Act itself applies to the private sector, that Act and the provisions of that Act would still apply to any project that may be developed in the north or any part of the province. But, certainly, if the Hartt inquiry indicated that the type of project to which the Leader of the Opposition refers was appropriate in the north, I would expect that it would have a great deal of effect on the Ministry of the Environment and the minister himself, as far as approvals were concerned.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary: We can proceed where it is appropriate to proceed, without waiting five years down the road on the one particular project which triggered all this?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, indeed.

Mr. Reid: Well, you have got it both ways now.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: If the terms of the order in council, as the minister says on page two of his statement, are acceptable to Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt, presumably they have been drawn up and are in printed form. Could the minister make those terms available at the present time to the Legislature, even though the legislation has not passed?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As I indicated, I would like to take this to cabinet tomorrow. Before we discuss this bill on second reading, the terms of reference will be made available to the members of the House.

RESTITUTION BY COURTS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Attorney General: Is the Attorney General satisfied that he has done everything in his power to persuade Crown attorneys -- and the court system generally -- to make more use of restitution as part of the sentencing procedure, particularly in cases of vandalism where people are apprehended? And can he say whether or not he has asked the federal government to move in that direction, in keeping with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes. As I recall, approximately a year ago I sent a memorandum to all the Crown attorneys in the province of Ontario requesting that they not only make greater use of these restitution sections of The Criminal Code but also assist victims of crime in presenting the necessary documentation to the Court when they appear in court in order that the proper order in the correct amount might be made.

I might say that there is some legal, constitutional cloud over this issue. I think it was resolved by the Ontario Court of Appeal a few months ago, when these sections of The Criminal Code were challenged on the basis that they were dealing more with matters of property and civil rights -- provincial matters, as opposed to criminal law. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the restitution provisions.

As a matter of interest and a matter of information only, the Manitoba Court of Appeal has ruled differently, and the matter will probably be finally resolved in the Supreme Court of Canada in the not too distant future. But in the meantime we are encouraging our Crown attorneys to make as much use of these provisions as is possible.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Could the Attorney General give us some indication of the results of the letter which he sent a year ago to the Crown attorneys, and whether there has been an improvement in that regard? Specifically, when he’s on his feet reporting on these results, could he tell us whether he’s taken any special initiatives with regard to recent vandalism in the western part of Hamilton where apparently, it is alleged, those who were involved are quite willing to make restitution but are hoping the court will arrange a method whereby this can be done?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Dealing with the latter part of the supplementary question first, I don’t know the particulars of the matter in the west end of Hamilton to which the leader of the Liberal Party is referring. If he were to provide me with the particulars I would be happy to discuss it with the local Crown attorney in order to assist in what I think is a very important endeavour.

I do not have any statistics at the present time with relation to the success or otherwise of my instructions to the Crown attorneys. We are attempting to gather that. Recently we instituted in the province a system of regional Crown attorneys in order to facilitate information such as this coming from various parts of the province to 18 King Street East, and I would hope we will have some useful information in the near future.

Mr. Stong: Supplementary: In the light of the conflict between the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Manitoba Court of Appeal dealing with restitution in property and civil rights, would the Attorney General consider amending The Ontario Evidence Act,

section 9 of The Provincial Courts Act, RSO 1970, and

section 14 of The County Courts Act, RSO 1970, to eliminate any doubt that those courts have power over property and civil rights in the question of making restitution and proper reparation in criminal proceedings?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m not so sure that that would have the effect of resolving the issue, but we would be quite happy to look at those sections with that in mind. I want to assure the members of the House that notwithstanding the legal cloud that is still over this matter in relation to the conflicting decisions in Manitoba and Ontario, in Ontario we are proceeding on the basis of the decision of our own Court of Appeal. The resolution of the matter by the Supreme Court of Canada in no way is hindering us in that purpose.

Mr. S. Smith: I thank the minister for his answer.

INSULIN PRICES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Health: Has he completed his investigation of the large price increase with regard to the product insulin? Is he satisfied with regard to the pricing of that product at the moment? Does he plan any measures to ensure that diabetics are not left at the mercy of increasing price rises of the kind that have happened this year, particularly here in Ontario since last July?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker, we haven’t.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate to this House when he’s likely to have some answer? When he’s looking at the matter, has he any plans for dealing with Connaught Laboratories? For instance, is the Ontario government thinking of any way in which the laboratories could be re-acquired, either by the government or by the University of Toronto, or is the minister satisfied with the present operation under the CDC?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: To answer the second part first, I do not believe it’s in any way necessary to consider bringing Connaught Labs back under government jurisdiction, whether it be through the university or as a Crown corporation of a provincial government or in any other kind of business setup, other than what they are now under the CDC. Over a month ago I expressed in a letter to my federal counterpart, Mr. Lalonde, concerns about the problems that the CDC is having with its finances.

I think there are things that the federal government could be doing, and I would hope that when the Ministers of Health meet in Ottawa -- I think it’s on June 21 -- this is something we could discuss either at the meeting or privately with Mr. Lalonde.

Mr. S. Smith: A brief supplementary, if I might: Would the minister care to comment on the 23 per cent increase which followed an 11 per cent increase and indicate whether he feels that is acceptable and satisfactory in the light of what he has learned so far?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The very first question was had I completed the review of the price increases, and the answer to that was no. So no, I wouldn’t care to comment at this time.

Mr. Moffatt: When the minister is involved in his conversation with regard to Connaught Labs, I wonder if he would make part of that conversation --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question had to do with a price increase --

Mr. Moffatt: That’s correct, Mr. Speaker. With regard to Connaught Labs, would it be possible for the minister to investigate whether the transfer of the patents for insulin, which were left to the University of Toronto, were included in that? Also if in fact it is legal for a profit to be made from the sale of insulin by Connaught Labs?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll ask that question.

Mr. Moffatt: Good.

Mr. Speaker: No questions over here? The hon. member for Downsview.

Well, all right, for York South, then.

Mr. Nixon: We don’t take that sitting down.

Mr. Roy: You’re acting as though you are still leader.

Mr. MacDonald: I am delighted to learn that the Liberal Party is awake today.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Now we’ll have the question.

AID TO THE THIRD WORLD

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the Premier: In view of his commitment to the delegation from the Ontario Council for International Co-operation on April 5 that he would shortly indicate whether or not the government had got cabinet approval after his presentation to cabinet of some form of financial assistance on international projects of food aid and development if they have been approved by CIDA, is the Premier in a position to report to the House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated to the House -- I guess two weeks ago, a week ago, whenever it was -- the group was in with a somewhat altered proposal. They had either five or six points; we agreed with, I think, two of them, and I said that as soon as possible and I hoped in about three weeks -- I think it will be another week or 10 days, quite honestly; we have not had a chance to deal with it; there have been one or two other matters of priority that we wish to get before this House that I am sure the members are aware of -- but as soon as we have an opportunity to deal with it, not only will I inform those --

Mr. Cassidy: Leave all the awkward decisions until after the fateful day.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Say, I understand you had a new suit yesterday.

Mr. Reid: It was a rental.

Mr. Breithaupt: He only had it until 5 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, interjections will be ignored.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Really very impressive.

But as soon as we have, certainly I will inform the hon. member.

Mr. Good: A supplementary to the Premier: In view of the fact that the Premier’s former refusal to grant this consideration was based on jurisdictional, administrative, and legalistic arguments, would the Premier, when reconsidering it, consider the moral and philosophical grounds on this and consider it in the fact that maybe Ontario just does have an obligation to contribute to the development of the Third World countries?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect to the hon. member -- and I thought I had explained it to him when he asked the question -- it’s not just a question of a legal or administrative argument. Part of it --

Mr. Good: Well, it was.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, with great respect, I was there at the meeting, the hon. member wasn’t; and I know what I said. I happen to know some of these people fairly well, and I have a lobby within my own family as it relates to this particular issue, so I’m as familiar with it as the hon. member is. Maybe more so.

Mr. Eakins: Don’t bet on it, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And I would say to the hon. member that it was partly a philosophical concern with respect to the perception of, and the question of, whether a provincial jurisdiction should be directly involved in terms of international agreements or aid.

Mr. MacDonald: You are now. Phoney argument.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[2:30]

Mr. MacDonald: You are involved now.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that which, I say with respect, the federal government of this country should be doing. It was as simple as that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: Can I ask one quick supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: It will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: in view of the fact that the Premier said he would be making a statement on this in 10 days, will he be making a statement in the House in 10 days or some place else?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the hon. member for Ottawa East that there are those who have tried to get the answer to the question he just asked in a far more subtle fashion -- far more subtle, far more subtle.

Mr. Breithaupt: But none more effectively.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now that I’ve told him there are more subtle ways to ask the question, he may think of one between now and the end of the question period.

Mr. Roy: Are we having an election shortly?

Mr. Speaker: No, no. That was the last one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you going to run?

RESTITUTION BY COURTS

Mr. McKessock: A question for the Attorney General. In view of the Verdun Rae case pertaining to the question of restitution in criminal proceedings, when does the Attorney General intend to introduce an amendment to the Ontario Evidence Act, whereby previous convictions for criminal or provincial offences would be admissible in subsequent civil proceedings as proof of the fact giving rise to the conviction?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Ontario Law Reform Commission very carefully studied this whole problem and, as a matter of fact, dealt with it in relation to their study on matters of evidence generally. I tabled the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission some weeks ago -- I don’t recall the actual date now, and it may be that the hon. member hasn’t had an opportunity of perusing that report -- but it deals with this question in some detail and recommends against such an amendment to the Ontario Evidence Act.

