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

May 26, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L057 - Mon 26 May 1980 / Lun 26 mai 1980

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOREST FIRES

EMERGENCY PLANNING

ORAL QUESTIONS

GM SETTLEMENTS

THE TIN DRUM

KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING

JOHNS-MANVILLE

THREE SCHOOLS

REGISTRY OF ASBESTOS WORKERS

DISPUTE AT AMR CENTRES

KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING

FOREST FIRES

POLICE ROLE IN LABOUR DISPUTES

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

FOSTER CARE ON RESERVES

POLICE COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS

TRAPPING OF ANIMALS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOREST FIRES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, in today’s forest fire update, I must report the situation remains grave. There are 84 fires burning in the province, half of them in northwestern Ontario. At the present time, our suppression and backup crews number more than 2,000 with over 1,150 fighting fires in the northwestern region. A thunder shower began over Kenora about five o’clock this morning but will have little effect on the situation. In fact, considerable lightning accompanied this shower, and we had our first new fire start within minutes.

As for Kenora itself, the fire is approximately 12 miles east of that city. While evacuation plans are at the ready, there is no immediate move to evacuate the town. However, evacuation of communities in the vicinity of Kenora has taken place, the latest being the Grassy Narrows Indian reserve. A major fire now extends approximately 40 miles from the Dryberry Lake area north to the Grassy Narrows reserve. In addition, some 250 residents of the Redditt and Ena Lake areas are being evacuated to Kenora.

No immediate evacuation of the residents of Longbow, Blindfold and Dogtooth is contemplated at present. The situation there remains stable and is unchanged from yesterday. If there is a glimmer of good news in this report it is that the ministry’s suppression staff expects good progress on lines around Red Lake and Balmertown and the threat there has been considerably reduced.

To sum up, we have 94 unit crews in the northwestern region, 676 emergency firefighters, eight water bombers and 33 helicopters. All efforts are being thrown into the northwestern region with 48 additional unit crews arriving from the eastern part of the province by tomorrow. By Wednesday, 70 crews will be in place. Also for the northwestern region, five additional helicopters will be on hand within two days. Tomorrow, a large fire suppression and support kit will be arriving from Boise, Idaho, and a similar kit will be arriving from Alaska. We are greatly indebted to the US Forest Service for making these much-needed resources available to us.

The other major fire in the north-central region, Atikokan seven, is 12,000 acres in extent. It is burning out of control. In this region we have 28 crews, 29 auxiliary crews and 250 emergency firefighters made up of nonministry staff, such as logging company personnel, five water bombers and 10 helicopters. A restricted travel zone has been put into effect west of Nipigon.

In the northern region, two large fires in the vicinity of Chapleau are fortunately presenting no threat to private property at present. In the northeastern region, seven fires are burning south of Wawa. The largest covers 360 acres and is burning out of control. This region had six fires in the last 24 hours. The other regions remain quiet and continue to supply men and equipment to the north.

As was reported in a news release yesterday, the people evacuated from Red Lake and the surrounding area and other northern Ontario points because of forest fire dangers will be compensated by the government of Ontario. That is to say, the government will be responsible for evacuation expenses and the return of the people to their communities when the existing emergency is over. This also includes expenses incurred by the affected municipalities relating to evacuation.

I regret this report contains so little that is truly optimistic or encouraging. Yesterday, together with the Attorney General and Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) and my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), I spent most of the day and early evening in the areas affected. We were all most highly encouraged by the efforts being made by all concerned -- local citizens, municipal officials and personnel of many Ontario government ministries and agencies. They are well co-ordinated in their efforts and much good work is being accomplished, despite truly staggering odds against them.

I hope my next report will be more encouraging, but the weatherman, who is such a key player in this complex scenario, is not promising much except more of the same, plus the likelihood of lightning storms and new outbreaks.

EMERGENCY PLANNING

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the emergency planning committee of cabinet, I would like to bring the honourable members up to date on some of the initiatives the government has taken since the Mississauga emergency.

First, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Brigadier General C. L. Kirby as emergency planning co-ordinator for the province. General Kirby, who will be working out of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, joins the government service after a distinguished 35-year career in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Most recently, General Kirby was commandant of the Canadian Land Forces Command and Staff College in Kingston. Previous to that, he was commander of Number Two Combat Group, the Canadian Air/Sea Transportable Combat Group, and Canadian Forces Base, Petawawa. In 1972-73, he was senior military adviser to the Canadian delegation of the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Vietnam and Laos.

2:10 p.m.

General Kirby will he advising the government on such matters as co-ordination of emergency peacetime planning and off-site nuclear contingency planning. He will also provide close liaison with municipal governments as they proceed with their own contingency planning.

I would also like to confirm that the Institute for Environmental Studies has been commissioned by the government to conduct a thorough and independent study of the events of Mississauga for the government. I would add that this in no way conflicts or interferes with the federal inquiry into the accident since the institute’s study will be confined to what happened after the derailment and not the cause of the accident.

