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

June 11, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L068 - Mon 11 Jun 1979 / Lun 11 jun 1979

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

PHOTOGRAPHIC GUIDE TO THE LEGISLATURE

MEMBERS’ ANNIVERSARIES

NANTICOKE CONTRACT

X-RAY EQUIPMENT OPERATORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EMISSIONS OF TRITIUM

VICTIM AID SERVICE

ORAL QUESTIONS

NANTICOKE CONTRACT

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

VISITOR

WINDSOR METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL

MINIMUM WAGE DIFFERENTIAL

GLENLEA CLINIC CLOSURE

TRANSIT BARGAINING

SCHOOL BOARD FUNDING

DOMESTIC WORKERS

GUELPH COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTRE

HUNT’S-WOMAN’S BAKERY

NANTICOKE CONTRACT

HEALTH BOARD-COLLEGE DISPUTE

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

CONVENTIONS

CHEMICAL PRICES

OHIP CLAIMS PROCESSING

REPORT

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr. Speaker: If I could, I would like to have the attention of all honourable members for a moment or two.

On Thursday last, June 7, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) asked me to consider as a point of order whether the government was, in fact, complying with standing order 32(

c) in not tabling as part of the compendia on the introduction of government bills those opinion polls which the various ministries have had taken from time to time.

I have considered the question very carefully and I fail to see how I can be expected to know what was, or what was not, the background information considered by a minister and his staff when preparing legislation. The minister tables what he considers to be the compendium required by the standing order, and there is no way that I can look behind his decision.

PHOTOGRAPHIC GUIDE TO THE LEGISLATURE

Mr. Speaker: I would also like to bring to the attention of all honourable members that this coming Thursday morning between the hours of 11:15 and 11:45, I have arranged for a photograph to be taken on the front lawn of all members and staff who work in this Legislative Building. Her Honour has graciously consented to take part, as has the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) and the leader of the New Democratic Party. This photograph will be used in the first photographic guide to be produced on the Legislature, which will be released early in October.

I am enthusiastic about this event, and I think all those employed in this building will want to be a part of this permanent record.

I would also like to point out that official photographs for the handbook will be taken during question period in this chamber on Thursday afternoon from a number of vantage points, and I would suggest that all members be present, if humanly possible, at that time.

Mr. S. Smith: May I rise on a matter of privilege, please, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t know how your privileges could have been abrogated by either of those statements, but go ahead.

Mr. S. Smith: Just thinking of that mass of people on the front steps shook me.

MEMBERS’ ANNIVERSARIES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise because I understand that today is the 20th anniversary of the election to this House of certain members. In particular, to begin with, I want to mention the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman), who is celebrating his 20th anniversary. I want simply to say that member has been a very forthright and forceful representative for his constituents and has conducted himself in this House, and in his personal relationships with members of all parties, in a very gentlemanly way and has been a real credit to the entire political process in the province of Ontario.

As members know, he is a man who contributed greatly to our country in the training of gymnasts as well as in his educational career. While not wishing to take excessive time to go into all his contributions, I want simply to say that he has served Windsor well, he has served Ontario well, he has served Canada well, and we trust he will have many more years to serve all of us in this Legislature.

While I am on my feet, may I also say a word about two members opposite who are also celebrating their 20th anniversary. We certainly want to wish both of them very well. One is the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Rollins), who is in his seat. The other is the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis), who is not here at the moment, but who we all wish only the best at this time.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, as a student of the classics, I am sure you know that when great events occur there are signs and portents, usually meteorological portents. Anyone who experienced the rain storms of last night or the tornado that occurred over Brampton will know that there was some kind of a heavenly commemoration of the event that occurred 20 years ago to the member originally for Peel and now for Brampton.

I might say, in congratulating him on his 20 years of service, along with the member for Windsor-Walkerville, that of course that does not necessarily mean we wish him as many years in the future as we have wished him well for the past.

Mr. Breaugh: Twenty and out.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. That’s a good slogan.

I do want to say, though, that since he has been in the House for only 20 years we resolve not to hold him responsible for everything that has been done by the Conservatives over the time they have been in power.

While I am on my feet, I might mark the fact that Saturday last was the 24th anniversary of the election to this Legislature of my friend and colleague and our former leader, the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), along with the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton). They have spent 24 years in the House.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion when we are recognizing the anniversaries of certain members elected to this Legislature, I think we are also recognizing the birthday of probably the oldest living former member of this Legislature, the former member for Renfrew South, the Honourable Thomas P. Murray, who celebrated his 99th birthday yesterday.

Mr. Murray happens to be the grandfather of the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). Just Thursday morning last we were at Sutton Place at the Ontario Forest Industries Association meeting. They remarked in their opening talks that morning that because of conditions in the industry back in the early forties that association had been formed.

I have before me the minutes of the meeting that took place on March 12, 1940, at which the Honourable Peter Heenan, then Minister of Lands and Forests, and other notable members of the Legislature, including Mr. Murray, and representatives of various forest industries were present. At that time, they discussed the many problems facing the industry. From that meeting was born, I believe, the Ontario Forest Industries Association. I am sure Mr. Murray played some

part in that. Yesterday the honourable gentleman celebrated his 99th birthday.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: On rising today on behalf of the government, I would first have to concur with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party and my good friend from Renfrew South.

On this side of the House, we feel very proud that 20 years ago this particular election took place. I would have to say I was quite actively involved in that election on June 11, 1959.

Mr. Breaugh: For which party?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The House would really not believe me if I openly admitted to them that I worked for all the parties on that particular day.

Mr. Breaugh: That doesn’t surprise me a bit.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I was the returning officer. I would have to admit that I did have some personal feelings with respect to it.

Mr. McClellan: Recount.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The Premier of Ontario was elected to the Legislature at that time. Since his election there have been many changes in Ontario and he has played an active role in those changes. We in this party, as part of the government, believe our Premier will continue serving, serving, and serving again. When one looks back over at these three members who were elected 20 years ago, one sees they have now successfully completed six elections. That in itself is a record. We are very proud, first of our Premier, but also of all three of them. We offer our congratulations to all of them on the service they have given to the people of Ontario and to their own home ridings.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition. I heard some of his comments through one of those mechanical devices and I do say to him that they were probably the most objective observations he has made in recent years.

As I was moving through the offices, I heard through another speaker the observations of the member for Ottawa Centre. I do thank the two leaders opposite for their kind words. I thank my colleague, the former returning officer in Lambton county.

[2:15]

Mr. Nixon: He is the returning officer in Peel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, although I would say to the former leader of the Liberal Party during my first election, thinking back, I wish the member for Lambton had been the returning officer in Peel.

I also want to extend my best wishes to those others who share this anniversary with me on both sides of the House. I know I speak for them when I say it seems most days like only yesterday. Other days, it seems like quite a bit longer.

I would also like in this House, Mr. Speaker, through you, to say a word of appreciation to the citizens of the now city of Brampton, the then county of Peel for the support I have enjoyed from them for this relatively short period of time. I listened carefully to the observations of the Minister of Government Services. While no one can predict with any degree of accuracy how long one stays in public life, I can only say while there are some days I maybe feel a little differently, I have always enjoyed the fellowship in this House, the spirit of competitiveness and the fair play usually demonstrated by the members opposite. I wish to express my appreciation to them on this occasion.

Twenty years in any person’s lifetime is a substantial part thereof, and yet I think I can speak for every member in this House when I say I can’t think of many other professions, callings or vocations where one gets the same sense of satisfaction as one does in public service. I really have very few, if any, regrets for the time I have spent in public life. I say that on a personal basis. It doesn’t necessarily reflect the views of my wife, my five children, or the two dogs.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members opposite, my appreciation.

Mr. B. Newman: On this most important day in my life, I would like to first thank my leader, the member for Hamilton West, for his kind comments as well as the leader of the third party, the member for Ottawa Centre, and the other two members who have had the opportunity of making a few comments.

Not like the member for Lambton who was once a returning officer, I happen to be very fortunate in being a returning member, for which I thank the good citizens in the great riding of Windsor-Walkerville.

When one looks back at political life, I could say I’m one of the successful failures. In 20 years I’ve been successful at elections but never have been successful in taking those 15 or 20 steps over to the other side of the House.

Mr. Nixon: Next time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh come on Bernie, any time. Any day.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Then it would be the most important day of your life.

Mr. B. Newman: But hope springs eternal in the human breast and I know in the not too distant future the good citizens of Ontario will see that not only myself but the rest of us here in the Liberal caucus have that opportunity of seeing what it is like over there and looking at our counterparts on this side of the House.

Mr. Bradley: In fact, you will want to join us then.

Mr. Hennessy: I’ve got my own party.

Mr. B. Newman: One of the nice things in public life is that you have the opportunity of meeting so many nice people on a personal basis. You meet citizens who may have problems and others who may not and as a result of one’s political position, be quite often able to render them assistance.

Another very pleasant thing is you meet so many nice ladies and gentlemen right here in this Legislature.

Mr. Nixon: That covers about 10 per cent.

Mr. B. Newman: I want to thank each and every one of them for the kindnesses they have extended to me in the past and for the kindnesses I know each of them will extend in the future.

Mr. Rollins: I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the Leader of the Opposition and our Premier for their kind remarks.

My riding was Hastings East when I started. Later it was Hastings, and at the present time it’s Hastings-Peterborough. I have been very fortunate to have the support of the good people of those rural ridings. It has been a pleasure working with elected members of different political views, always with the one objective of working on behalf of the people of Ontario in a progressive way. After all, how could they do anything else under the leadership we have had from the previous Premiers of Ontario for that last 20 years?

I can only say that being elected here has given me a lot of experience. I have tried to serve the rural people, and sometimes I believe the Premier wonders what will happen next in the rural ridings. However, rural municipalities and the positions they take have been an objective of mine and will continue to be so.

I would like to thank you for this opportunity of saying a few words on this very memorable day and what it means to me after being elected at the same time as our Premier. I have had the greatest respect for his views and the objectives he’s had for the people of this province and I will continue to do so.

NANTICOKE CONTRACT

Mr. Cassidy: I have two brief points of privilege I would like to raise in the House. Last Friday, the Minister for Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) stated that Ministry of the Environment officials had visited, three times, the company Canadian Applied Technology, about whose loss of contract we were inquiring in the Legislature. The minister said all of their products were seen both in preparation and under test prior to delivery, so the site was visited on three occasions.