We’re considering very carefully all of the recommendations made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission, as they obviously have great importance with respect to the administration of justice as a whole -- not just in this area but in the whole broad area of the administration of justice -- and we intend to react to these proposals when that review has been completed.

In this particular area, I personally am of the view that there are amendments that should be brought forward to avoid the situation that was faced in the case of the farmer who lost the cattle that the hon. member is referring to; that is, to avoid unnecessary duplication of proceedings, namely findings in a criminal court that have to be retried in a civil court. I would agree, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, that there has to be some way where we can avoid that. But until a complete review has been done of the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations, which are very extensive, I don’t think I can say anything further at the present time.

Mr. Roy: Can I ask a supplementary quickly on that? In view of the questions and the answers that the Attorney General has given earlier on this question of restitution, would he not agree that the real way of avoiding any duplication of action, of course, is to have a better restitution method at the criminal hearing, which would avoid the civil proceedings? Is there any way the Attorney General can get together with his federal colleagues to resolve this issue of property civil rights, rather than just wait for some court decision?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t think the member for Ottawa East perhaps heard my last answer, because I said we didn’t have to await any disposition because the law of Ontario for the present time has been clearly determined by our own Court of Appeal and we are going on the basis that that is the law of Ontario. Until we get a contrary verdict from the Supreme Court of Canada, we assume that the law does allow us to urge the courts to utilize these restitution orders wherever possible.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General has an answer to a question asked previously.

FIRE PREVENTION

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: On Friday last, the member for Port Arthur asked a question regarding fire prevention in northern Ontario. The Fire Marshal’s office has arranged a contract for the services of two former members of the fire advisory service of the Fire Marshal’s office to review the claims for fire equipment in the unorganized territories which have been submitted to the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

These two former employees are: Mr. George Alexander, the former head of the fire service advisers

section of the Fire Marshal’s office, and Chief Joe Miller of Mississauga, who is also a former member of that section; they are assisting the Fire Marshal in this survey and are paid through the Isolated Communities Assistance Fund programme. These two men are reviewing the applications from fire services in order that the Fire Marshal can in turn make recommendations to the Ministry of Northern Affairs as to whether or not the equipment requested is realistic. In addition, they do some training and educational work. It is our plan to eventually replace them with permanent staff members.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: I don’t believe the minister answered the fundamental part of the question; that is, what is their total time allotment? Are they full time for a full year, as he implied in Thunder Bay?

Or are they just part time for part of the year?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I ended up my answer to that question on Friday last by saying that we were using all the time they had available. I don’t think they are available full time, and I don’t think they have given us any commitment as to how long they are ready to serve us. The answer, as far as I know, is no, they are not full time; and no, they are there for an indeterminate period.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Does the minister think, in all honesty, that that is enough of a commitment to fire prevention and education throughout northern Ontario -- two measly part-time people?

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s not the people who are measly, it is the programme.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The commitment is there, and that is why I went on with this last sentence: “It is our plan to eventually replace them with permanent staff members.”

Just to enlarge on the programme a little further. As the member will know, it has arisen rather quickly, in the hope of helping some of these isolated communities. Suddenly, one of the best ways to help them was with the request for fire equipment. These requests had to be analysed as to whether they were practical and whether they could be carried out; and so we recruited these two people in a hurry to do this job. We see this as eventually being a continuing programme, and they will be replaced with permanent people. That is our commitment; but so that we could move quickly, we got these temporary people with experience.

WOMEN IN LABOUR FORCE

Ms. Gigantes: A question of the Treasurer: I wonder if he has managed yet to come up with the rationale for counting all women as part of the secondary labour force in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I undertook to get an answer to that question. I haven’t, and I will.

Mr. Lewis: It takes some time to find the answer to your own balderdash.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the Treasurer say on what basis his budget paper contends that the traditional rate of unemployment among women is higher than for men?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the hon. member debated that at some length yesterday. I don’t think we want to particularly get into debate here. I’ll answer the question in due course.

WINTARIO FUNDS

Mr. Kerrio: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Could the minister tell me how many cases of fraud involving Wintario funds have been uncovered? How many cases are before the courts? How much Wintario money has been recovered?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As the hon. member will recall, he asked me a question along these lines last week and I indicated that there were some charges laid. That matter is now before the courts. I know of no other charges. And, of course, whether or not these charges are substantiated and any money recovered is a matter to be determined after the courts have examined all the evidence.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: That doesn’t quite answer my question, because we made some calls and we didn’t get answers. Could the minister tell me how much of present Wintario administration costs are used for investigating; and if professional auditors will be employed to ensure proper use of the uncommitted Wintario funds?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, as I explained last week, too, when this question of fraud was raised, or the allegations of fraud, we do have procedures with respect to post-commitment audits. Indeed they are qualified people who are doing this. I wouldn’t be able, off the top of my head, to attach some percentage of administration cost to that operation but I would be glad to get that information for the hon. member.

Mr. Roy: No? Aren’t you the minister?

Mr. Good: Just give us a flat figure.

DOWNSVIEW AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

Mr. di Santo: I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Good: It may be his last question.

Mr. di Santo: Can the minister report to the House on the negotiations on Downsview Airport and on the meetings that have taken place since last month? In particular, can he tell us whether the release of the site has been finalized?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot report to the House because I have not taken

part in these negotiations. I have only been contacted through the mails by the Minister of National Defence, advising me that he was going to be making the announcement concerning the Downsview lands being available. The discussions at this time are strictly between staff. I have not had any meetings with either Mayor Lastman, Mr. Danson, Mr. Ouellet or Mr. Godfrey concerning the Downsview properties. Staff have been meeting and we are awaiting reports back from those staff meetings.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: Since there is some concern among the residents of that area, can the minister at least in his dealings with the federal government apply some pressure so the federal government will consider the release of the whole area, and too, that the site will be released to the municipality of North York so that it could be used for housing, thus avoiding any form of land speculation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am already on record as saying I feel the area should be planned by the community of North York, and that that is how I would like to see it go. I have advised Mr. Danson that I felt he should he dealing with North York and that it should be for housing. The hon. member I think is well aware that when it comes to the point of developing that land, putting plans of subdivision on it, of course the municipality will be very much involved and, as a result, the residents of the municipality will have an opportunity to make their feelings known.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour.

Mr. MacDonald: His supporters are really awake.

Mr. Lewis: They are clapping in the dark to keep their spirits up.

Mr. O’Neil: With respect to the industrial inquiry commission looking into the dispute between the Ontario Nurses Association and certain public health units, can the minister tell us whether she has yet received Mr. Sherrif’s findings, and if not, when they are expected?

Hon. R. Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: We’re surprised to get an answer.

An hon. member: Tired blood over there.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received the findings as yet. I anticipate that I will have them before the end of April.

Mr. Good: Withdraw your applause.

Mr. O’Neil: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us why the industrial inquiry commission was appointed to look into only three areas of the province while there are unresolved differences in many more areas? Does she propose to set up further inquiries so that the disputes in the other areas can be resolved?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I can’t say that I am going to appoint other industrial inquiry commissions. The purpose of setting up this one was to examine as carefully as possible all of the details involved in three fairly typical disputes in widely-spread areas of the province. They seem to represent certain geographical areas. They seem to be reasonably appropriate for this kind of investigation. I will await with great interest the report of the industrial inquiry commissioner.

RACISM IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Education. On Wednesday last, his remarks at the opening of the Ontario Association for Curriculum Development’s conference on multiculturalism in education stressed, and I quote, “that the schools must fight racism.” In other words, he is joining the hon. Attorney General in that assertion.

[2:45]

Could the minister please inform the House and the schools what he proposes to do in terms of funding the development and implementation of these programmes, or is he committing the schools to fight racism without any commitment from the government?

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend assumes that everything that is promised or suggested can be done is going to take money.

Mr. S. Smith: Or is delivered.

Mr. Reid: He knows better than that, he has been here long enough.

Interjections.

An hon. member: We don’t believe you either.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are a lot of things that the school system can do that are not going to take money.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t know whether members realize but we spend more of our gross national product on education in this country than any other country in the world. We spend a lot of money on education in Canada and in the province of Ontario. There are a lot of things that the education system can do to fight racism.

Mr. Reid: You waste a lot too.

Mr. Good: That’s the rub.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We are going to help the school boards to identify those things and to help them to put them in place in the school system. But we’re not necessarily going to provide a lot of money, because it isn’t going to take a lot of money to help that attitude become prevalent in the school system of this province.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are as phoney as a $9 bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There has to be some kind of a limit.

Mr. Grande: More importantly, what does this government have against the children in this province who need special educational help?

An hon. member: Shame, shame.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Very little.

Mr. Foulds: He knows a lot more about it than the minister does.

We certainly are doing all kinds of things to make it possible to help teachers in this very important and vital area of fighting racism in our schools. If my friend read my total remarks to that national conference on multiculturalism he might be better informed as to what we’re doing than he seems to indicate.

NORTHSTAR YACHTS LIMITED

Mr. Riddell: A question of the Minister of Labour: One of the businesses in the Huron industrial park owned by the Ontario government, known as the Northstar Yachts Limited, went into receivership last January. The workers have told me they are not getting any back wages, severance pay, holiday pay or OHIP premium payments on which the company defaulted. Could the minister look into the matter to see if they are not entitled to some of these back wages or holiday pay?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.