The institute, which has an international reputation for its studies of emergencies, will be reporting to us on such matters as evacuation behaviour, dissemination of public information and economic and social impact. The institute has undertaken to provide us with periodic reports as researchers complete each phase of their studies, with the final report and recommendations in book form. Needless to say, all the institute’s reports to the government will be made public as they are received.

Third, I would like to advise the members that the province and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario will be sponsoring an international seminar in emergency preparedness to be held in Toronto next November. Primarily, this seminar will be designed for municipal officials from around the province, but in view of the extraordinary international interest that is still manifesting itself six months after the Mississauga event, we are inviting interested agencies from around the world to participate.

I will be reporting to the House from time to time as further information becomes available to us.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GM SETTLEMENTS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. He will no doubt recall, that he and his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) suggested that the government would not sign the agreement General Motors offered with regard to those cars that had different engines in them from the ones they were supposed to have.

I will read one quote from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. One year ago he said: “What that means is General Motors had better come in to see me and see what they’re going to do for those people is acceptable. If they don’t come in, we will do something that will get pretty swift justice for the 1,100 people.”

Now that a year has passed and now that the deadline for prosecuting the company on behalf of the government under the Business Practices Act has also passed, can the minister tell us what his colleague had in mind by this pretty swift justice? What is going to happen to these people?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to comment on a statement given by one of my colleagues. I would just like to enlighten the members further that my advice to the minister was not to sign a waiver, not because of any intention or expressed intention on his part to have any prosecution launched by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, but that we were not in a position to give General Motors any waiver with respect to any prosecution that might be instituted, for example, by a private citizen and that this request for some form of immunity that was asked for, in my view, was highly improper.

As I recall the discussions at the time, the minister did indicate they were not planning to prosecute under his legislation and that, therefore, should not interfere with any settlement of the individual claims. As to any other initiatives the minister might have in mind or did have in mind, I think that question should be addressed to the minister concerned.

Mr. S. Smith: In the absence of the other minister, and since the minister to whom I’m speaking is responsible for the administration of justice, is the Attorney General saying now that all the huffing and puffing we beard then -- about how Ontario was standing up to General Motors and swift justice would occur and the government was not going to sign -- may well result either in people getting nothing or in the ordinary citizen being required to obtain a lawyer to take the world’s largest corporation to court in each instance?

Why has the government not acted, as we recommended, either to improve the class action legislation or to take some kind of action on behalf of these car owners, rather than leaving every individual citizen thinking the government is doing something when it is doing absolutely nothing?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don’t intend to attempt to answer questions on behalf of my colleague, but when it comes to protecting the consumer of this province, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations doesn’t take second place to anyone.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since it is now clear that General Motors is going to tell the province of Ontario how to conduct its business, would the minister at least get out of the way and provide for some kind of effective class action? Would he introduce that kind of legislation so that consumers could at least protect themselves?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this remedy is to some extent available today. If the honourable member had really been following this issue with any degree of interest, he would know the matter is a highly complex one. It has been the subject of a very careful, very exhaustive study -- I think the most comprehensive study ever directed towards class actions by the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

I think this House might do well to have the benefit of that report before we consider any legislation that might or might not improve the situation.

THE TIN DRUM

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I suppose my next question again would be better asked of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), but there is an aspect of it with which I could entertain my friend the Attorney General and ask him for his opinion. It has to do with the negotiations over The Tin Drum. It has nothing to do with censorship; it has to do with the administration of the office of the Ontario Board of Censors.

May I ask if the Attorney General is aware that the lawyer for the film distributors wrote a letter to the board which offered to show the film with one cut, and that the chairman took it upon himself not to tell the board he had received such a communication? Is he also aware that it is alleged in the press that the board took a vote at an earlier date in favour of one cut -- not necessarily the same cut they were talking about -- but the chairman did not bother to tell the distributors of the fact that the decision had been taken by the board?

Under these circumstances, I would ask the Attorney General whether it is his view that the chairman of the board is acting within the law in putting himself in the middle in negotiations and preventing each side from learning the view of the other? Does he believe the board is supposed to operate, under law, by the chairman not telling members of the board what the latest offer is on behalf of film distributors?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not prepared to say, on the basis of press reports which I have also seen, that the chairman is not acting within the law. With respect to the administration of the board, that is a matter that should be directed to the minister who has responsibility for the board.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Attorney General whether in the interests of natural justice there are not some general rules with regard to the way in which administration of justice and administration within the various boards and commissions of Ontario takes place? After all, I have here in front of me the letter from the lawyer, dated May 14 -- a very formal letter -- clearly intending the board to understand a new offer on behalf of the distributors, and the board was never told this. Far from a tin drum, it appears we have a little tin god who prevents the board from hearing the views which these clients wish to have expressed.