We have talked to the company and to their knowledge, neither during nor before the final award of that contract were there any such visits to their premises by officials of the Ministry of the Environment.

X-RAY EQUIPMENT OPERATORS

Mr. Cassidy: Also on a point of privilege, last week the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) responded in writing to a question which came from me about operators of X-ray equipment in the ministry’s chest X-ray clinics. The minister said in his written reply that discussions are underway with the Ontario Society of Radiological Technicians to find a method of upgrading the unregistered employees to enable them to become members of the OSRT. The response indicated that all but nine of those employees are now unregistered.

We have spoken to the president of the Ontario Society of Radiological Technicians who tells us that no such discussions of the kind mentioned by the Minister of Health are taking place with respect to upgrading unregistered employees. A training course offered by the ministry to those employees is not recognized by the society and will not be accepted by them. This is a misstatement by the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to document the dates of meetings that were held. I know that within the last month or so, Dr. Rorabeck wrote to the society to confirm various discussions. I will be glad to document dates to confirm this.

The understanding of the people who advise me is that they are to come back to us with a proposal as to how to assist those people who meet the present regulation but who are not registered in the society to become registered.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EMISSIONS OF TRITIUM

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would like to deal with the questions raised in this House on May 31 concerning the level of tritium in the drinking water of the town of Pickering. I would also like to deal with some additional questions which members have had and may have concerning emissions of tritium from Rolphton, Pickering A, Bruce A and Douglas Point. Before dealing with these questions, however, I would like to provide members with some background information concerning tritium.

Tritium is a type of radioactive hydrogen which emits very weak radiation and which interacts with the tissues of the body only if it is inhaled or ingested. Of all the radioactive substances known, tritium is considered the most innocuous, for the following reasons:

1. The amount of radiation released when it undergoes radioactive decay is less than that released by any other nuclide;

2. It does not constitute an external radiation hazard, because its radiation does not penetrate the skin;

3. It is eliminated from the body rapidly -- one half is eliminated every 10 days; and

4. It does not concentrate in any particular organ of the body.

Tritium is produced in nature by the interaction of cosmic rays with the earth’s atmosphere and, therefore, is found naturally, in varying quantities, in air, water and vegetation. Naturally-occurring tritium is one of many radioactive substances which emit ionizing radiation to which mankind is constantly exposed.

Nuclear generating stations can and do emit tritium into the environment, in both airborne and water effluents. These emissions are the result of very small but unavoidable heavy-water leaks. The result is slightly higher levels of tritium than would otherwise be the case from naturally occurring tritium alone.

To protect the public, the Atomic Energy Control Board has established two types of limits: one dealing with the maximum levels of radioactive materials in any effluents emitted from nuclear generating stations (these are called “derived emission limits”); the other dealing with the maximum level of radiation which a member of the public can be exposed to as a result of the operation of nuclear generating stations (this is called “the maximum permissible dose of ionizing radiation”).

The derived emission limits set by the AECB for tritium are as follows.

1. For tritium contained in airborne effluents, an annual average of 0.3 nanocuries per litre; and

2. For tritium contained in water effluents, an annual average of 5,500 nanocuries per litre with no short-term emissions to exceed 10 times the annual average.

For honourable members’ information, nanocuries per litre is a measure of the level of radioactivity in a litre of air or water; a nanocurie is one billionth of a curie.

The maximum permissible dose of ionizing radiation set by the AECB is 500 millirem per year. This is about five times the level which would be received from naturally occurring ionizing radiation in Ontario. In some areas of the world, the level which would be received from naturally occurring ionizing radiation is 5,000 millirem per year or even higher.

As members are aware, Ontario Hydro has established an operating target for its nuclear generating stations. That operating target is to remain within one per cent of the annual derived emission limits and the maximum permissible dose of ionizing radiation set by the AECB.

Ontario Hydro monitors the airborne effluents and water effluents from its nuclear generating stations to determine the level of any emissions of radioactive materials, including tritium. Airborne effluents are sampled continuously and measured daily. Water effluents which are likely to have become radioactive in the course of normal operations are sampled and measured before, and continuously during, their release. Water effluents which are not likely to have become radioactive in the course of normal operations are sampled continuously and measured weekly.

In addition to its station activities, Ontario Hydro monitors the drinking water of the Bruce nuclear power development and the towns of Deep River and Pickering and just recently commenced monitoring the drinking water of the towns of Port Elgin and Kincardine. At Pickering, Port Elgin, Kincardine and the Bruce nuclear power development, the drinking water is sampled weekly and measured monthly. At Deep River, the drinking water is sampled and measured on a spot basis, but no less frequently than monthly.

[2:30]

I have attached to this statement a series of tables showing the following:

1. The average annual emissions of tritium in airborne and water effluents from Rolphton since 1973; Pickering A since 1971; Bruce A since 1976; and Douglas Point since 1973;

2. The average annual level of tritium in the drinking water of the town of Deep River since 1975; the town of Pickering since 1973; and the Bruce nuclear power development since 1975;

3. The average level of tritium in the drinking water of Port Elgin and Kincardine for the first quarter of 1979; and

4. The level of tritium in Lake Ontario at various times over the past 30 years.

As members will note, none of the average annual emissions of tritium from Rolphton, Pickering A, Bruce A or Douglas Point A has exceeded Ontario Hydro’s operating target of one per cent of the AECB derived emission limits. As members will also note, the average annual level of tritium in the drinking water of the towns of Deep River and Pickering over the period 1973-78 did not exceed two nanocuries per litre. To put this into perspective for members, a person would have to drink the towns’ water for about 450 years to receive a level of radiation equal to a single chest X-ray.

Mr. S. Smith: Which X-ray machines are you speaking of?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Finally, members will note that the level of tritium in Lake Ontario has varied over the past 30 years. For example, prior to the commencement of the foreign nuclear weapons testing programs in the 1950s, the level of naturally occurring tritium in Lake Ontario water was about 0.02 nanocuries per litre. These nuclear weapons testing programs raised this level to about 10 nanocuries per litre in the early 1960s. However, by the late 1960s, the level had receded to about 0.75 nanocuries per litre, and today the level varies from 0.25 to 0.50 nanocuries per litre, depending on where one takes samples.

I should point out to the members that the figures for the emissions of tritium in the airborne and water effluents of Ontario Hydro’s nuclear generating stations, shown in the attached tables, are annual averages. Over the course of a year the levels of the emissions can and do fluctuate. Normally, these fluctuations are small. However, there can be, and sometimes are, short-term emissions which are higher.

For example, during the period of the recent and much publicized heat exchanger leaks at Pickering A earlier this year there were short-term emissions of higher concentrations of tritium in the station’s water effluent. One of these emissions -- in fact, the only one in the history of Pickering A -- exceeded the AECB’s short-term release limit of 10 times the annual derived emission limit.

That emission occurred during an 80-second period on February 28, 1979, when the level of tritium in the station’s water effluent reached 40 times the AECB’s short-term emission limit. I should emphasize to the members, however, that both before and after this 80-second emission the level of tritium in the station’s water effluent was less than one per cent of the AECB’s short-term emission limit.

For members’ information, Ontario Hydro sampled and measured the drinking water of the town of Pickering for a period after this short-term emission. The samples showed that the level of tritium in the drinking water of the town of Pickering rose to a level of 60 nanocuries per litre, or about one per cent of the AECB limit, for about six hours. This compares with the average level of tritium in the town’s drinking water for the first quarter of 1979 of 2.6 nanocuries per litre, or about 0.05 per cent of the AECB limit.

Ontario Hydro has advised me that it notified AECB of the short-term release promptly after it happened. As is Hydro’s usual practice, details of the release will be made public in Pickering’s quarterly report for the first quarter of 1979, which will be released soon.

Finally, I would like to describe briefly to the members the level of radiation from tritium to which a person residing in the vicinity of one of Ontario Hydro’s nuclear generating stations is likely to be exposed. There are three ways in which a person living in the immediate vicinity of a station can receive a radiation exposure from tritium: in the air he or she breathes; in the water he or she drinks; and in the food he or she eats.

Ontario Hydro estimates that a person who resided continuously at the boundary of Pickering A during 1978, drinking only the town of Pickering’s water and eating foodstuffs grown in the immediate vicinity of Pickering A, would have received a radiation exposure from tritium of less than two millirems, and a total radiation exposure from all radioactive emissions of between two millirems and three millirems.

Again, to put this into perspective for the members, this would be a radiation exposure equivalent to the additional radiation exposure a person would receive during a one-way jet flight from Toronto to Vancouver.

Finally, I would like to advise the members that extensive research has been carried out on the relative biological effects of tritium, both in Canada, at the Chalk River and Whiteshell nuclear establishments, and in other countries. A bibliography of this research is attached to the statement.

VICTIM AID SERVICE

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that beginning this month, your government, through the Ministry of Correctional Services, in co-operation with various community agencies, will be piloting a new service to help the victims of crime. The region of Peel has been selected as the test area for this victim aid service.

I am confident all members agree on the need for such a service. For too long, people who have had crimes committed against them have often been the forgotten losers in our criminal justice system. Our discussions with various groups in Peel, ranging from police and judges to the volunteer bureau and the local social services department, confirm strong community support for this new initiative.

For $40,000 in its one-year trial period we will be able to offer direct, concrete help to victims through community resources, rather than inventing a new government bureaucracy at great expense to the taxpayer.

Robert Thompson, a former United Church minister, and a Brampton probation/parole officer, will be the project co-ordinator. Working with him will be 20 people from the Brampton Volunteer Bureau, who will be able to assist up to 250 victims of crime over the next 12 months.

The Peel regional police will let our coordinator know, on a 24-hour basis, when assistance is needed. The trained volunteer aides will then provide a number of vital community services. These include cleaning up property damage, rescuing victims’ homes, contacting friends and relatives and, in certain instances, providing crisis counselling to ease emotional stress.

They will steer victims through appropriate government agencies for assistance in temporary housing or babysitting services. They will disentangle financial problems by contacting creditors if debt payments will be delayed. They will contact employers if victims require time off work. They will help to file insurance claims. And, in incidents of personal injury, they will assist victims in filing applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The project will offer aid in the trial process, where victims will be counselled on such matters as subpoenas, and their responsibilities as witnesses. Referrals for legal assistance will be expedited when required, volunteers will offer transportation to and from courts, an escort service during court proceedings, and will help collect witness fees or arrange child-care services. If a judge orders an offender to repay the victim, the volunteer will facilitate the collection of restitution money.