INCO EMISSIONS

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister aware of a statement by the chairman of the board of International Nickel Company, that Inco would not be meeting the emission standards of 750 tons per day of sulphur dioxide by the end of 1978, as required in a ministerial order? What is his response to the chairman’s statement?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, that statement has been made to officials of my ministry as well. They are in compliance at the present time with the control order as far as emissions are concerned. If the company is not able to meet the emission standards that are set down, I guess it would be for the beginning of 1969, then we’ll have to deal with them at that time -- 1979, I’m sorry.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister agree or disagree with the chairman’s statement that it is preferable to breathe SO 2 rather than walk around up to our ankles in sulphuric acid? Is that the only option available to the city of Sudbury?

Mr. Lewis: Is that the choice? That’s a nice choice.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, I don’t agree with that statement.

Mr. Lewis: Sensitive people.

Mr. Bain: Supplementary: Will the minister assure the House, in the strictures that have been placed on the companies in Sudbury, that these guidelines, when enforced, will ensure that sulphur dioxide does not pollute the many lakes in the area, consequently reducing the fish and being very harmful to tourism in the whole area, including such famous lakes as Lake Temagami?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, since the company has been under the existing control order the SO 2 emissions have been substantially reduced by Inco. Certainly in the last two or three years the improvement has been substantial. The control order, of course, calls for improvement every year. The final requirement of 750 is a substantial reduction for 1978, for example. There’s no question, with the progress they’ve made and with the technology, that they may have difficulties, but we’ll have to deal with that when we come to it.

As the hon. member implies, the market as far as sulphuric acid goes is not our concern. The level of emission is our concern.

AGGREGATE RESOURCES

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Does the minister concur with the policy proposals as outlined in the report, A Policy for Mineral Aggregate Resource Management in Ontario, and can the minister give the House some indication as to what his intent will be in respect to this report?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If I have my titles correct, Mr. Speaker, that’s the working party report comprised of people from a number of walks of life, naturalists, members of the communities, members of the aggregate industry, members, I believe, of the construction industry and also of the universities.

Mr. Roy: And a couple of Conservatives.

Hon. F. S. Miller: So it was a fairly broad-based committee, as I recall, and I believe it was tabled by the former minister sometime before I assumed the portfolio. We had hoped that there would be responses by sometime in March; I think March 15. A number of groups of people, municipalities and associations, asked that that be postponed until May 15 so they would have time to examine the report fully and to respond.

We have agreed to do so. Therefore, the ministry has neither accepted nor rejected the statements in that report. It will do so only after it’s had an opportunity to look at the reactions of the people concerned.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Would it be the intention of the minister to bring in legislation sometime after May 15, presuming, of course, that we get the election out of the way in the meantime?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, either way we’d be able to.

Mr. Bullbrook: He’s worried.

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. Makarchuk: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. This is in reference to the sale of property by Lynden Hill Farms to Lehendorff Investments. Was any tax paid, or is there any tax claim against Lynden Hill Farms under The Land Speculation Tax Act in that particular transfer?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I seem to recollect sending a letter on this very matter to the member.

Mr. Shore: He can’t read.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I think I told him at that time that this particular firm was exempt from the tax.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The answer the minister gave me stated that the lien clearance was given, and the lien clearance does not imply whether tax was paid or not paid. It just says that the company was exempt from paying tax. My question to the minister is: Did Lynden Hill Farms pay any tax in that particular transaction?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, not that I know of.

Mr. Makarchuk: Final supplementary: In view of the fact that no tax was paid, is the minister prepared to submit this matter to the public accounts committee for investigation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With no innuendoes, of course.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: The question is why?

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: If the Speaker is going to accept that as an answer, then I’ll ask the minister another question. Since this matter was put on the order paper requesting information, will the minister undertake to table the documents that supported the decision of her predecessor to exempt the Lynden Hill Farms property from the payment of the tax?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, that question was placed on the order paper and was answered quite fully.

Mr. Nixon: Since then you allowed two --

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary from the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the minister if she will table all of the documents leading up to the decision that her predecessor took in exempting the Lynden Hill Farms.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I will consider it, Mr. Speaker.

ATIKOKAN HYDRO PLANT

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy in regard to the proposed Hydro plant at Marmion Lake, north of Atikokan. Has the minister received the final submission from Ontario Hydro in regard to the studies it has done in regard to the proposed plant for Atikokan and has the cabinet considered that submission yet?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No.

Mr. Reid: To both questions?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: To both questions.

Mr. Reid: Can I ask one short supplementary? When is the minister expecting to receive the report and can he give us an indication when a decision might be made, hopefully in the --

Mr. Good: In due time -- in due course.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I really couldn’t give a definite answer to that. Hopefully soon, and I appreciate the interest of the member in that particular project. May I say that I share his interest in seeing that generating station proceeded with as expeditiously as possible.

HOUSING PROGRAMME

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing: Given the comments reported in the Star yesterday from several major development firms in the Toronto area about his assisted rental programme, essentially saying that it is a nice idea but it is not enough and that even if it were enough and they wanted to do it, it would take at least 30 months to get a project to fruition, is he still sticking with his original projection of an additional 3,000 units within a year in Metro?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it was just one particular developer quoted in that

article who claimed 30 months. He is one who does most of his developing, as he says in the article, in the core of Toronto. We are looking at development that will take place in areas other than the downtown core. So I don’t expect to have unanimous support of that particular programme from all of the developers but I think there are sufficient numbers who will take part.

Mr. Breaugh: Is the minister contemplating any exercising of his powers as Minister of Housing to either move around the normal planning process or expedite the planning process? And would he elaborate on how he intends to do that with these projects?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I certainly have no intention of moving around the planning process. I think that the planning process is there and that we can discuss the matter of the need for rental housing, which I think is being accepted more and more by municipalities, and I would rather do it with discussion rather than with the big stick that I think the hon. member might be in favour of using.

SERVICES TO THE HANDICAPPED

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Following his recent announcement with regard to treatment at home and so forth, and hiring additional people for employment, is one of his plans that he would have people to treat quadriplegics or these who were confined to wheelchairs in the home -- maybe male nurses coming in a day at a time or a few hours a day, or others who may come in and help these people stay in their homes?

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the reference is to the announcement with regard to the employment of young people in providing service in the homes to the elderly and the disabled, the answer would be “no.” It’s not intended that programme be geared to providing that kind of highly professional help.

The programme is contemplated to provide assistance to those persons who are living in their own homes at the present time and through the provision of such assistance can continue to remain independent in their private dwellings for a longer period of time. It is expected that the kinds of duties that would be performed by these people might range from housekeeping assistance to assistance in maintaining their residence outside and inside, assistance with such necessary duties as shopping, if the person has difficulty getting out in order to do that, and that type of thing.

In terms of employment, it is directed towards the young people who are currently on the unemployment rolls in the province.

[3:00]

The provision of more highly professional services is something which we have under consideration, and I have made some general policy statements about that with regard to directions in which we would like to move. I would point out that, under our general welfare assistance programme at the present time, the option is there for municipalities to hire persons to provide that kind of service, either as homemakers or visiting nurses, and we pay an 80 per cent subsidy in the provision of that service.

Mr. Riddell: You pay 40 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Unfortunately, there are many municipalities in the province that have not seen fit to take advantage of that already existing programme under the general welfare assistance programme.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: In providing this youth employment, is the minister going to take into account, in arriving at the numbers to be employed in a municipality, either the percentage of the aged in the community or the fact that some municipalities have a fairly high index of unemployment?

Hon. Mr. Norton: We have corresponded with the municipalities across the province already. I would expect they are in receipt of the initial letter. In that, we have indicated an initial allocation of positions based on population, but not at this point taking into consideration the special local factors that the member cites, such as the percentage of elderly in the population. But we have, in reserve, some additional positions. Not all of the complement is taken up at this point.

We have invited responses from municipalities within 15 days to indicate their interest in the programme and how they view their needs. It’s at that point that we would be able to take into consideration the special needs of the municipality. We don’t for example, have readily available that kind of information with regard to every municipality across the province. We have invited them to respond to us and, where additional people might be merited across the province, we will try to meet those needs within the limits that we are faced with.

Mr. G. I. Miller: May I have a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: It will be the final supplementary.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Will this programme be available to the private sector, such as the plumbing trade, agriculture trades and industry?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, this programme is designed primarily to meet the needs of the elderly and the disabled who are in need of assistance in order to be maintained in their homes. I can’t speak in detail on this, but I believe there is another programme that will be directed to the provision of some jobs, or the stimulation of employment, in the areas that the hon. member has suggested.

BENEFITS RATES

Ms. Sandeman: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Could the minister please explain why the recommendations made to her in February by the Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped about increases in family benefits to the disabled were ignored in the announcement of increases in the family benefits made last week?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: We’ll allow a supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: If the minister can’t explain it now, will she undertake to explain it in the House as soon as possible? It’s a very serious omission.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’ll take that under advisement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. Stong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: I think we’d better get on with it. We’ve gone back now and we’re just about out of time.

An hon. Member: The original questioner should be allowed one supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We have about five minutes. Well allow a final supplementary from the original questioner.

Ms. Sandeman: I just wished to ask the minister whether she had discussed these excellent recommendations with the Minister of Community and Social Services?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Those recommendations have been circulated to all of the ministries involved and when I have the responses we will be considering it in total.

YORK REGIONAL COUNCIL

Mr. Stong: Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier a question; he promised an answer for Monday, but I understand his mind has been preoccupied. Perhaps I can direct the question to the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Your fate rests in the Premier’s hands.