This project is consistent with other efforts by the Ministry of Correctional Services to recognize the rights of victims. Our probation and parole service has extensive community involvement and, as project coordinator, is a logical bridge between the criminal justice system and the volunteer movement in helping victims through the trauma and disruption of being robbed or vandalized.

If the new victim aid service is as successful as the agencies in Peel and this government believes it will be, we will extend the program to other Ontario communities.

Experience shows that the most effective and human way of delivering justice to the victims of crimes is through community participation. Common-sense caring by qualified volunteers can transcend bureaucratic or legalistic technicalities. Consequently, the Peel victim aid service is another important step by this government in attempting to ensure a fairer balance of justice for both offender and his victim.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NANTICOKE CONTRACT

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment on the subject of the company, Canadian Applied Technology, whose bid was turned down by his ministry in favour of Radian Corporation of Texas.

The minister received a letter from the company, dated April 24, 1979, which itemized seven items and contained 12 questions. The minister should know while he was absent, the Minister of Industry and Tourism offered to make public the reasons why this company was turned down but suggested he would rather just tell the leader of the third party and myself privately, because it might hurt the reputation of the company.

Does the minister know we’ve been in touch with the company and they are quite willing to have any statement the minister might wish to make made publicly, provided the minister does them the courtesy of answering their seven items and their 12 questions, all of which seemed quite reasonable to me? Will the minister, therefore, undertake to provide those answers and also to make public the reasons why this bid was turned down?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: When I was away staff did follow up on the question. I think the situation, as I understand it, is as follows: The company is quite prepared for that information to be released on a confidential basis to the member and the leader of the third party; at the moment, there is not full agreement to releasing it publicly. The member and I may not hear exactly the same thing from the company.

On that basis, I think we’d be wise to get permission from the company in writing to be sure there can be no doubt about it. I have no reason why we wouldn’t release it to the public, but I do think it’s only fair that the company should so direct.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, and subsequent to the point of privilege raised by the leader of the third party, I think perhaps the point of privilege should be responded to in this fashion: I didn’t have the information at that precise time, but as I understand it the evaluation team, as opposed to people from the ministry, is perhaps our area of disagreement.

It is perhaps correct that the evaluation team per se did not visit the company, but there is no doubt the staff of both our ministry and of the Ministry of Government Services did indeed, visit with the company, so I don’t think there is any doubt the company has had a visit by our staff and MGS staff during the tendering process, on three occasions.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: It’s obvious the minister is correct that we’ll have to get something in writing because he and I differ. Is the minister interested in knowing that an hour ago the company informed us they are quite willing to have the matter made public if he gives them an answer to items one to seven and questions (

a) to (l)? I’ll table this document if the minister likes so all members can have access to it.

Will the minister provide precisely those answers of which the company has spoken, in which case I am quite certain the matter could then be discussed in public instead of in a private huddle with the leaders of the two opposition parties and the minister?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Certainly I’ll review that file. I am not at all sure many of those answers weren’t given during our visit. I can’t recall instantly whether that letter was prior to or post our visit. Certainly, when that information is there, we don’t worry about making it public. If that’s the member’s concern, it’s no problem at all.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain why this Canadian company, which is already well established, should have been turned down only two and a half months after the report by the Minister of the Environment called the Pollution Control Equipment Industry in Ontario, recommended specifically a review of government purchasing power? It contained a report on the possibility of import replacements and a directive to the Ministry of the Environment to further support the Canadian pollution control equipment industry.

Does this contract mean the minister has just simply tossed this report out the window or is there a commitment in his ministry to ensure the development of a Canadian pollution control equipment industry?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, we did not toss that report out; and yes, there is a commitment in our ministry, a very significant commitment. Since the member is asking for the information that really is relevant to the answer I have given to the leader of the Liberal Party, we’ll supply that at the same time.

[2:45]

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the government House leader, the Deputy Premier. Does the government House leader know how many government bills and policy statements have been brought before this session of the Legislature which have been based in whole or in part on public opinion polls paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario? Why were these polls not mentioned in the compendium of background information which, according to our rules, accompanies each bill or policy statement?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the House leader knows of no such bills that have come before the House or statements based on any information derived in that way.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s interesting that the House leader would say that, considering that the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) suggests that these are very fundamental matters and that half a million dollars has now been spent on 23 different polls, all of which have been totally irrelevant to anything that was brought before the House this session by way of bill or policy statement. That’s quite a remarkable admission.

Let me ask the Premier, by way of supplementary, since the government has published studies and reports by professional consultants from time to time, when it consults the public through opinion polls, why does it feel that it has to stamp the results “secret”? What’s the distinction between professional consultants and consulting the public of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition really knows the answer to that question himself. There is a very real distinction in terms of getting a consultant, say, in the health field or the engineering field to give some advice on a specific subject that relates to his professional competence. The Leader of the Opposition, perhaps better than some, must know through his personal practice that he can give professional advice to either a patient or to an institution which might not represent his point of view as it relates to other issues.

I think there is a very real distinction between the retention by government or government ministries of consultants -- which we don’t do very often, incidentally -- to advise on a specific and sometimes technical subject, and the sampling of the public point of view on sometimes sensitive issues which, as the House leader points out and which I say most sincerely, does not really find its way into specific legislation. I have to I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I see a very real distinction. I really don’t see a parallel at all.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a supplementary of the Premier. Will he say what mechanism exists in government in order to make sure that the results of these public opinion surveys about what people in Ontario think about major political issues are not transmitted to the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario either directly or by government ministers who may have had access to those opinion polls?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess the best answer to that is that it’s no secret. The member’s own party does a certain amount of sampling of public opinion on occasion.

Mr. Cassidy: And we pay for it, net the people of Ontario. It’s not out of the public purse.

Mr. Hennessy: Hopalong Cassidy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member would just be patient for a moment or two, I was going to explain something else.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He can’t. The motor in his mouth doesn’t shut off.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I happen to know very factually that the Liberal Party of Ontario on occasion samples public opinion on issues, et cetera.

Mr. S. Smith: Of course we do and we pay for it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to tell both parties opposite that the Progressive Conservative Party also does the same thing, for which we pay. We pay for it out of party revenues. We don’t use public funds.

Mr. MacDonald: You ignored the question totally.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Since the Premier and his deputy have admitted in this House that none of those polls found its way into this Legislature either by way of policy statement or by way of legislation, would he not agree then that this has been a total waste of the public money and would he discontinue this practice immediately?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m never totally familiar with the private sector experience of the member for London Centre. I understand that he has some. Whether it is marketing or trying to understand what the public is thinking as it relates to his product, et cetera, I don’t know. But I’ve got to tell him that it is a practice in many institutions and in many organizations to try to determine the attitudes of people. To say that this investment is a waste is a fallacy.

I think it’s also important to understand -- and this is what makes it difficult in government -- that government policy has to be predicted too on the basis of what government feels is right. This could be totally contradictory on occasion to what might be indicated by a poll where the various issues aren’t properly explained. All of us have sufficient experience with polling to understand that it is not an exact science. A lot depends on the way a question or series of questions is worded. While they can be helpful, at the same time they aren’t necessarily definitive.

This is why the House leader said what he did. It is also why I would reiterate that any government which predicates its policy or its legislation on the results of specific poll information, I think, is making a strategic error, apart from any other rationale. I think it would be unfortunate for the member for London Centre to say government ministries don’t have an obligation to get some sense of how various programs within those ministries are impacting upon the public. That is part of our responsibility. It is something that is not unique to this government. It is done by the vast majority of governments --

Mr. Peterson: Why don’t you share it then?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Because it is confidential. When we poll people, or when whoever does it, it is not done on the basis of the information becoming public, nor is it our intention to make it public.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to return to the question I raised a minute ago. Since it is the taxpayers of Ontario who are paying half a million dollars for these various opinion polls whose titles have been given to us in reply to written questions, can the Premier say what mechanism, if any, exists to ensure the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario doesn’t benefit from those surveys, either by getting direct access to the results or by getting indirect access through what it is told by government ministers who see them? I think it’s a very important question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can give the honourable member this very simplistic answer. I don’t say this in any sense that would be provocative. Having been involved in what our party does -- and I don’t say this to belittle in any fashion the polls that have been done for government -- the polls we do are, I think it’s fair to state, primarily issue-oriented and primarily or fundamentally far more comprehensive than the polls done for various government ministries.

I can’t say whether subconsciously the information one gathers from whatever source doesn’t have an impact on a person, but I can tell the member this: In terms of the Progressive Conservative Party, our determinations are made in a political sense on the basis of the polls we conduct. As I said, by and large these are more comprehensive than anything done by the ministries of this government.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the Premier states the reason these polls are confidential is because the data is collected under some assurance being given that these matters would be kept confidential -- that’s what I understood the Premier to say --

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, not solely.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s one of the reasons then. Allegedly the data was collected with an assurance the matter would be kept confidential. What does the Premier think of the fact that one of those polls was used by the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) in his speech material and was in fact released to the public? Was that a breach of confidentiality?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are some polls -- there are some on that list -- where one could say releasing the information would be quite appropriate. I don’t intend to start differentiating among the various polls. Our policy and our posture are very simple: We’re going to debate -- and I think it will be an interesting debate -- that these are done for purposes of government; they are not done for any partisan reason, I can assure the members. Some day I will show the members opposite our party polls and just how comprehensive they are. We don’t need the polls done by government, we really don’t.

Mr. Eakins: You skate like Otto Jelinek.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I happen to know some of the people who do the polling for the party across the House; I happen to know some of the results, and I happen to know they don’t need to know any of the information contained in these polls either for the purposes of their activities. I know what that party does need in its polls. I do know what it does need, and that is a little better results. I understand that.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: May I ask the Premier, since in reply to questions he has twice felt unwilling or unable to give an explicit assurance that the results of those polls do not go directly or indirectly to the Conservative Party, can one assume that they do?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for York South is too experienced to make that sort of assumption. He knows full well they do not.

VISITOR

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to mark the presence in the gallery today of Bob Rae, the new MP for Broadview.

Mr. MacDonald: And he won’t be an overnight guest either.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right; he is going to be around for some time.

WINDSOR METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. In Windsor last Friday the coroner, Dr. D. J. Broadwell, stated the bed situation was a factor in the death of Anthony Turski, who died shortly after being refused admittance to the Metropolitan General Hospital. Now that the independent coroner’s inquest has finally got to the bottom of this case, does the Minister of Health agree with the coroner’s conclusion?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have before me a copy of the verdict of the coroner’s jury. In point of fact, in the two pages before me they do not find a cause-and-effect relationship between the unfortunate and untimely death of Mr. Turski and the bed situation.

Secondly, it does not indicate to me -- and, of course, I do not have the transcript in front of me, as it only happened Friday -- at least I understand the testimony of the two doctors indicated that the gentleman’s condition was not of an emergent type that required either holding at the hospital or phoning one of the other four hospitals to try to find a bed in the community.

Beyond that, the overall question of beds, particularly in that community with respect to that one hospital and its relationship to the total hospital community, is a matter that is before the courts and one which I do not intend to prejudice in any way by making comments which would in any way prejudice the outcome of that once the application has been heard, and it has not been heard to date.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I gather from the minister’s reply that he rejects the comment of the coroner, who said in summarizing the evidence to the jury that the bed situation was a factor in Mr. Turski’s death.

I would like to ask the minister, will he accept the coroner’s jury recommendation in this case that there should be further study as to why beds are being closed across the province? Will the minister undertake to perform such a study to determine whether there are other hospitals across the province where a situation like Mr. Turski’s could occur again, and will he undertake to halt the cutback in hospital beds across the province to prevent similar terrible cases occurring?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: So far in all this debate of the last 10 days only one side has been heard. Of course, the purpose in asking for the adjournment last week was to ensure that there would be an opportunity to see to it, through affidavits and cross-examination and examination of same, that all the facts on both sides would be put forward and would have their airing.

Beyond that I really cannot comment further, except to say I am eager that this matter get before the Supreme Court at the earliest opportunity in order that these concerns can be cleared up.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that Dr. Yomjinda. who attended Mr. Turski, stated he would have admitted a high-risk patient such as Mr. Turski if a bed had been available, and that apparently there is some discrepancy as to whether beds are or are not available? Would the minister have some set guidelines implemented by the hospitals throughout Ontario indicating clearly that there are or are not beds?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member is getting, in no small way, into the area of medical judgement. Second, with regard to the question of bed availability, not just in that hospital but in that community, these are matters which will be explored in depth in the examination of existing affidavits and in the provision of other affidavits in the matter before the Supreme Court. That’s why I say only one side has been heard from to date and it’s quite important none of us in any way prejudice the outcome of the matters that will be heard by the tribunal.

Mr. Warner: They have to fight you in court to get decent health care.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You don’t even know what health care is.

Mr. Warner: I do; this government doesn’t.

Mr. Cooke: I’d like to ask the minister if he is aware this death occurred in Metropolitan General Hospital before the 25 beds were closed at Metropolitan on April 1, thereby making the situation worse? Second, I would like to point out to the minister, I attended the coroner’s inquest. The statements made by the coroner were very clear. The lack of hospital beds was the reason this man was not admitted into hospital and it was a contributing factor to this man’s death. It’s about time the minister took responsibility for his own actions.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I really don’t need the lecture of the latter part from the honourable member.

Mr. Swart: You sure do.

Mr. McClellan: You certainly do.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The facts speak for themselves. The coroner’s jury report does not make the comment which the honourable member attributes to the jury in his statement of today. He said in his statement of today that the jury said that; the jury did not say that. There is the coroner’s jury report; there is the report.

Mr. Warner: Your irresponsibility, your cruel cuts are hurting people and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think they will listen to the member anyway.

Mr. Warner: They obviously don’t listen to you down there either.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This is an extremely serious matter. It is one that I would like to debate today, but given the fact the matter is before the Supreme Court, that is the forum chosen by a particular party in which to have all the facts examined, and that is where the facts will be disclosed.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege Mr. Speaker: I want to point out to the minister that the coroner’s jury said and I quote: “High risk patients should routinely be admitted to hospital.” I’m sorry, this is a

summary. “High risk patients like Mr. Turski should routinely be admitted to hospital.” It made that recommendation in addition to recommending more beds. I think the minister’s statements are not correct at all when he tries to suggest the coroner’s jury did not put its finger on the lack of beds as contributing to this death.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of privilege.

Mr. Warner: You are a disgrace to this House.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Warner: You are a disgrace to the people of Ontario, an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere will please stop interrupting. While your colleague from Windsor-Riverside was trying to place his question you interjected four or five times and that’s completely unnecessary.

Mr. Villeneuve: Make him withdraw what he said.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The fact of the matter is that in identifying the cause of death, it was listed as heart attack and the means was listed as hardening of the arteries. In fact, in identifying the cause of death, the jury did not connect the death with the bed situation. Now, let’s be factual.

MINIMUM WAGE DIFFERENTIAL

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since the provision of tips is given as the reason for lower wages under Ontario’s minimum wage laws for waiters and waitresses in the food and entertainment industry, and in view of the arbitrator’s findings that the waiters and waitresses at Noodles and the Courtyard Cafe have had to give 20 per cent of their tips to other employees in those establishments, will the minister now end the discriminatory provisions of the minimum wage laws that keep waiters and waitresses to a minimum wage of only $2.50, which is well below what’s paid to other people working in industry in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, the member for Ottawa Centre should also point out that the arbitrator in that particular case specified that the situation of the restaurant was peculiar, that in other situations it wasn’t 20 per cent but the nature of the trade in that restaurant, to his mind, that justified that particular allocation.

I would remind the honourable member that the question of the minimum wage is constantly under review, and when that issue comes up again I will be pleased to review it and give it some consideration. But he well knows the reasons for the tip differential that were given the last time the minimum wage was revised.

Mr. Cassidy: Since there are certain establishments here in Metropolitan Toronto where as much as 50 per cent of the tips given to waiters and waitresses has to be passed on to other employees within the establishment, won’t the minister recognize that in fact waiters and waitresses don’t benefit from the tips in the way that the minimum wage laws presume? Why will he not, therefore, act now in order to eliminate the differential and ensure that people working in the hospitality industry are able to get decent living wages on which to survive?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, the member well knows that the question of the distribution of tips among other employees who assist in the service of food is a custom in the trade. As to the question of the tip differential, as I mentioned, that’s a matter that will be reviewed when we review the minimum wage again.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister aware that in some restaurants in Toronto, cooks are subsidized by the waitresses by as much as $300 a month, and does the minister not recognize that this undermines the very principle he is trying to establish in terms of a lower wage for waiters and waitresses because they get the tips or are supposed to get the tips? Further, in some restaurants, there is no accurate record kept of the total amount of the tips and the waiters and waitresses are not aware of whether they are getting 40 per cent, 50 per cent, or more or less of the money.

How can we have effective collective bargaining when it is undermined by this kind of transfer of moneys to other occupations that were not meant to be covered by the tips?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, information of that sort is always of value when one goes to review the matter of the minimum wage and I will be pleased to receive validated comments and supported statements to that effect.

GLENLEA CLINIC CLOSURE

Mr. J. Reed: My question is for the Minister of Health. Is the Minister of Health aware that the Glenlea Clinic in the town of Acton will be closing its doors permanently on June 22, which will leave approximately 6,000 people, or half of the population of the town of Acton, without medical care?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have not been made aware of that. I would be glad to discuss it with the member. I am not aware of the circumstances as to why they are closing. I don’t know the physicians who operate that centre.

Mr. J. Reed: By way of supplementary: The minister, then, is obviously not aware of a letter to the patients of Glenlea Clinic from the doctors, which was reported in the press as saying that the costs of running the medical centre were escalating faster than the increases paid by OHIP and that was the reason for the closure. May I ask the minister as well if he has any mechanism in place to deal with the situation which will become an emergency by the end of the month?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, in the two most recent sets of negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association for the period from May 1 to December 31, 1978, and for 1979, in both cases the

schedule of benefits was weighted in favour, relative to other sections of medicine, of the general practitioners. Secondly, if the member is saying that there’s a practice of 6,000 people waiting, I really wouldn’t think there would be much difficulty in attracting other general practitioners to that community. I will be glad to sit down with the member and discuss this with him and take it up with representatives of organized medicine in that regard, but I really don’t think that such a large potential clientele, as it were, is going to go unattended for very long.

TRANSIT BARGAINING

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. My question relates to my continuing concern about the fate of public transit in Metropolitan Toronto. I rather think since the Premier seldom answers an original question I will go directly to my supplementary question.

My supplementary question is: As the ghost at the bargaining table, what arrangements is the Premier going to make to provide the kind of funds to the public transit system in Toronto that will permit both fair fares and fare wages to be paid by that commission?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the member for Riverdale’s going to his supplementary question prior to the rhetoric of his opening question. His supplementaries are usually more relevant than the opening question, so my answer will try to be the same.

I am not at the bargaining table. I have made it very clear that I am hopeful that these negotiations will be carried out to a successful conclusion in a spirit of goodwill, good faith, et cetera. I make it quite clear that in no way is the government involved, except through the auspices of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) and those people who are qualified and competent to assist in the negotiations.

Mr. Laughren: A ghost is there.

Mr. Martel: Is Michael Warren not going to be there?

SCHOOL BOARD FUNDING

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education and it concerns the unhappy state of educational finance in Renfrew county. Given the sparseness of the population and the remoteness of schools in that county, and given the fact that at least one of the boards, the separate school board, has had to engage in a very large- scale layoff of teachers, can the minister indicate whether or not she will consider giving that particular board and the boards in the county of Renfrew a special designation, such as a northern board or small board, to alleviate the burdens which are theirs as the result of their peculiar geographic and demographic situation?

Mr. Breithaupt: The Parry Sound syndrome.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the honourable member knows, we have already estimated a special weighting factor for boards of a certain size or smaller, where the decline in enrolment is greater than the provincial average. That weighting factor will be available to boards in that category.

Certainly that is the first step in a number of steps which I hope we will be able to take in the not-too-distant future in order to try to relieve some of the problems which are facing small and remote boards particularly, but indeed some larger boards as well, in meeting the twin challenges of declining enrolment and limited access to financial resources in order to provide for their needs during the period of declining enrolment.

Mr. Conway: Appreciating what the minister has said, but recognizing, as the local trustees and others have, that the weighting factors that have already been introduced will not be sufficient to deal with the problems which threaten quality education in my county --

Mr. Foulds: Your county?

Mr. Peterson: Grit county.

Mr. Conway: -- I am wondering whether or not the minister might more fully act upon a criterion which, for example, in the ministry’s young travellers’ program designates all of the county of Renfrew as a northern board, and whether she might not extrapolate that criterion more generally to the financial transfers for my county and the boards therein.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting suggestion. I will very seriously consider it, yes.