Mr. Stong: Would the Treasurer indicate when he proposes to amend The Regional Municipality of York Act to provide the town of Markham with the extra seat on that regional council which is much needed in that area in terms of the population expansion?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In the fullness of time, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are over-represented now.

Mr. O’Neil: Better make it before Thursday.

Mr. S. Smith: The old arrogance.

VOLUNTARY FIRE DEPARTMENTS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Solicitor General: Can the Solicitor General tell us if the Fire Marshal’s office has resolved the questions regarding legal liability protection and workmen’s compensation for voluntary fire departments that have been set up and will receive equipment under the Isolated Communities Assistance Fund? And if so, why was Mr. Huntington of the North Bay office so discouraging to the Aweres township applicants when he met with them to discuss their application recently?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing about that last question. If the member can enlarge upon it, I will try to get some further information. But I think any of these community groups or whoever may be looking after volunteer fire departments can, as I understand it, obtain workmen’s compensation if they wish to pay the premium and apply for it.

If he wants further information on that last question, I will try to get it for the hon. member.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: I understand that if they are trained by the Fire Marshal’s office they can get workmen’s compensation. But what about the question of legal liability if there is injury or whatever resulting from travelling to a fire or during the process of fighting a fire?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I don’t grasp the impact of that question. Is the member concerned with liability to some person that may be struck on the highway as they are rushing --

Mr. Wildman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, I suppose that’s the regular law of the land, as far as the court is concerned. If a fire reel or any other piece of emergency equipment strikes somebody in going to a fire or going to an emergency call, they are subject to the same law of the land as any of the rest of us are.

SALES TAX ON INSULATION MATERIALS

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Revenue: Will the minister reconsider the government’s budget policy on energy conservation and extend sales tax exemption to include storm windows and doors? The federal sales tax exemption includes storm windows and doors as insulating materials.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but we will not consider it at this time.

HYDRO BLACKOUTS

Mr. Foulds: I ask a question of the Minister of Energy with some reluctance: Could the minister indicate whether the statements made by the public relations officer of Ontario Hydro in early March about the possibility of rotating blackouts in northwestern Ontario is still the view of Ontario Hydro and his ministry? And what steps is his ministry taking to overcome these blackouts of power because of the low water levels in the region?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I have to check the source of that particular statement by Ontario Hydro, but I can assure the member that I think that we can feel confident in this province that we won’t suffer blackouts in any part of Ontario.

Mr. Conway: Not even on June 9.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary; Could he get a more definitive answer for me, taking into account that the tie lines between Manitoba and northwestern Ontario and eastern Ontario and northwestern Ontario now are operating at full capacity and there is no further generating capacity within the northwest?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You know why.

CANADIAN HISTORY

Mr. Sweeney: A question for the Minister of Education: Given the disagreements that we have had in this House about the quality of the teaching of Canadian history in the secondary schools, how does the minister intend to respond to John Palmer, the head of the history department of Orillia Secondary School, Roger Graham, a history professor at Queen’s University, and Eugene Forsey of the Canadian Senate, who have all declared in writing to him that the new guidelines for Canadian history for grades nine and 10 are totally inadequate as history, and are in fact no more than sociology?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The socialists will be happy to hear that. That’s a putdown.

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, I haven’t seen that letter; I would like to see the letter and the substance of it. I recall a few weeks ago that the leader of the Liberal Party talked in this House about some statements made by Ian Macdonald concerning the teaching of history, which I later learned were never made by Ian Macdonald.

I would be very happy to look at the letters that the member has. I would also be happy to table for him the names of the practising history teachers in this province who wrote that document. I guess it’s quite possible that historians and history teachers will differ over what should be taught in the schools; but the intermediate history document that the member is talking about was written by a writing team made up of practising history teachers in this province and people from the Ministry of Education, all experts in the teaching of history, and people who should be able to be relied upon to develop a guideline for history in this province.

I say that, but I also say that I would like to see the detailed letters, because the leader of the Liberal Party indicated that Ian Macdonald made some statements some while ago, which Mr. Macdonald never made.

Mr. Conway: None of your innuendoes.

Mr. Nixon: Did they really forget to mention both world wars?

Mr. Breithaupt: Whatever happened to the two world wars?

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a personal attack on Eugene Forsey. He’s speaking at the Empire Club on Thursday.

Interjections.

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

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Makarchuk: I wish to advise you, Mr. Speaker, under standing order 27 that I am dissatisfied with the answer I have received to my question to the Minister of Revenue, and intend to debate it at the adjournment of the House this evening.

PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday three petitions were tabled by Mr. Moffatt, Mr. Breaugh and Mr. Godfrey. I stated that I would examine them and report to the House today as to whether or not these petitions are in order.

I direct the attention of the House to standing order 84, which reads as follows: “No petition can be received which prays for any expenditure, grant or charge on the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated revenue fund or out of moneys to be provided by the House.”

I must then direct the attention of the House to the last sentence of paragraph one of the three petitions, which reads as follows: “As an immediate solution, we require that increased funding from the province be made available in the amount requested by the region in December, 1975 of the Treasurer of Ontario.”

The House will see that these petitions are in direct contravention of standing order 84 and, therefore, cannot be received. I am directing the petitions be returned to the members.

Perhaps I might suggest, however, that the petitioners might make their representation to the Treasurer in some other way.

Any further petitions?

POINTS OF ORDER

Mr. Breaugh: Respecting your ruling, I don’t read anywhere that it’s asking anybody to give money. It simply makes a statement of fact, that we require --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is debating. I think if he reads what I said and refers to standing order 84, he’ll understand the answer very clearly because it is a very clear statement of the rule. As I say, I don’t want to debate the issue because it’s not my position to debate it. But it said that -- we require that increased funding be provided by the province -- in so many words.

Mr. Bullbrook: This is a point of order, I want you to know that at the beginning.

Mr. Singer: One of the very few.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yesterday you permitted, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: To wear a suit.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- seconded by the Leader of the Opposition to move before you in this House a motion that reads -- “this House condemns the misrepresentation by the Treasurer of the government’s fiscal situation and Ontario’s economic prospects.”

[3:15]

I took issue with that yesterday and I take issue with it today. That is entirely out of order. That assertion condemning a misrepresentation by another member of this House is entirely out of order. It’s against our standing orders. It should be expurgated from that motion.

If you are going to permit that type of thing, it will just expand and we will lose all sense of the orders of this House. I ask for a ruling from you. I believe under the rules of order and under May’s

interpretation you can expurgate that particular section.

We might wish to conclude in our own mind that there was a misinterpretation by the Treasurer of Ontario of the budgetary and economic situation in Ontario --

Mr. Cassidy: There certainly was.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- but we cannot, viva voce or by motion, accuse him of misrepresentation.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I appreciate the fact that the member for Sarnia has raised this matter, but it had been my intention at some time during the afternoon also to raise this question.

I understand there may have been a note of irony in the voice and the face of the leader of the official opposition when he said, just as the amendment was being seconded in his name, that the terms of the amendment were, to quote him, “soft and gentle terms, compared to what we would have wished.” However, I am sure all members of the House would agree the amendment to the main budget motion is by tradition a very serious matter, as the member for Sarnia has pointed out, and we on this side would wish to view this just in that way.

So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you would advise the House as soon as you could as to whether it is accepted parliamentary language to say that the Treasurer of this province has misrepresented the government’s fiscal situation and Ontario’s economic prospects.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s what happened.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is my view that it is not, and quite apart from the arguments made in his text by the member, that this is quite unparliamentary language.

Mr. Renwick: If I may speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly defer to you if you were to decide this was not a point of order and bring this matter to an immediate conclusion. If you were to decide it is a point of order, I would like to have an opportunity to speak to it. Could I therefore ask, in the interest of expediting the business of the House, that you make the initial decision as to whether or not the member for Sarnia had a paint of order?

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s one of the few points of order that have ever been made that is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I will make that ruling right now, because I was concerned. When I was handed the motion yesterday, I am afraid I didn’t get the full impact or import of the motion. I was certainly concerned about the expression when that amendment was used yesterday, and I discussed it --

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

Mr. Singer: You invited him to go, and now he’s gone further than you wanted.

Mr. Renwick: I want you to understand that I would like to have the opportunity of speaking to the point of order, before you make a ruling on the matter before you. That is, if you are about to decide that there was a point of order, I would ask that I be given an opportunity to speak to it.

Mr. Singer: Why did you interrupt the Speaker? You know the Speaker has precedence even over you.

Mr. MacDonald: Is it a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I was going to rule that it was a legitimate point of order.

Mr. Breithaupt: There is no question about that.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of being in the House all afternoon yesterday when my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, was speaking on the budget for this party. When he moved the amendment, which is permitted -- and I agree with the member for Sarnia and the House leader for the government that it is a serious matter, because it is the amendment of this party to the motion by the Treasurer for the adoption of his budget -- I listened carefully, and I had had, of course, an opportunity of considering the wording of the amendment before it was put in this House.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when a member stands on an important matter of a point of order, and there are rules of the House which refer to that matter, it is important that we deal with the rules. I draw the attention of the House to rule 39, which states, “Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and may quote the rule or authority applicable to the case.”

Mr. Breithaupt: Would you like him to wait until December?

Mr. Renwick: Some members may note a certain ambiguity in the rule of the assembly which would indicate that there is some conflict about the point in time when the Speaker is to apprise the House of whether the motion is or is not in order for the reasons given.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in considering your ruling, that the operative part of those words is as follows: “Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately. . . .” I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that whatever your personal opinion may be of the matter, the rules of the House require that you should have apprised the House immediately the amendment was offered to you and at the time when you, sir, repeated it in this House yesterday afternoon.