DOMESTIC WORKERS

Will the minister not agree that labour rights cannot be separated from human rights? In view of the support for those rights expressed by all members of this House last Friday, will the minister not agree to give a clear indication of support for a bill brought into this House that would guarantee that domestics would be included under such limited protection as there is under the employment standards in the province of Ontario?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I understand that the Premier and the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) gave a clear indication on Friday that a human rights code revision will be presented to this Legislature.

Mr. Mackenzie: When?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As soon as possible. I may say to the member the very issue he raises is one that is of concern to me too. When the bill is presented to the Legislature the question will be reviewed.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: That doesn’t answer the question as to whether or not the protection provided under employment standards will be extended to domestics. Is the minister prepared to look at some means of legislating that the contracts signed, not only by domestics but by other immigrants coming over on work permits, can be enforced in Ontario, which is not now the case?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The question of revisions to the Employment Standards Act is being reviewed at the present time. I can’t tell the member right now exactly what matters will be raised when and if revisions are brought into the House, but I may tell him that that is an issue which will be considered as well.

GUELPH COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTRE

Mr. Worton: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. Is the minister in a position to verify correspondence that has come from a member of the Guelph city council and also, I understand, from the Guelph police department, and to give them assurance with regard to recent abductions and rapes that have taken place involving employees of the resource centre? Does the minister have any suggestions for preventing such occurrences in the future?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I am aware of the concerns being expressed by some members of the Guelph city council and by the local chief of police over some incidents arising out of the community resource centre located in Guelph, near and related to the Guelph Correctional Centre. I should point out that it is not the Guelph Correctional Centre we are talking about, but one of our privately operated community-based operations. There are 32 very successful ones in the province.

We have some very grave concerns and I personally have serious concerns about the operation of this particular one. I am very concerned, particularly about what has happened, because it represents a black mark if the allegations and charges prove to be the case. These are very grave concerns for all of us that we can have this kind of blemish on our community resource centres.

We have to keep in mind that we do not get into a situation where we end up restructuring them all for a deviation in only one area. In expressing my concern, I have ordered a complete and very thorough investigation into this particular operation and into the manner in which we can make sure this kind of incident does not recur.

These incidents were very bizarre incidents and the individuals who have been charged are not the kind one would anticipate would be involved in this type of behaviour. They were individuals who had been charged with fraud, breaking and entering and other property offences. One would have to assume that they were ready for reintegration into the community. In one case, the individual would have been back in the community by August of this year.

I assure the member that these members will receive proper justice in their trial, but in the meantime we are making a very thorough investigation of the operation of this centre.

Mr. Worton: Supplementary: The minister is aware that there has been intervention by the police department on a number of occasions during the eight months this resource centre has been in operation? This is what concerns me. The police must have had some feedback about the difficulties encountered in that resource centre, and I would like the minister to take this into consideration when he makes his investigation into the operation of that centre.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The member can rest assured that we will leave no stone unturned in the matter.

HUNT’S-WOMAN’S BAKERY

Mr. di Santo: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the workers of Local 461 of the Retail Wholesale Bakery and Confectionary Workers Union working at Hunt’s-Woman’s Bakery have been on strike since March 12, 1979; that despite their attempts to reach an agreement they were confronted on May 1 with an offer from the company which amounts to an ultimatum; and in view of the fact the company now says the plant has been sold by the owners, the DelZotto family, to one of their construction companies, does the minister still think a solution is possible? If he does, what action has the ministry undertaken?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess I don’t have the details of the matter the member raises immediately at hand --

Mr. Laughren: But are you concerned?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: -- but I’ll be pleased to look into it and report to him within two or three days.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the seriousness of the situation and in view of the fact the company has made clear that as far as they are concerned the plant is closed, but at the same time, they refuse to release to the Unemployment Insurance Commission a statement to that effect, which is preventing the workers from getting unemployment insurance benefits, will the minister call the company on their responsibilities and ask them, at least, to relieve the workers from this further undue hardship?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be pleased to review the matter and do whatever is appropriate. If the matters are as outlined by the member for Downsview, I certainly thank him for bringing it to my attention.

NANTICOKE CONTRACT

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The member’s privileges are really in dispute today.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, it’s a bad day, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of the Environment stated earlier today that the Ministry of Government Services and his ministry have both visited Canadian Applied Technology, the company which was in question during questions today. Half an hour ago we talked to the company. We found out from the company there had been no visit, only a delivery, during the course of the tendering period but that there had been perhaps a visit prior to the tendering period. There had been an evaluation trip to the Texas company and not to the Canadian company. I wish for once the government would start to get the record straight.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I have this brief here, and I don’t think there’s any doubt that we are straight and that again the leader of the third party is wrong. I am more than prepared to put the dates forward when those meetings were held.

On the first rebuttal to the point of privilege, I tried to deal with it as gently as possible because I think there was an honest difference of opinion about whether we ever visited with them or not. The fact is we have, and I make that very clear. I’ll be glad to put the dates on the table if the member will withdraw his accusations.

HEALTH BOARD-COLLEGE DISPUTE

Mr. Peterson: I have a question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Is he aware of a situation wherein the Health Disciplines Board ordered the College of Physicians and Surgeons to direct a particular doctor to attend the offices of the college to receive a severe admonishment? That happened on January 3 of this year. On February 14 the college replied to the Health Disciplines Board, saying, “The complaints committee does not consider that it is appropriate to admonish the doctor.”

Is the minister aware of this clear defiance of authority and what is he doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I met with the chairman of the Health Disciplines Board within the last two weeks, and he made me aware of that. It is something the board and their solicitor are taking up with the college and their solicitor. Once a resolution has been determined, whether it’s between the college and the board or whether it’s something that has to be stated as a question to the courts, I’ll be glad to inform the member in the House.

Mr. Peterson: Would the minister not make it clear to this House now who is in charge and who has the responsibility and the authority in this type of situation, where clearly it appears this patient’s rights were not fully looked after? The Health Disciplines Board agrees with that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Health Disciplines Board, on advice of their counsel and supported by the ministry, takes the view they have the authority to order what they did.

Mr. Peterson: What’s your opinion?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I just said “supported by the ministry.” The college takes another view. This matter is being discussed between the chairman of the board and the college, and hopefully it can be resolved without having to take the case to the courts.

Mr. Peterson: One final supplementary: Would the minister be prepared, on the resolution of this problem, to bring a full statement back to this House so everyone clearly understands the lines of authority?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, I would be glad to.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism who continues to claim that increased foreign ownership of our economy creates jobs.

Does the minister know that fully 41 per cent of the 108 approvals of foreign ownership in the Ontario economy this year alone have been in the three key sectors of electrical products, chemicals and machinery?

If he does know that, is he also aware, as we have been trying to convince him for the past year or more, that it is in these particular sectors that the degree of foreign ownership is causing a decline in the number of jobs?

Could the minister explain to us what it is that leads him to believe that in the long run there will be more jobs created in those sectors with increased foreign ownership? What kind of convoluted logic is he using?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know it’s more comfortable to deal with these things as though they were all the same types of applications and all the same firms, but the raw figures really don’t tell one very much because in many of those instances we may have been facing a situation where the alternative to having that foreign takeover or that foreign transfer might have been the closedown of the Canadian operation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You can intervene in other ways.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In some instances one multinational is buying out another multinational. One may have seen instances there in which any combination of circumstances could have created a lot more jobs for Canadians because of the suppliers who otherwise would have lost the companies they were supplying. In other instances, one might have seen us being able to abstract through the FIRA applications undertakings which never before were available to source some of the products in Canada.

The main point the member can take out of all of that is that to presume that all of those transfers created a loss in jobs is no more valid than my presuming that all of those transfers caused more jobs to be created. One has to look at them one at a time and see what the specific circumstances were behind all of those applications. If the member’s position is that all of those cases should have been turned down, then I would like to hear that because then I would be able to assess how many jobs would have been lost if we had adopted his policy.

Mr. Laughren: I don’t know what the minister is talking about when he talks about raw figures. We have all the detailed press releases from the Foreign Investment Review Agency which give us the details on every single one.

In view of the fact that more than half of this year’s applications have been for foreign investment from companies that simply wanted to set up a warehousing distribution kind of operation here to import more goods and distribute them to the Canadian market --

Mr. Speaker: We’ve had one editorial comment and one “in view of.”

Mr. Laughren: -- will the minister undertake to block all those applications which are strictly designed to increase warehousing and turn us into a nation of warehousers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not if the net effect of blocking that application is to cost jobs that otherwise we might have for this province.

Mr. Laughren: What a lot of nonsense!

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Since 70 of the 108 FIRA approvals in 1979 have been in the Toronto area, how can the minister claim that regional development is being promoted by his policies, when only six were approved in eastern Ontario and four in northern Ontario, while only one of those in eastern Ontario is in manufacturing? The rest, as my colleague said, are in warehousing and sales.

Mr. Martel: It sounds like the Robarts plan from 1967 -- all in southern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, I would remind the member that that’s exactly the same question that was not only asked of me but answered by me on Friday. Second, if I read the member properly, she is asking for more FIRA approvals for eastern Ontario. I’ll certainly see if I can respond to that concern on her behalf.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In any case, the point about regional consideration is that quite seriously one can’t look at the raw figures and presume that those six in eastern Ontario were a lower percentage, for example, than the ones in Toronto. The other point is to analyse whether those six applications would have received the same treatment if they had occurred in another part of the province.

If the member would like to canvass each of those six with me, I’d be pleased to respond to them to the extent that I can. But I can assure the member that applications from those parts of the province are looked upon quite differently in terms of how we assess their importance to that particular part of the province than they are in Toronto.

Ms. Gigantes: What good has it done us?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, there are more applications approved in Toronto because there are an overwhelmingly greater number that come from Toronto.

[3:30]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: But the results speak for themselves.

Mr. Laughren: You’re a sellout artist.

CONVENTIONS

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. As the convention business has a substantial economic benefit to a community in which that convention takes place as well as spinoff effects to neighbouring communities; and as the Republican convention for 1980 is slated to take place in the city of Detroit, and the city of Detroit --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Newman: -- is also attempting to encourage the Democratic convention to come in; and as these conventions could have substantial --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Newman: -- economic benefits to the city of Windsor, would the minister join with the Windsor Star and the city in their attempt to encourage the Democrats to come into the city of Detroit?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be happy to do anything I could to encourage the Democratic Party of the United States to have their convention in Windsor. Indeed, I’d speak to all my very many friends in that party, particularly over the summer period. I’m willing to go anywhere necessary to convince them -- together with the Windsor Star and, perhaps, the local member.

I think, in exchange, we should put ourselves in a position to assure them that any major political conventions in Canada would, in turn, consider Windsor as a logical site, although that would exclude the NDP which, of course, does not have large enough conventions to overflow Windsor.

I’m sure the member could see to it his party would consider it. My party would consider it and together we may succeed in getting both great American parties to have their convention there. I might add, in case the leader of the third party has a supplementary, if he wants us to encourage any of the minor parties in the United States to go there, we would be pleased to consider that as well.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister prepare special materials through his department, using his staff, that would entice some of these parties to come to Detroit so they would naturally come to Windsor and we could sell them on visiting Ontario and Canada?

Mr. Conway: Give John Connally a special suite.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’d be happy to do that, particularly to remind them of the great facilities available in the great city of Windsor. In fact, we would probably arrange to have a special tour of Windsor, including the new Ford V-6 engine plant so we could show them the extent to which we are happy to receive from time to time some investment of a calibre important to the great city of Windsor. We would be happy to co-operate and do everything we can.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, as there is no convention centre in Windsor large enough to hold an NDP convention we’re in danger of having to take ours to Detroit. On a somewhat more serious note, however, and slightly off conventions but still in the area of encouragement of tourist interest in Ontario as it affects those who go to Detroit, would the minister consider -- as his predecessor did, but he unfortunately arrived at no conclusion -- that at least in the Renaissance Center in Detroit there be an Ontario government tourist information centre outlining the many advantages of coming to Ontario, let alone the many advantages of coming to Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be happy to look into that as an alternative in view of our new programs to promote tourist information centres and develop more of them.

With regard to the first question, I’d be happy to help the member with that problem. Perhaps we can push two telephone booths together and see if we can accommodate them.

CHEMICAL PRICES

Mr. Swart: My question is of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I thank him for remaining for these few moments. Is the minister aware the average price of the seven leading fruit tree and grape sprays used by the farmers in the Niagara Peninsula has increased between 20 per cent and 25 per cent this year over last year? Recognizing the serious impact this has on the farmers when they are already under attack from imports, I’d like to ask him what investigation he has done, if any, and what steps he has taken or will take to limit or roll back those increases.

Hon. W. Newman: As the member well knows, this comes under federal jurisdiction. Just within the last few days we have issued a price list for all chemicals here in Canada, and also the corresponding US price list.

Mr. Kerrio: Talk to your kissing cousins.

Hon. W. Newman: Sure I will. At least I might get some co-operation. Certainly I am aware of the fact there have been price increases on some chemicals, and decreases on others. The list is lengthy. I can’t tell the member each individual price but I have a master list. If he would like to see it, I will be glad to let him have it.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I got an answer to my question on what the minister intends to do about it.

Might I ask specifically that he would investigate the increase in the price of thiodan which has gone up 80 per cent this year? I would like to send a bill over to the minister, if I may. How would he expect the fruit industry in the Niagara Peninsula to compete with the American fruit industry? Where the increase over there has been less than 10 per cent, it has been between 20 and 25 per cent in this country.

As the minister is well aware, action has been taken to prevent the farmers from going to the United States to buy their insecticides over there. Will the minister take up with the new federal government measures to protect the farmers here or rescind that law that was passed by the last federal government?

Mr. Riddell: You always got co-operation from Eugene Whelan.

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, sure. I don’t deny it. I would like to explain to the honourable member there have been some increases in some of our chemicals.

Mr. Nixon: Tory times are hard times.

Hon. W. Newman: I am well aware of the price of chemicals. I am also well aware of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. I believe Mr. Whelan said at the time he closed the border -- and if the member will look at the record he will find I said the border should not be closed unless we bad competitive prices on both sides, taking into effect the dollar value. The border was closed and there are certain chemicals that have gone up in price dramatically here in Ontario. Some are equal to and a few of them are below the US prices allowing for the difference in value of the Canadian dollar.

We can’t just make broad brush-stroke statements about certain chemicals. I happen to know some of them have gone up. Sure they have gone up. Other costs have gone up too. I am well aware of that.

I will be talking to the federal minister about the whole chemical industry, whether we are talking herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, fungicides or whatever it may be. If the member would like to have a look at that list so he will better understand it, I will be glad to let the member see it.

Mr. Swart: Have you seen the list?

Hon. W. Newman: I said we would look into it -- okay?

OHIP CLAIMS PROCESSING

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Minister of Health: In view of the fact some residents of the province of Ontario have to wait four, eight, 12, 16 or 20 weeks or more sometimes to receive a cheque from OHIP to cover costs of medical care incurred outside this jurisdiction, or to cover costs of claims in situations where doctors have opted out of OHIP, is the minister satisfied with the efficiency of the operation at OHIP in relation to this particular problem?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is one of the reasons why, a number of years ago, the ministry decentralized the claims processing to the district offices, so as to improve on the processing.

Mr. Haggerty: It hasn’t improved.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, in fact it has improved. Where the documentation is straightforward, then the normal turnaround would be about five or six weeks, but where we require additional information -- and many of these cases come across my desk as members write to me about them -- where perhaps we need more documentation from a hospital or from a physician in the States or in Europe or whatever, that can delay the matter, but we do try to process them as quickly as we can. After all, at OHIP we do process something in the order of a quarter of a million claims per day.

REPORT

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980:

Ministry administration program, $5,594,900; agricultural production program, $110,395,600; rural development program, $11,231,000; agricultural marketing program, $12,846,500; agricultural education and research program, $28,470,200.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 192 and 203 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

On vote 602, intergovernmental affairs program:

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, on Friday last, I was arguing and making some representations to the government and particularly to this minister, seeking to prevail upon him to give cognizance and put into effect, a committee of this House. Since I am speaking on the matter in private members’ hour on Thursday, I will not place any greater emphasis on that particular aspect of the constitutional question today.

However, there are one or two matters and I won’t be long in touching on the overall constitution, particularly as it lends weight or gives some direction as a secondary consideration to what such a committee would be called into question to do and the validity of calling that committee into being. It has a monumental task to perform, one that is requisite and one that, as I said on Friday, has been ignored by the government of this province.

The basis of that, the material on which the committee can chew, has now been in a wide way forthcoming to the committee. I gave some praise to the Pepin-Robarts report along with the Macdonald report, which in substance followed upon it, and was substantially in line with it. I commented upon how coincidental that was and how rewarding it was to see these two diverse bodies appointed by different levels of government finding a certain curious correspondence in their recommendation.

None of this has been given cognizance or any degree of affirmation or even any degree of public debate with respect to a reformulated constitution which is badly needed by this country, particularly if we deliberately intend and are sincere about holding this country together.

These reports, along with the bar association report, would be the subject matter that would basically start us off on deliberation on, parsing and analysis of those reports. For the first time in our history some concrete, hardrock definition of the issues involved are delineated and set forth for whoever may wish to work them over.

[3:45]

It’s not enough and hasn’t been enough for the Premier of this province to go to winter carnivals and slide down slopes in order to show an abundance of good will towards Quebec. He has also come home and subverted, in many instances, the so-called good intent in this particular regard. Coming to grips with the issue in an honest way has never taken place and has been circumvented throughout.

After the event, ministers of the crown, including this minister, will strike their breasts and say, “Oh, why weren’t we more on the ball? Why didn’t we get on top of it? Why didn’t we do everything in our power to bring about some kind of accommodation and some kind of understanding so that at least the members of this House and people of Ontario had a grasp of the issues?” I put it to you that that is presently lacking because of basic complacencies operating in this whole area.

All I wanted to do for a few moments -- and I won’t go into it in any depth, as that is the job of the committee -- is to make reference to the report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity. I would like to refer to page 126, recommendation 34, which says: “A new distribution of powers should, whenever it is desirable or needed in order to fulfil the objectives of dualism and regionalism, recognize the distinctive status of any province or make it possible for a province to acquire such a status.”

In line with that, it says: “In a new distribution, the powers allocated to all provincial legislatures should provide the framework which makes it possible for Quebec to fulfil its additional role and responsibility with respect to the French heritage in its own territory.”

The French-Canadian fact is there and has never, in my opinion, been given due weight. We have scouted it. There is a refusal to address ourselves frontally to the issue involved there. On any occasion when my party gave certain proposals, I suppose we suffered badly in the election in this particular regard.

Mr. Nixon: That was back in the two-nation days?

In any event, in this

section they say, “In the distribution of powers, provisions should be made for the possibility that some provincial governments other than Quebec may wish to assume, now or in the future” -- that is their way of getting around the two-nation concept -- “some or all of the powers in the cultural domain recommended for Quebec.

“Should the other provinces not wish to avail themselves of such a distribution, powers related to this additional role and responsibility of Quebec should be allocated to Quebec alone.”

That seems to me perfectly sensible and in line. Otherwise, one is blinding oneself or, ostrich-like, not facing realities. What will eventuate from blindness will be division. It is in the cards. That may not happen in the next referendum but we all fear and anticipate a recurring phenomenon for years ahead. This thing is deep-rooted, therefore, it must be lanced at the source. We must try to reach a mutuality of definition with respect to the issue.

I said on Friday this would go a long way. I don’t adopt all these recommendations by any means. Let me take one, number 39, that residual powers should be assigned to the provincial legislatures.

As we all know, the peace, order and good government clause and the residual power is now left with the federal government. I think it should be left there, not reposed as residual power in the provinces. That would be, in my opinion, disruptive. It is the very kind of thing I would like to sit down with my colleagues and with experts appearing before us to explore, to weigh, to become more informed on as to where that residual power should finally rest. In a way it is a superficial issue; in another way, after the powers are defined according to the way they want to do it here, there may not be too much residual power left.

In any event, recommendation 37 says, “The use of a list of exclusive powers for Parliament and a list of exclusive powers for the provincial legislatures should be retained in a new Canadian constitution.” But what those exclusive powers are, are not identical, by any means, with what the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of Canada have set forth over the years with fairly myopic judgements and tendentious approaches to the matter which have seriously, in my opinion, disoriented our constitution, particularly when the adjudications were made overseas and which are followed as precedent to this day.