But be that as it may, and in the interest of clarifying the substance of what we are speaking about, when my colleague, the member for Sarnia, came to us yesterday to note that the motion might have been out of order, for a moment I noted in my own mind that perhaps it was because his colleagues in the Liberal Party wanted to find some reason for voting against the motion.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s out of order. That’s imputation.

Mr. Renwick: But I knew, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, come on.

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order now, Mr. Speaker. You cannot --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: But I knew, Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t --

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, you cannot impute motives.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. S. Smith: You cannot impute motives.

Mr. Renwick: But, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry, I did not --

Mr. Bullbrook: All right. May I say this to you --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we have order in the House?

Mr. Renwick: But, Mr. Speaker, so I can clarify that --

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s objection is what?

Mr. Bullbrook: That he imputed motives to me. We happen to abide by --

An hon. member: He can’t interrupt a speaker --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we should hear this member; then, if there’s further to say about it, I’ll hear you and then I will deliver my ruling.

Mr. Bullbrook: I take strong issue --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bullbrook: My point of order is --

Mr. Speaker: I would like to hear what the hon. member had said, please; and I did not hear that, I must say.

Mr. Bullbrook: He’ll repeat that for you.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can’t recall the exact words, but --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member try to stay in order then himself, whatever it is?

Mr. Renwick: -- when my colleague, the member for Sarnia, raised this matter, it went through my mind like a flash --

Hon. Mr. Davis: That doesn’t surprise me.

Mr. Breithaupt: It went in one door and right out the other.

Mr. Renwick: -- that perhaps the reason he was raising it was so that the Liberal Party would not have to support the motion made.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s not in order.

Mr. Renwick: But I knew, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think that is not a legitimate suggestion or imputation of motive to make.

Mr. S. Smith: An imputation of motive.

Mr. Renwick: I knew I shouldn’t do that, because that would be contrary to the rules of the House --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. Exactly.

Mr. Sweeney: When did you take up mind- reading?

Mr. S. Smith: Which you did, and Hansard will record it.

Interjection.

Mr. Renwick: My colleague, Mr. Speaker, directing my remarks to --

Mr. S. Smith: I wonder if you are doing this to avoid hearing the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Lewis: He’s got five hours.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to hear the hon. member’s colleague all evening as well as this afternoon.

Mr. Breithaupt: We can arrange that.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the member for Sarnia has asked that you rule that the phrase in the motion addressed to this House on behalf of this party by the member for Ottawa Centre, which reads as follows, “condemns the misrepresentation by the Treasurer of the government’s fiscal situation and Ontario’s economic prospects,” should be expunged from the motion. He quoted, of course, a voluminous reference of authority, namely May’s Parliamentary Procedure, but without any reference to any page or rule or any other citation in that book.

Mr. Bullbrook: Of what consequence is that?

Interjection.

Mr. Renwick: First of all, you have to look up the meaning of the word presentation, then the meaning of representation and then the meaning of the word misrepresentation.

Mr. Breithaupt: Both Miss and Ms.

Mr. Renwick: I did that, and the authoritative dictionary meaning of the term “presentation” is a statement. As was quoted in the July issue of Hibbert’s Journal in 1907, at page 927 --

Mr. Bullbrook: You are permitting a charade here.

Mr. Renwick: -- as illustrative of the meaning of the word “presentation” -- and I quote: “His presentations of the orthodox case -- ”

Interjection.

Mr. Renwick: I quote again. I would like the Treasurer to hear this.

Mr. Lewis: You just cut yourself off.

Mr. Renwick: “His presentations of the orthodox case are sometimes the merest travesties of what educated opponents really hold.” That is the meaning of presentation, Mr. Speaker. The meaning of representation is a renewed presentation. The meaning of misrepresentation is a wrong or incorrect representation.

Mr. Lewis: Now, what’s wrong with that?

And then I turned to the word “condemn.” I find that the first meaning is “to express strong disapproval of.” My colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, on behalf of this party, expressed strong disapproval of.

Mr. S. Smith: It sounds like an elementary school debate.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But those of us who don’t have your intellect know exactly what you meant.

Mr. Lewis: You made a mistake on some other words.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Riverdale has the floor.

Mr. Renwick: If I could refer to the 1601 folio of Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, in Act III, scene four at folio 149, you find the quotation --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Michael, you are squirming a little.

Mr. Renwick: I quote --

Mr. S. Smith: This is a filibuster.

Mr. Conway: Save us from this.

Mr. Renwick: As Shakespeare in Twelfth Night said: --

Mr. Breithaupt: Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

Mr. Renwick: “I could condemn it as an improbable fiction.” I wanted the House to understand the sequence of events. You will recall that --

Mr. Breithaupt: Now you have done it.

Mr. Renwick: -- scene four took place in Olivia’s garden. Perhaps for those who haven’t quite recalled it, Olivia was a rich countess. Fabian was a servant to Olivia. Malvolio was steward to Olivia. Sir Toby Belch was the uncle of Olivia, and Maria was Olivia’s waiting woman. And in the garden that evening --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do you realize what you are doing?

Mr. Breithaupt: I think he doth protest too much, milord.

Mr. Speaker: I think so too.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we’re carrying this too far.

Mr. Lewis: I think the hon. member for Ottawa Centre should be congratulated on the use of the word.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think I should deliver my ruling at this time.

Mr. Bullbrook: There is a point of order. It is either in order or it is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think this is being carried --

Mr. Renwick: I beg the opportunity to complete my remarks briefly.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we are carrying a little too far afield this afternoon. We have allowed quite a bit of leeway --

Interjections.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, may I put in context the quotation that I quoted?

Mr. Speaker: May I ask the hon. member --

Interjection.

Mr. Germa: The whole point of order is frivolous.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would like the hon. member to conclude his remarks in about a sentence or two. I’ll allow that. But we don’t want a further long dissertation. Now, please, order.

[3:30]

An hon. member: The whole point has not been out of order.

An hon. member: It shouldn’t have been allowed.

Mr. Renwick: I will speak relatively quickly. “Maria -- ”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No I mean very, very briefly. I think we’ve allowed the hon. member a great leeway and we want to get on with the business of the House and deal with this matter. If he’s not satisfied with my ruling he knows what he can do about it.

Mr. Breithaupt: He can sit down.

Interjections.

Mr. Renwick: “Maria: ‘Get him to say his prayers, good Sir Toby; get him to pray.’

“Malvolio: ‘My prayers, minx!’

“Maria: ‘No, I warrant you he will not hear of godliness.’

“Malvolio: ‘Go hang yourselves all! You are idle shallow things; I am not of your element; you shall know more hereafter.’”

And he leaves.

“Sir Toby: ‘Is it possible?’

“Fabian: ‘If this were play’d upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction.’”

Mr. Riddell: You people are prepared to face an election with that kind of claptrap?

Mr. Renwick: My submission, Mr. Speaker, is that what my colleague was saying is that he expressed strong disapproval of the Treasurer’s budget because it was an improbable fiction.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I have not completed my ruling at this point, I would like to do so.

Mr. MacDonald: Do you mind if I have a brief comment before you make your ruling?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Very, very brief; yes.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the rules of this House are very clear. If yesterday’s motion was out of order it should have been ruled out of order by you immediately.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not necessarily so.

Mr. MacDonald: I’m sure you are mindful of the fact that if you rule it out of order now, you are breaching the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer did not disagree with a word in the amendment, not a word. He sat and accepted it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, may I --

Mr. Speaker: All right, very briefly.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to this House that no word spoken or tabled yesterday by the member from Ottawa lost me one little bit of sleep.

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: That is personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I’ve allowed this to go on. I think I should make my ruling. If there’s a question on it, it can be handled later.

I’m quite familiar and quite aware of rule number -- I think it’s 39 -- which uses the word “immediately”; it says also, “of the opinion.”

Now when the amendment was placed yesterday I didn’t have that opinion at the time, although it did cause me some concern. In other words, I hadn’t made up my mind at that particular time. So the words “immediately” and “of the opinion” must be taken into account.

I’ve discussed this since that time with the other presiding officers in this House and together we have concluded that that use of the word, “misrepresentation” I believe it was, to accuse another member of deliberate misrepresentation or of deliberately misleading the House or of telling a deliberate falsehood, is clearly out of order. If the hon. member will refer to those particular words, any of these precedents would appear to apply in this instance.

I would accept a motion from the member to amend his motion by substituting another word for “misrepresentation,” such as if I might be --

Mr. Lewis: We will give you one, we will find one.

Mr. Grossman: Don’t help him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If he might substitute the word “misinterpretation” for the word “misrepresentation,” I think that word might serve his purpose and be within the rules of this House. Will the hon. member so do?

Mr. MacDonald: Take time to consider it.

Mr. Speaker: The word “misinterpretation” instead of “misrepresentation,” because this matter of opinion could be debated all day. Will the hon. member please substitute that word, or withdraw it completely as the case may be?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I think that it is clear that the House understands exactly what I was saying when I made my speech yesterday. I think it is also interesting that there was no objection raised from the government benches about the words that I used at that time, either during the speech when the word was used on a number of occasions, or during the motion.

Mr. Breithaupt: Are you going to withdraw or not?

Mr. Cassidy: However, in view of your ruling and in view of the fact that the House is clear about the meaning of the speech yesterday, I would accept your suggestion.