Recommendation 38 is about concurrent jurisdiction; the concurrencies of jurisdiction, when they both operate in certain fields, et cetera. But, the field is divided and with some nicety and detail set forth as to which jurisdiction will operate where. It is in the Macdonald report too and again very much in line with what we have:

“

(1) Concurrent jurisdiction should be avoided whenever possible through a more precise definition of exclusive powers.

(2) Wherever powers are concurrent, a federal or provincial paramountcy should be stipulated.” Then they proceed to do that to a degree.

Recommendation 40: “In devising a new distribution of powers, the following steps should be taken: (

i) broad areas of governmental activities should first be identified. Such broad areas might include external affairs, defence, economic policy, transportation, communications, natural resources, administration of justice and law enforcement, the status and rights of citizens, culture, health and welfare, habitat and the environment.

“(ii) within each of these broad areas, specific subject matter should be arranged in related groups. Under culture, for example would be grouped legislative powers over: language, education, schools, universities, archives, research, exchanges, copyrights, books, films, arts, leisure, marriage and divorce, property and civil rights.

“(iii) jurisdiction with respect to each specific legislative power should then be attributed, exclusively or concurrently, to an order of government according to the criteria established in our previous recommendations. For example, regarding immigration, provincial legislatures should have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to settlement and integration of immigrants; the federal Parliament should have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to deportation of aliens and public safety; jurisdiction should be concurrent with provincial paramountcy with respect to selection criteria and levels of immigration to the province ...”

That is something which does not occur these days, and something which the Treasurer of this province (Mr. F. S. Miller) has taken grave umbrage with, namely, the federal government takes all the credit with respect to the coming in of immigrants to this country, but the costs and logistics of the whole damned thing are borne by the various provinces, and overwhelmingly by Ontario, much to the hurt of the Treasurer of this province, which should be compensated or given some allocation by the federal authority, which caused the burdening to begin with. So for the first time they tried to divide it up.

Mr. Nixon: A strange theory of immigration. I didn’t know the New Democratic Party thought immigrants were burdensome.

Mr. Lawlor: It is burdensome when they arrive in the province without homes and without provisions for their lives -- when nothing is provided for them.

Mr. Haggerty: They want brand-new homes when they come in, eh?

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t be picayune, my friend. This is the only debate in this House that I know of where you can exercise a degree of statesmanship. All the rest is petty bickering.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe that’s why the place is vacant.

Mr. Lawlor: Even with the bickering, it is vacant.

To conclude the quotation: “... and with federal paramountcy with respect to the recruitment of immigrants abroad and the admission of refugees.”

Finally: “(iv) areas could be either exclusive, when all powers are attributed exclusively to the same order of government, as in the area of defence, or shared, when some of the powers are attributed exclusively to each of the two orders of government, or concurrently to both.”

In the area of taxation policy, recommendation 41 says: “Both the central and provincial governments should be granted equal access to tax sources, with the exception that customs and excise taxes be an exclusive central power. The provincial right to use indirect taxation should be qualified to ensure that the impact of such taxes does not fall upon persons outside the taxing province.”

Then they talk about the emergency power and how it should be operated. They talk about the constitution of the House of Commons on the basis of proportional representation. They have long sections on linguistic rights as to the attribution of these rights, how they might be administered and in which areas.

The role of the Senate is given some cognizance -- the reformed Senate, as we all know, which the Pepin-Robarts report calls the Council of the Federation and which the Macdonald report calls a House of the Provinces. Curiously enough, that has to be looked at in depth, if only because these two astute men, the only persons in this country who have really done first-rate work in the field and are thoroughly clued in, indicate this is the feasible possibility for the future with respect to the Senate.

Why has everyone shied away from it? Alberta, one would think, would be all in favour; but quite the contrary. Of course, no one quite knows where Ontario stands on these things; that is precisely what the debate is about today and why it would probably be more in the government’s interest to have the committee, if for no other reason than as a shield against coming to grips and seizing this by the horns.

I have severe doubts about that House having provincial representation and veto powers operating. Nevertheless, it is well worth exploring. When are we going to explore it? I don’t see any learned articles being written. I don’t see great debate going on in the “op-ed” pages of the local newspapers. It seems to me a thundering silence reigns over this whole issue.

[4:00]

For these various reasons, and in order to explore this and half a dozen other issues which very easily could be taken up and a good many hours be spent talking about where concurrency would operate, how it might operate, et cetera, and exchange views across the House in this particular regard. Rather than do that, let us have a group -- and the people who will go on that committee, I’m sure, will go on only because of their intense interest in the problem on all sides of the House.

I would hope that Ontario would raise its stature in this whole area far above anything it has accomplished thus far and will not, by process of omission, be judged in history as having failed at this most critical time in our history.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of an agreement being made that we are having a constitutional debate per se to the exclusion of other matters. With your permission, I want to deal with three matters.

The first matter has to do with the projected committee that has been very much a subject of debate during the last session and the first part of this session, dealing with the estimates. The minister indicated in his response, I believe to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), that this matter had been put to the House leaders and that it was found difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a summer committee for the purpose of the review of our provincial responsibilities to national unity and any constitutional change that might be associated with it.

I do not want to misquote the minister -- and I do not have Hansard here -- but I want to make it clear to anyone who might be interested -- and it appears from the people in the House today that very few are -- that I see no problem in scheduling an additional select committee this summer.

For one thing, it could be, and probably should be, a relatively small one. The terms of reference would deal with matters that have been raised by members who have spoken before me. Frankly, it has not been raised specifically with the House leaders on the basis of whether it could or could not be handled by way of scheduling.

Secondly, I believe it could be accommodated if it were the decision of the House that such a committee ought to be established. Personally, I believe it should. I agree with the statements by previous speakers. When the matter comes for debate in the House, I would hope that, the resolution will be that such a committee be established.

I cannot readily understand why the government is so resolutely opposed to such a committee. The reasons given by the minister, I believe on Friday, didn’t seem to ring very true to me. They seemed to be rather superficial, relating simply to getting the bodies to man such a committee.

It is true that the government party has some special problems this way, and the government whip has certainly made it clear that there may be some problems in that connection. But, speaking for our party, I believe we could man such a committee without a problem; and I would expect that the members who would be associated with such a committee would certainly be interested and knowledgeable.

Having said that, I do not intend to express personal views as to what the committee should discuss or perhaps to make a guess as to what their recommendations should be. But I do agree as well with my colleague from Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), who did express a reservation about the committee; that is, it is liable, through the press coverage of its discussions, to detract from the impact of a debate that might be and should be held in this House at the time when the referendum in the province of Quebec would be very much before the people there and the people of Canada.

I think that is a significant point, that we would not want to detract from an impact of a debate in this House, perhaps approving -- unanimously, I would hope -- a resolution indicating what the stand of this province would be.

However, I do not believe the committee needs to interfere in that respect. Frankly, if such a committee is struck, I would hope it would not be simply to discuss a resolution put to the committee and to the House by the government in terms more or less based on the statement in the speech from the throne.

If a committee is so struck, I would hope it would have much broader terms of reference, in which, after doing whatever studies it might require -- and there has already been reference to the Pepin-Robarts report and the Macdonald report, which certainly would be valid documents to examine -- I would hope it would come in with an all-party recommendation for once so the House could then debate the proposed recommendation from the committee in the kind of debate we all envisage as having value.

Not many members would agree with me, I am sure, but in my view, while we all acknowledge the importance of the subject, we must also acknowledge the boredom it engenders, not only in the community at large but in this House. I hesitate to say that. Perhaps I am reflecting only a personal view. Yet our experience has been just that. In the past there have been very few members whose views on the constitution were sufficiently interesting and progressive they could command the attention of more than a handful of members in this House.

With great respect to those who have already spoken -- and I found their views interesting myself -- Elmer Sopha, the former member for Sudbury, when he was talking about the constitution and the future of Confederation, long before it was fashionable so to do, could command a great deal of interest and press response.

The minister’s two advisers, Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Greathed, have been here let’s say for a significant number of years, and could probably recount as well as any the course of the debates and the events associated with it and the waxing and waning interest in the subject. It has been a part of their professional responsibilities to maintain their interest and to meet with representatives from other provinces and the federal government on a continuing basis. They are certainly expert in their opinions and their responses in this connection are certainly valuable and much respected.

Even going back to 1967, John Robarts very properly and logically stimulated debate in the province, and to some extent across Canada, through the Confederation of Tomorrow conference. Still, I felt the debates in here were strangely sterile. Since I was a new leader of a party myself, probably my contribution was just about as sterile as any other. But while the individuals who were speaking seemed to be caught up in their own views, it seemed to be almost impossible to interest the community at large in what the Legislature thought about this.

Certain political points were made. The member for Lakeshore who has just spoken indicated in an oblique way how politically unpopular the concept of two nations turned out to be after the NDP embraced it. And yet even that lack of popularity was a very political manifestation in my view, and didn’t seem to involve the people of this part of the nation in the controversy it should have.

I don’t want to belabour the point, but if we are fooling ourselves that we are going to have some great debate in this House in which the people of the province are going to be caught up and for which the television cameras will come in to hear the views as they emerge from our lips, we are kidding ourselves. The best debaters here are hard- put if they want to express their views in a way of that kind of significance.

A resolution of the House, however, which puts in reasonable terms, even believable terms, that sovereignty association is an unacceptable alternative as far as we are concerned, would be important. However, we can say unacceptable as much as we want, but there is no doubt if Quebec, and God forbid, followed the course advocated by Rene Levesque, and we had done everything we could to stop it but still it had gone forward, I have a feeling we would not build a wall along the Ottawa River and say, “We told you if you followed that course of action it was unacceptable to us.” When it did happen we would find ourselves probably responding in a slightly different way.

That’s why I say this resolution, and the importance of it, may be seen in some jurisdiction as an approach to constitutional grandstanding. That’s the sort of thing the committee may or may not come to grips with.

The fact the minister has rejected the possibility of such a committee I hope will be reconsidered. Perhaps it will be reconsidered in the light of the resolution put on the order paper just today, to be debated this Thursday a significant course of events, I thought.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Mr. Nixon: Having, however, heard the member for Riverdale express himself in something less than outrage but also deep concern, was the fact that his cogent arguments put forward over many weeks -- in fact months -- had simply been turned gracefully aside by the minister and various spokesmen for the government. This indicates I suppose that he, with the co-operation he always gets from his colleague from Lakeshore, had found a means whereby the matter would be put to debate in this House. Frankly, I for one welcome it.