Mr. Cassidy moved that the word “misrepresentation” be stricken from his motion and the word “misinterpretation” substituted therefor.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as the person who seconded the motion of my colleague from Ottawa Centre yesterday, I’m happy to have that substitution. But, as in the case of another word in this Legislature which caused some anxiety, I think it’s worth occasionally, if I may say, looking at the dictionary

definitions. What my colleague, the hon. member for Riverdale, put to you about the wrong or incorrect representation of facts is not something that should be seen to be a violation of the rules of the House, although we bowed to your ruling, sir, and substituted the word.

Mr. Lewis: Precisely.

Mr. Speaker: But that was the consensus of opinion. I want to thank the hon. member for agreeing to the suggestion, and it will be so changed on the records.

Mr. Lewis: Shakespeare says that defile can mean to impugn the reputation of, not violate physically.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A further point of order.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I have been dissatisfied with the answer of the Treasurer of Ontario concerning my question asked today -- it was a repetition of a question asked last week. I would, therefore, like to give notice under standing order 27 that I would like to debate this matter this evening after the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The rule requires that this objection be made note of immediately at the end of the question period. We got into the next order.

An hon. member: This is immediately.

An hon. member: Twenty-four hours is immediately.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I may not have given the hon. member the chance to rise. I did accept one but I could be generous in this case in case I did not give the hon. member time. As I recall it, I hastily went into the next order and probably was unfair to the hon. member. I will accept it because it’s so close to that, and it’s the first time we’ve had the opportunity.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BOROUGH OF SCARBOROUGH ACT

Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill Pr8,

An Act respecting the Borough of Scarborough.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this is a private bill.

Mr. Drea: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to discuss it.

Mr. Speaker: There’s no explanatory statement necessary or allowed on a private bill.

Mr. Drea: I wanted to make a request of the chairman, Mr. Speaker, not a statement. The bill is of some urgency. It has been held up on technical language for some time. There is the opportunity on Thursday in the administration of justice committee to discuss it. I would hope that it could be brought forward to that committee by the Speaker’s panel.

Mr. Roy: That is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I will have to study that request, just to see whether it’s possible to do that, and report.

BOROUGH OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Williams moved first reading of Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the Borough of North York.

Motion agreed to.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerr moved first reading of Bill 59,

An Act to amend The Environmental Assessment Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to.

CASGRAIN TOWNSHIP LANDS ACT

Mr. Lane moved first reading of Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting Certain Lands in the Township of Casgrain.

Motion agreed to.

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. di Santo moved first reading of Bill 60,

An Act to amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1976.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. di Santo: The purpose of the bill is to permit employees to accumulate pension benefits while employed, due to disablement.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Lewis: A point of order, following directly from something that was asked at the beginning of the orders of the day by the member for Rainy River. There was no accompanying compendium of material tabled by the Minister of the Environment as he undertook to do earlier this afternoon in his amendments to The Environmental Assessment Act. He sent over the amendments with their explanation plus a copy of the Act and only the statement he gave in the House; no background documents at all. Although in this subject, above all other subjects, there are endless numbers of background papers to which the House should be privy.

Mr. Speaker: A bulky amount of material came up when he presented his bill; I believe that’s what that was.

Mr. Foulds: All it contains is a copy of the original Act, the material itself and the minister’s statement.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order: I repeat, all you have here is the bill and the copy of the statement to the Legislature. This does not constitute background information, it is in violation of the rules in the absence of background information and it contradicts what the minister told the House quite explicitly earlier this afternoon. Since the Speaker is so anxious to give formal

interpretation of the rules, and I encourage him in that, would you please take this into control, Mr. Speaker, because it is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, well, of course I couldn’t possibly be aware of what was in the material but I’ll certainly bring that to the attention of the minister in his deficiency --

Mr. Lewis: The member for Rainy River asked him and got an undertaking --

Mr. Reid: I asked him explicitly.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I cannot bring it to the attention of the hon. minister right now because he’s not present but I’ll do that immediately. I promise it.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. di Santo moved first reading of Bill 61,

An Act to amend The Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

[3:45]

Mr. di Santo: The bill requires that employers with 20 or more employees hire injured workers with permanent partial disabilities.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Peterson: I must say I’m very grateful to rise on behalf of my party to participate in this debate. At the outset, I would just like to say how very grateful I am to many, many people for assisting me in this undertaking. I must say it’s a massive undertaking. The books of this province are complicated and sophisticated. It takes a lot of assistance and a lot of help and I’ve had that from a lot of people outside of this Legislature who have been good enough to contribute their views and to assist us in the formulation of our policy.

In addition, I want to thank the really first-rate research department that we have in this party today.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: When did they start? Yesterday?

Mr. Peterson: You just watch. You’ll be devastated when you hear it. I want to particularly mention, if I may, two people, Mrs. Daphne Rutherford and Miss Jane Shapiro, who worked very hard on this and were a great help to me.

In fairness too, I want to thank the Treasurer because in my experience with the Treasurer and his department they have always been fair and honourable to me and to my staff in the presentation of their numbers, in assisting. God knows, we have lots of disagreements over the

interpretation of those numbers, but never once have we asked and been denied. Never once have we, in my judgement at least, had things interpreted only in his light. I appreciate that kind of fairness.

Before I start, I will say -- and it’s probably the last nice thing I’m going to say about him today, so I should just say it -- it’s a measure of the Treasurer’s confidence that he’s willing to share these kinds of things and some kind of indication of his command of his portfolio. That’s not to say he’s right by any stretch of the imagination in a lot of the judgements he makes.

Mr. Conway: Maybe he is going for Joe Clark’s job.

Mr. Peterson: At least he’s got a little bigger chin than Joe Clark. He might be able to make it. But I do appreciate that. I must say that I wore a used suit today, Mr. Speaker. It’s interesting that the member for Ottawa Centre had to take his suit back today. I think that’s some sort of indication.

Mr. Moffatt: Who owns the suit?

Mr. Peterson: I want you to know that I own this suit. I do not rent this suit.

Mr. Ruston: He’s had it for 10 years.

Mr. Peterson: Granted it’s old and granted it’s not very attractive, but it is mine. We value private property in this party and we don’t think that you necessarily should have to rent everything. I want you to know that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Moffatt: Who owns the cloth?

Mr. Bullbrook: Would you put everything else on a blind person except that suit?

Mr. Peterson: It’s my intention in the next little while to share with the Legislature and the people of Ontario our party’s assessment of the financial state of the province at this time, our prospects for the future and our assessment of the prospects of this province for the future. We shall do this in the context of what are, in our judgement, some very serious fiscal and management errors in the past.

That’s not to imply that this government alone is responsible for all of our problems, because that isn’t the case. Nor is it the only government in the free world to have been seduced by the temptation to spend far beyond its ability to create the financial resources or trapped into unwise financial and management decisions. But the inescapable fact remains that the mistakes of others do not justify the mistakes of this government. They do not justify the failure to react or the failure to look ahead to protect the people of this province.

Clearly it is this government’s past failures which have so severely limited the options available to us today. This province’s capacity to pay and to borrow have been so overextended that now when we so desperately need massive stimulation to reduce the staggering unemployment rate in this province there simply is no room to manoeuvre. The government has created this situation and the government alone must shoulder that blame.

May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party in Ontario has always believed in and supported the concept of fiscal responsibility and we always will. I am proud that in a large measure we had an influence as a party in bringing this to the attention of the people of this province. We don’t think the job of repair has been satisfactory enough; but we are responsible for that and I say that with some pride, Mr. Speaker.

It is our opinion that even within the confines of the present situation, the Treasurer could have done a better job with following a policy of fiscal responsibility, and at the same time relieving many of the hardships of the people of this province and also securing some kind of worthwhile future. I intend to set forth, in as clear and rational a manner as I possibly can, our carefully considered policy options, as well as analysis of past and present mistakes on the part of the government. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be very cool and rational and I will not be excited when I do this.

It’s obvious that when I do, when I point out to the Treasurer that he’s wrong, he gets very excited and he starts to yell almost involuntarily. We don’t want him to have a stroke or break a blood vessel, because there are enough dead people in the cabinet already. We are prepared to keep him alive for just a little while longer.

Mr. Breaugh: Marvin might get apoplexy.

Mr. Peterson: Where is Marvin? Has he died already?

Mr. Conway: Marvin’s gone after the Social Credit nomination.

Mr. Breaugh: He’s chairman of the committee.

Mr. Riddell: Where are the Tories? It is interesting to note there are four of them over there.

Mr. Peterson: Don’t worry; we are going to mail them all copies of this.

Mr. Conway: We have the only one that’s important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Can we have some order please? The hon. member for London Centre has the floor, and I hope he will ignore the interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My party is becoming very unruly they are so excited about all of this.

Mr. Breaugh: Takes all the credit, doesn’t he?

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this government’s recent policies have brought the province to a position where it is lagging behind the nation as a whole in virtually every leading economic indicator. Ontario’s economy is suffering from the highest unemployment in decades; 312,000 people unemployed in March, a real rate of 7.9 per cent. We are suffering from continuing high inflation and under-utilization of our manufacturing industries. There is stagnation in our mining industry and widespread lack of confidence among consumers and businessmen alike.

The figures for 1976 produced in the recent budget provide a clear indication of the extent to which our economy is under-performing. Due to unemployment and underemployment, personal income tax revenues are $172 million below budget. As a result of lack of consumer confidence, retail sales tax revenues are $107 million below budget. The crisis in our mines is reflected in mining profits taxes which yielded only 42 per cent of their budget.

Weak markets, high costs and general uncertainty which have plagued businessmen, have resulted in a shortfall of $95 million in corporate income tax revenue to the province. Our budgetary deficit is now running $302 million over budget. Also over budget are: Net cash requirements, by $158 million; net debt, by $212 million; net non-public borrowing, including Canada Pension Plan, OMERS and teachers’ superannuation plan, by $72 million,

This government has not, it is clear, been capable of living up to its own restraint measures. Our economy is in serious trouble and there are no signs of improvement.

Businessmen still lack confidence in our economic prospects. The Bank of Montreal questioned 1,212 Ontario businessmen recently. Forty-six per cent plan less capital spending this year than in 1976 and we have been behind consistently for the past five years. Eighty-one per cent expect their business will not improve in 1977 compared with poor performance in 1976. Consumer confidence remains low.

Now Mr. Speaker, a prudent government, a government which had cut back on deficits during times of prosperity, would not now be so limited in its ability to overcome an economic slowdown. A good Treasurer must be a little bit like a squirrel, Mr. Speaker. He has got to store up in the good times for the bad times. I must say that my analogy with the squirrel and this particular Treasurer only goes as far as a similarity in looks -- I mean only when he chuckles, not all of the time.

This budget is at best a stand-pat budget. It is an attempt to repair the damage of the past. It is a backward looking, traditional budget, very much lacking in imagination, which demonstrates all too clearly that this government has made no adjustment in priorities and has no awareness of the changes that have taken place in our economy.

The day before the new budget was brought down, newspaper photographs showed the Treasurer with his feet up in the air, flaunting his 1977 budget and smiling from ear to ear. His sense of humour is somewhat peculiar because I can tell the House that this budget brings little cheer to many of the hard-pressed citizens of this province, especially to the thousands and hundreds of thousands that are unemployed.

By and large, it’s a big guy’s budget. It’s disappointing to those in need of assistance, to those who are desperately seeking jobs -- particularly a whole generation now coming into the work force -- and to the ordinary people who are trying, against enormous odds, to withstand economic forces that are out of control. It is also a disappointment to those of us who are concerned about the future. It provides no leadership in vital matters of energy, environment or industrial strategy.

Before I embark on a detailed discussion of this budget, I want to review briefly this government’s past economic performance, because this budget is part of a pattern.

In 1971, the year of the first Davis-McKeough budget, the Treasurer announced his intention to “maintain firm control over public spending.” He was clearly less than successful in carrying out this intention because provincial government expenditures increased by some 15.5 per cent that year -- almost $1 billion. The deficit reached a record $1.018 billion that year -- an election year. Final spending figures were more than $1 billion higher than budgetary estimates.

The Treasurer promised us rigorous restraint on spending in 1972. What he delivered was an expenditure increase of almost $450 million -- about 7.5 per cent. That was the year that government spending increased 50 per cent more than the cost of living, the year government spending was more than $1 billion higher than original estimates.

The House will recall that the former member for London South, Mr. White, was Treasurer for the following two provincial budgets. He faithfully maintained the tradition of huge deficits and uncontrolled government spending.

Mr. Nixon: If we only had Charlie MacNaughton back.

Mr. Peterson: In 1973 the stated objective was to exercise maximum restraint in provincial spending. How was this interpreted in practical terms? By calling for a spending increase of $750 million, up 11.7 per cent from the previous year. When all the figures were in, spending had increased by some $811 million, $51 million more than the Treasurer had estimated. Spending was up 12.7 per cent in a year when inflation in Ontario was advancing at 7.6 per cent.

Presenting the 1974 budget, the Treasurer informed the people of Ontario, as if they didn’t already know, that the most important problem facing us today is inflation. Is it starting to sound familiar? Spending in the public sector must be controlled, he said, and promptly called for an increase in government spending of 14.9 per cent, while at the same time predicting that the inflation rate for the general economy would be 7.7 per cent by the end of that fiscal year.

It was obvious that the government had yet again underestimated its spending requirements for the fourth consecutive year, because the predicted increase of 14.2 per cent had jumped to 20.8 per cent. The budget was overspent by approximately $385 million.

Apparently deficit financing had become almost a matter of government policy. In the 1970-71 financial year, Ontario’s budgetary and non-budgetary deficit was $566 million. The following year, an election year, it was more than $1 billion. In 1972-73 it was $744 million. In 1973-74 it was $708 million.

When the provincial budget was brought down for the fiscal year 1975-76, we learned the government was going into debt by $1.7 billion, with government expenditures increasing by 16.8 per cent -- $1.5 billion. A mini-budget was subsequently produced and updated to December 1975, by which time the increase in government spending had jumped from 16.8 per cent to 21.2 per cent.

An hon. member: A political whitewash.

Mr. Peterson: Budgetary and non-budgetary deficit figures updated to December 1975 were almost $2 billion.

Mr. S. Smith: The year of the big giveaway.

Mr. Peterson: In 1976, after five years of preaching restraint and the need for control over the economy, budgetary and non-budgetary expenditures finally came in $11 million below the original budget estimate. However, revenues were overestimated by $169 million, so that net cash requirements for 1976 increased by $158 million to almost $1.4 billion. Government spending is up by almost 12 per cent. The budget has been overspent by $55 million and the budgetary deficit is $302 million over what was estimated.

[4:00]

An hon. member: Work along with Davis.

Mr. Peterson: After all this talk about restraint, it is my judgement that this cannot truly be called restraint or disciplined financial planning of any type.

Mr. Conway: Profligacy.

Mr. Peterson: What kind of restraint and what manner of fiscal management are reflected in a record that shows that in the four years from 1970 to 1974 the province’s accumulated net debt more than doubled -- from $1.4 billion to $2.9 billion? By March 1976, two years later, this provincial net debt more than doubled again, rising to $6.2 billion.

Mr. Nixon: Plus Hydro.

Mr. Peterson:

Whereas it would have cost $185.03 per person to pay off Ontario’s debt in 1970, that figure has increased four and a half times in six years, so that by 1976 the per capita cost of debt is $735.43. The projection for 1977 is $840.42 per capita.

In

summary, here’s the Conservative legacy of fiscal responsibility since John Robarts’ last full year as Premier: Budgetary expenditures almost tripled -- from $4.2 billion to $11.8 billion, an average annual rate of increase of 15.8 per cent. The projection for 1977 is close to $13 billion. Budgetary deficits total $4.8 billion; the projection for 1977 adds almost another billion to that deficit. The province’s net debt has quadrupled; it has increased 300 per cent from $1.5 billion to over $6 billion. The projection for 1977 has the net debt rising a further 16 per cent to $7.2 billion.

The net debt per capita has increased 297 per cent, from $185.03 to $735.43, and is projected to rise this year to $840.42, an annual increase of 14 per cent. The net debt as a percentage of gross provincial product has increased by 93 per cent; with 1977 projection, that increase will be 100 per cent. The net debt as a percentage of budgetary revenue has jumped by more than three-quarters, from 31.9 per cent to 58.7 per cent. For 1977 the percentage is expected to rise to 60.1 per cent.

Interest payments on the public debt rose 325 per cent from $209 million to $889 million. Projections for 1977 show a further increase of 17 per cent to a total of over $1 billion annually in interest payments in this province. That’s $2.85 million a day in interest. I regret that this speech is going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money, because every minute I am talking means something like $2,000 a minute in interest for this province.

Mr. Nixon: Shame.

Mr. Roy: Do you wonder why the province is in a mess, Darcy?

Mr. Peterson: What has transpired and what I want to discuss next, after putting the recent performance in a relevant context, is the effect of these massive deficits on the economy, and what has happened to our financial status and financial standing in the province at this time.

As a result of constant deficit spending, the triple-A credit rating of this province was placed in serious jeopardy last year. An extract from Standard and Poor’s rating report contained the following comment: “While Ontario continues its dominant position among the provinces of Canada, we are concerned about its increasing deficits. We are continuing our high-grade rating on the province of Ontario’s direct obligation debentures and notes, but we will watch Ontario’s economic and financial activities closely.” It was at this point that external forces started to govern this province.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Mr. Peterson: John McDowell of Standard and Poor was quoted as saying, “Our big concern is the budget deficit in Ontario. They say it is to stimulate the economy. We could understand that when it was $200 million to $300 million, but this thing sometimes seems to be getting a little out of hand. We’ve gone along with it this year, but only on the basis that it is temporary.”

Mr. S. Smith: You preach restraint, but it was forced on you.

Mr. Peterson: Both rating agencies, Moody’s and Standard and Poor, issued a clear warning that they would like to see a fast reduction of the Ontario government’s spending deficit. The implication of a reduction in our credit rating would be an increase in our cost of borrowing money, and a decrease in the availability of funds for us. The importance of this is obvious, when consideration is given to the huge borrowing needs of Ontario Hydro, the debentures of which are guaranteed by the province of Ontario. What clearer indication can the Treasurer have had of the danger of constant deficit spending, which he has guaranteed this province until 1981?

While the Treasurer may remain blissfully unaware of the seriousness of the problem, at least one of his cabinet colleagues is not. In a speech in Belleville earlier this month, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) stressed that drastic steps are needed to retain the financial credibility of Ontario.

Mr. Conway: Build another Minaki.

Mr. Peterson: Drastic steps to remedy this serious situation are nowhere to be found in the present budget. To date, Ontario has been relying on pension funds to finance its yearly deficit. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to read into the record so this is very clear in everyone’s mind, just how we are financing them, by how much and who is paying for these very serious deficits we are running.

I would like to read in the totals by year from various pension funds -- Canada Pension Plan, teachers’ superannuation fund, municipal employees’ retirement fund, and others. In 1972-73 it was $780 million; 1973-74, $938 million; 1974-75, $1.156 billion; 1975-76, $1.23 billion; 1976-77, $1.318 billion; and projected 1977-78, $1.335 billion.