I would hope this resolution is accepted by the House, even though it is worded in a somewhat awkward way. I’m not this party’s spokesman in this connection, but if it is accepted, I hope the minister will see his way clear to accept the will of the House. What damage can be done in giving the members of this House a forum to review the matters that have already been before us? Perhaps we can come up with a recommendation to be debated in the fall in what I consider could be a very timely and important way.

There are two other matters that I want to refer to briefly. The second matter has to do, not with our constitutional responsibilities but with the minister’s other great responsibility -- that is, dealing with the municipalities.

The minister made a speech -- no need for any concern about this as far as his advisers are concerned -- some weeks ago in which he indicated to one of the municipal organizations he was approaching -- at least in his own thoughts -- some solution to the continuing problems involving the requirements for annexation involving some of the municipalities -- obviously Brantford and Brantford township are the ones in my mind.

If one of the alternatives is going to be the vehicle of private legislation, with the Legislature acting as a court in this connection, I hope before that position is accepted as ministerial policy there is a chance for further debate in the House. The situation involving Brantford and Brantford township seems to have, somehow, de-escalated. At least, there doesn’t seem to be the heat in the controversy there was the last time it was discussed in the House and yet in many respects they are no closer to a solution of their mutual problems.

As the minister is no doubt aware, a very substantial initiative is being taken by the city of Brantford in downtown revitalization and that, very properly, is occupying their views. I strongly suggest that when and if his policy is going to be enunciated here, involving not only Brantford and Brantford township but the four or five situations in the province which have been pressing themselves on the minister for his attention, if not a solution, we have an opportunity to discuss it further before something comes forward chiselled in stone.

That would make for a more academic debate rather than a viable debate in which we work together to hammer out the kinds of solutions that we would all choose.

The third point, and the minister might want to respond to this more directly: I notice in this vote there is money being made available for analysis and advice. I haven’t got the words before me, but it occurs to me it would be in this vote the ministry’s advisers may be using the procedure of sampling and public opinion analysis which was very much the subject of questions today and at the end of last week.

I would like some information from the minister if, during the past year, a polling procedure has been used, for example, to get the views of our citizens having to do with matters in the purview of his ministry. If so, we would like to hear whatever information can be made available about that -- as to how much money was spent and what consultants were employed.

We’d also like to know what the intention would be for the utilization of the money in this vote we are debating which would lead the minister to make a retainer leading to a public opinion survey; what the types of questions might be and what the aim of the expenditure of the money would be, as far as administration and policy is concerned.

[4:15]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, would you like me to reply?

Mr. Chairman: It is entirely up to the members.

Mr. MacDonald: I want to return to federal-provincial relations, et cetera. If the minister wants to reply to those two secondary questions in face of this great, momentous issue of statesmanship that was preoccupying us for a moment, fine.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Just quickly, I will reply so that we don’t forget those two questions, Mr. Chairman.

On the matter of the policy regarding annexation, as I said in my opening remarks, I indicated to the Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario about six or eight months ago some broad ideas that could be explored to help solve this problem we have with annexations and amalgamations, a problem which is brought about because the process we have has become so time consuming and so costly. They took up that challenge and have been meeting, and indeed had a gathering not so long ago to bring forward some suggestions of a new way of handling these matters. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has also been doing the same thing as have some of the other municipal groups.

We are pooling those ideas all together through the Municipal Liaison Committee. They are then going to present them to me; we are going to digest the various suggestions. I have set as a time frame for some announcement on my part as to some new procedures, some time in the summer, probably late summer.

I don’t think they will involve any kind of mystical solution which will solve all our problems. It will basically be a better and less expensive and less time-consuming way of handling the same problem. I can assure my friend they will not involve this Legislature acting as a court in the matter, because I don’t view that as the solution, at least not in the very initial stages. It may be that at some time and in some place bills in this Legislature to effect changes may be the solution in some particular areas, but certainly it would not be something which would be done immediately in any process and there would be plenty of time for this House to discuss anything of that nature.

In answer to the second question, the answer is, yes, we have conducted a public opinion survey. Part of the money for that is in this vote and we do not have any plans to conduct any further surveys at the present time.

Mr. Nixon: If you will permit me, I would like to ask a further question about that. Is the minister prepared to make all or part of that survey available?

Hon. Mr. Wells: At the present time, no, Mr. Chairman. We have a general government policy on this. The general government policy is that these surveys are kept confidential and are used by us in general determination of those things that are occurring in the general population, so therefore that is the answer I must give you at this time.

Mr. Nixon: With your permission, I want to pursue the matter of the surveys with the minister just briefly, because the Premier in his statement in question period certainly left me confused. He said the information was elicited on a basis of confidentiality. Yet that doesn’t make sense if the surveyor goes out to a person in the street or someone selected as a representative of the community, that is, not by name but perhaps on a statistical basis, their views are solicited with respect to certain matters that must concern this minister.

They may or may not have to do with our attitude towards Quebec or a change in the distribution of powers, a change in the allocation of taxing, having to do perhaps with our representation in Ottawa, whether we should have something to do with the Supreme Court and the Senate.

It seems incredible to me that the Premier would indicate that this has to be confidential because somebody’s views would be made public. If I know anything about public opinion surveys, and I’m not an expert and I’ve certainly been led astray by them in the past, nobody’s name except a surveyor’s is there. The information elicited, which is basically the opinion on these matters expressed by the people in Ontario, should surely be made available to the members of the House as well as the minister and his advisers.

I think it was perhaps the member for Riverdale or the member for Lakeshore who spoke in derogatory terms and was deeply critical of the kind of survey information published, I believe, on page two or three of that weekend supplement, or a few months ago in Maclean’s, indicating what the people of Canada, and more directly the people from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and certain other areas, thought about national unity. I agree with him entirely. He was critical because the questions and the information elicited were so superficial.

Surely, if we’re expected to provide the money for those surveys no significant reason has yet been given why the information can’t be tabled. The implication really leads some members, as the member for York South in his responses in question period, to believe the questions deal with matters that are political on a partisan basis. Otherwise, the Premier’s reasons for not revealing are incomprehensible.

I would suggest to the minister as strongly and as reasonably as I can put it to him that the information ought to be available here. It would then undoubtedly be reported that the government has found through their surveys -- and they are paying a lot of money for them, and on that basis they must be professional -- that the people in the province have these views which are, I wouldn’t say the basis of the government policy but at least they form a part of it.

I hope the minister understands this issue is going to have to be pursued. I know he cannot by himself change government policy, but surely he must see how irrational and unacceptable those arguments are to those of us who are members of the opposition side. They just don’t make any sense.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Can I just respond quickly to that question? The honourable member indicated he had some experience with polls. He knows very well from some of his experience with polls, and we’re not now talking about polls this government does but those polls used at election time, that certain parts of them are pulled out and are used at those particular times to create sometimes erroneous impressions. Usually, the whole series of questions is not reported. Wrong impressions or erroneous impressions are received by the general public.

Mr. Nixon: That’s true of anything that goes on.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, parts are pulled out and with polls the danger is very great that wrong impressions will be created perhaps -- maybe not, maybe not.

Mr. Nixon: But what about the member here?

Hon. Mr. Wells: He would read it all. I’ll just give you my personal philosophy but I view the use of polls as another method of finding out and keeping in touch with people and what people think.

Mr. Nixon: Yet you don’t want us to read them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m speaking for the polls we’ve done here, the one we’ve done in this ministry. We did a number in the Ministry of Education. Some of the ones in Education, in any event, are published and you’ve had them and you’ve seen them. You’re shaking your head?

Mr. Nixon: I haven’t. What kind of an argument is that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, several of them were done under research grants and are available in the legislative library and so forth. One of them was part of that very massive Interface study, the whole one third of that study was a poll --

Mr. Nixon: Anybody can waste money.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- done on what people’s impressions were of the education system of secondary education and so forth. But the whole idea is to synthesize from a testing of public opinion some ideas of what the public is thinking about various matters. I can assure you it helps a person who is trying to develop policy to put forward to his colleagues, to be able to have that as one of a number of sources and information areas that come in.

Mr. Nixon: What about a member who is expected to respond to that policy, such as an opposition member?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I could argue with my friend that he perhaps doesn’t need them, but it probably would be of some help to him at times too.

Mr. Nixon: You’re patronizing.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The point I wanted to make to my friend was that these are not used for political purposes and are not dispensed to political parties and used in the manner of the polls the political parties use themselves. In fact, they are used for quite different purposes, and the kinds of questions are quite different.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, it wasn’t my intention to deal with this issue -- I want to get back to the noble heights of constitutional reform -- but since this has been raised, I want to speak to it.

May I say to the minister that the government’s position on this is totally indefensible. If the government is spending public moneys for polling, based on the argument -- for the moment I’ll accept it, although I’ll advance my reservations in a moment -- that it is doing it for policy formation, and if it is getting information that may or may not be interpreted, the House is entitled to get that information and to debate the

interpretations and the misinterpretations.

The government hasn’t got a monopoly on the use of something for which public funds have been spent. The sooner the government wakes up to this, and cuts out the game -- or, if it wants to continue it because it thinks it is useful, makes the information available to the House so that the members of the Legislature, the editorial writers out there and everybody else can have it -- the sooner its position will become defensible.

Let me come back to the Premier’s reply this afternoon -- and I shall choose my words as carefully as possible. Twice he evaded replying to the question as to whether or not this information was handed on to the Conservative Party so that it might at least interpret it as it sees fit for their partisan purposes. When I backed him into the wall, he said, “No.”

Mr. Chairman, let me say this: The Premier may have set up mechanisms. He may have done, as Leslie Frost said to cabinet ministers on certain occasions, “Don’t buy Northern Natural Gas.” That didn’t stop them; they did, and two of them had to get fired out of the cabinet. It is inconceivable that the substance of those reports doesn’t get out and eventually into the hands of the Conservative Party, which then has the right to interpret them and use them as it does.

Quit the dissembling. Cut out the shenanigans. If the government is spending public money on polling, the House is entitled to the results of those polls. Don’t engage in some sort of obfuscation of the issue by saying, “If you take a poll, you may extract a portion of it and misrepresent it.” If the government has carefully prepared a poll and all its questions, it can table those questions in the House along with the answers, and we in our ignorance, or lack thereof, will make an

interpretation which will be just as legitimate as the government’s

interpretation or misinterpretation. I will leave the issue there, but the government’s position is totally indefensible; the sooner the government cuts it out, the sooner it is going to keep itself from getting deeper and deeper into trouble on the issue.

Let me get back, if I may, quietly, to the