Mr. Nixon: It’ll take all that borrowing to pay the interest next year.

Mr. Peterson: We are borrowing in projected 1977-78 from the following pension funds: Canada Pension Plan, $850 million; teachers’ superannuation fund, $260 million; municipal employees’ retirement fund, $190 million; and other in-house, $35 million, for a total of $1.335 billion, to finance a net cash requirement of $1.077 billion.

The danger in this heavy reliance on internal pension funds to finance the province’s deficit spending is that these borrowing sources will soon not be available. Here we have another external force coming into play, managing this province. The Canada Pension Plan will run out in about 1982 if the current contribution rate remains unchanged. That is the point at which payouts from the fund will rise to equal contributions into the fund and the surplus cash flow for the province will become negative.

The Treasurer has proposed in recent years the doubling of the contribution rate in order to keep a surplus available from which the provinces could borrow. What he’s saying is that the taxpayer, the contributor to the Canada Pension Plan, should put in money to finance the provincial deficit. In my judgement that’s totally irresponsible.

Mr. Good: Shame. It is not what the Treasurer says; it’s worse.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would be interested where you got that quote.

Mr. Peterson: I will bring it over to you. I’ll send you a copy.

The time has come to face up to the fact that inflation has resulted in the indexing of pensions paid out. It has therefore become increasingly more important for the investment of pension funds to earn the highest possible rate of return for their future recipients, and not the average seven or eight per cent currently being received from Ontario debentures.

A joint study group looking at investment policies of the Ontario Municipal Employees’ Retirement System has concluded that the fund should be invested in a broader range of Canadian securities, to obtain a higher rate of return than the non-marketable province of Ontario debentures, in which it is now invested, are yielding. This is becoming increasingly necessary with inflation forcing the indexing of pensions. Higher payouts necessitate receiving the highest possible rate of return on investment.

Two of the questions upon which the joint study group based its decision are as follows: Should the province deny to OMERS the opportunity to maximize the rate of return on the system’s investments indefinitely? Should the province’s borrowing needs or money costs be a factor in the determination of OMERS investment policies?

The major findings of the joint study group were: If OMERS future contributions were to be invested in a full range of marketable securities under The Pension Benefits Act and the regulations thereunder, rather than non-marketable Ontario debentures, the study group’s studies support the finding that OMERS would achieve a higher return on the system’s funds possibly from a minimum of, say, three quarters on one per cent per annum to a maximum of approximately one and a quarter per cent per annum.

Such a high return, on the basis of the funds to be available for investment, would increase the system’s investment income substantially.

Mr. S. Smith: You win your elections on the backs of the pension funds.

Mr. Peterson: Therefore, OMERS best interests would be served by the authorization of a programme to phase out the non-marketable Ontario debenture as an investment for OMERS within a relatively short period of time.

In

summary, the major recommendation was, every investment specialist whom the study group consulted -- investment dealers, managers of investments for pension funds, investment counsellors and others -- was of the opinion that the best interests of the employers and the members of OMERS would be served if the moneys of OMERS were invested, as other pension funds are invested with minor exceptions, in marketable securities in the Canadian capital market.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No commissions paid.

Mr. S. Smith: You believe in free enterprise, don’t you?

Mr. Peterson: The teachers’ superannuation fund will in all likelihood follow this lead and broaden its investment portfolio, and the province then will simply not be able to borrow as much from these sources.

Again, as in previous years, the Treasurer has spent an amount equal to revenue, plus the amount of in-house borrowing available from pension funds. Once again there is no incentive to balance the budget any closer than whatever amount is available from these in-house sources. This amount is another $1.3 billion this year.

The problem with relying on these pension funds is that the government is building up a certain level of expenditures. When these sources are no longer available to finance government spending, the expenditure pattern will have to be drastically altered. Think of the drastic measures the government will have to take to decrease spending this year if it did not have access to the $1.3 billion from internal pension funds.

This year’s budget contained a five-year forecast aimed at balancing the budget by the year 1981. By a strange coincidence that is the last year that money will be available from the Canada Pension Plan as a borrowing source -- the source that has sustained a lion’s share of the Treasurer’s deficit financing and which this year will supply us with $850 million. Had this large pool of capital been available for free enterprise in this 10-year period from 1971 to 1981, just think of what we could have done in housing, in energy, in mining and all the places that need the capital today.

Our business climate in all likelihood would have been substantially healthier and the provincial government would not find itself in a situation of having to look for ways to stimulate our business environment. That is the tragedy.

Mr. Bain: The Treasurer is undermining free enterprise.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer has chosen to over-extend the province’s spending every year, monopolizing the pension fund capital to finance the deficits, and now the residents of Ontario must pay interest for years into the future for the irresponsible spending habits of this government and its predecessors.

Mr. Bain: How far do you go back? To Mitch Hepburn?

Mr. Peterson: We have discussed with several senior economists and representatives of larger financial institutions the implications for Canadian capital markets if governments were not borrowing to this extent -- the implications for capital availability and ultimately interest rates. For example, what would be the implication of freeing up the province of Ontario’s pension plans and the CPP for private enterprise rather than for provincial use?

The consensus is that if governments were not crowding out private enterprise through excessive borrowing and use of Canada Pension Plan funds to finance increasingly large deficits, (1) inflation would not be nearly as high in this province, (2) the stock market would not have taken the beating it did when investment activity turned down in 1974 and (3) the greater availability of funds in the absence of government borrowing activity would have kept interest rates down and at least we would have not had as much pressure exerted on interest rates to increase. The effects would have been profound throughout the entire economy.

I want to read something that came from the Ontario Economic Council yesterday to support the proposition that the Treasurer may have no incentive to balance the budget. Our view that the Treasurer has no incentive to balance the budget any closer than the level of provincial expenditures plus the amount available from borrowing from the pension funds has been endorsed by the Ontario Economic Council in its report just released yesterday.

“One factor contributing to the continuing growth of the public sector has been the availability of large flows of non-public borrowing, wedded to net cash requirements, at a rate of interest less than the market rate.” The report singles out as the most important development affecting Ontario’s finances in the next decade the dramatic reduction in the future availability of non-public sources of funds. It strongly suggests that provincial government financing will be complicated in the 1980s by a decline in net financing from non-public sources such as the Canada Pension Plan, teachers’ superannuation fund and OMERS.

The declaration of growth of the CPP funds has raised many questions about alternative methods of financing, the most obvious one being an increase in the contribution rate, as the Treasurer has suggested. It is known, however, that even this would only postpone -- not eliminate -- the day in which the province could no longer rely on CPP as a net source of new finance. The council warns that there is no reason to believe that the provincial government would not respond to this increased availability of funds from CPP by also increasing provincial expenditures.

We in the Liberal Party have been aware of these deficits that have accompanied the years in which in-house borrowing was readily available.

[4:15]

The council concludes that

section by stating: “To the extent that the availability in the past of CPP and other non-public sources of funds has served as a stimulus to government spending, then the reduced availability may exert a constraining influence in the future. For this dubious blessing, perhaps we should be somewhat grateful.

Reduction in borrowing requirements by all levels of government make for a healthier capital market, simply because it would mean that governments were not spending as much; therefore, more capital would be available. I would like to cite total amounts borrowed by governments in the private sector in Canada last year, based on Bank of Canada review statistics: Federal government, $2.6 billion; provincial governments, $3.7 billion; municipal governments, $500 million; corporations, $1.4 billion.

You will notice that all corporations in Canada raised $1.4 billion domestically. Yet the province of Ontario alone is provided with $1.3 billion from its own internal pension funds and its share of the CPP. In other words, the pension funds of this province of Ontario, along with the portion of CPP allotted to Ontario, could have single-handedly financed almost 100 per cent of the total money borrowed domestically by all corporations of Canada.

And those people on the other side of the House run around asking: “Who is killing free enterprise?” I can tell them it is not us and it is not even our friends that much to the right.

Mr. Bain: For Hansard, that’s the NDP he referred to.

Mr. Peterson: It’s those opposite. It’s them who are crowding it out.

It is them who are leaving no room for anyone else to move. All governments are guilty and this one is one of the big offenders.

Just to bring this into perspective, I want to discuss Ontario’s position relative to the other provinces. Just to show that things can be done.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: The historical pattern of this government’s fiscal policies is particularly significant when viewed against the background of similar development in other selected provinces and the Canadian national average. Let’s consider the compound annual rate of growth in gross provincial direct and guaranteed debt in Ontario between 1968 and 1975; this was 14.5 per cent. This is the third highest growth rate in the increase of debt in this country. Moreover, the actual debt is greater in size than Quebec’s by $4.5 million, Alberta’s by $10.8 million and by British Columbia’s by $9.1 million.

The per capita compound annual growth rate in gross provincial direct and guaranteed debt for Ontario between 1968 and 1975 was 12.5 per cent. This is the third highest growth rate in the country. In 1968, Ontario ranked second behind Alberta in having the lowest debt per capita. By 1975, Ontario had dropped to fifth place. While Ontario has the highest personal income per capita in the country at present, the compound annual growth rate of personal income, per capita, between 1968 and 1975 in Ontario was the lowest in Canada at --

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Mr. Peterson: -- 9.8 per cent compared to 10.4 per cent in British Columbia, 11.3 per cent in Quebec, 12 per cent in Alberta. In these circumstances we cannot hope and can’t reasonably expect that Ontario is going to maintain its