This is not in the press, this is right here; but according to the press a decision taken by the board, again by decision of the chairman, was not communicated to the film distributor. Is there not a certain aspect of natural justice in this that would interest the Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think we’re all interested h this matter. I have read that the lawyer for the film distributor has indicated his intention to seek some redress or relief in the courts. In my view, I think it would be appropriate for any opinion to wait for that review of the courts, particularly when I do not have what I would consider to be all the relevant information.

2:20 p.m.

KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING

Mr. MacDonald: I have a question with regard to the Keating Channel for the Minister of the Environment. I have a memorandum which was sent by S. E. Salbach, assistant director of the water resources branch to the assistant deputy minister, W. Bidell, on February 19, 1980, in which is noted the necessity for strict adherence to the considerations and conditions stipulated earlier by the Minister of the Environment and Environment Canada.

The memo goes on: “Evidence to date clearly indicates that the Toronto Harbour Commission has not adhered to these conditions. Although ostensibly environmentally concerned, the track record of the THC engineering department over many years leads me recommend the withdrawal of MOE approval for dredging disposal on the south side of the main east headland.”

Accompanying it is a document, the final paragraph of which says: “The Toronto Harbour Commission consistently fails to live up to their promises with the result that the MOE is left in a very embarrassing position with respect to the maintenance of water quality.”

That being the case, on the basis of the internal memorandum within the minister’s own department, why was the authority not withdrawn? To put it the other way; why did he continue to grant authority for that Keating Channel dredging?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In response to that particular question, Mr. Speaker, the case was made many times to us that there could be a flooding emergency if the channel is not dredged. We are concerned, of course, and have been, about the quality of the material that is in the Keating Channel. That is precisely why we have insisted on an environmental assessment that will determine whether it can be successfully removed to the new location or another location. We have never given any long-term commitment to it. It is a year to year, one year at a time, approval.

We will be insisting that those questions be answered in full in the environmental assessment. We want to be assured that the material that is dredged from Keating Channel is removed to a safe place as soon as possible because of the flooding potential there. We will insist on a full environmental assessment hearing to prove the case one way or the other before we will give any agreements for long-term commitment.

Mr. MacDonald: Once again we have a case of the environmental hearings being after the fact than before the fact. The minister has advanced as the reason for proceeding with this dredging before having an environmental hearing the fact there was danger of flooding in the lower Don River.

Is the minister aware of the fact that a federal memorandum, which was quoted in the Kirk Makin story in the Globe and Mail last Friday, was to the effect that it is their view, based on limited information and field observation, that the flooding in the lower reaches of the Don River is not connected with the silting in the Keating Channel?

Is the minister aware of the fact that as far back as 1975, Ken Higgs, the director of operations in the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, wrote to the Toronto Harbour Commission and said: “Under designed flood conditions the lack of dredging in the Keating Channel would have virtually no effect on the extent of flooding which would be experienced in the lower Don.

Why is the minister dredging up still another excuse of an alleged danger of flooding, in face of that testimony, as an excuse for proceeding with the event before he has an environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth than to suggest we are dredging up a reason for dredging. Indeed, I think both our own Ministry of Natural Resources and federal sources do believe there is a danger there from flooding. I will be glad to get that evidence for the member.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: As there has been no environmental assessment of that area to date, and as we have just shown that the dredging is not necessary for flood control, can the minister tell us where the safe location is for the dumping of the dredge material? Has he decided upon that to date?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, we are having an argument as to whether there is a need to dredge on a short-term basis for some temporary relief of flooding. That is the one issue and we can disagree on that all day.

The other issue of where the site will be, will be fully explored in the environmental assessment hearing. That is what it is all about, to find whether the proposed site is safe, and if not, what the alternative is. That is the whole purpose of an environmental assessment and that is why I insisted on it.

We do not know where that site will be. The honourable member is asking me to prejudge what the environmental assessment hearing is supposed to do. That would be very foolish on my part. I do not know the best site; that is the purpose of the hearing and that is what will be explored.

JOHNS-MANVILLE

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, who is not here, so I am going to put the question to the Attorney General instead.

This morning the Minister of Labour was on Metro Morning and in the course of his comments he observed, with regard to the proposal of my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) that the suggestion that Johns-Manville Canada Inc. should be compelled to set aside enough assets to cover the possible emergence of asbestos-induced health conditions if the plant should close down was unacceptable, indeed -- I use my phrase, but it is not inaccurate -- an outrageous proposal in a free society.

Is it beyond the legal rights of the ministry or this government to insist that a company like Johns-Manville should set aside funds in order to ensure the company’s social and community obligations?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting to note the number of questions that have been addressed to the Attorney General in the absence of other ministers.

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order: If the Attorney General cannot reply the Minister of Labour has now arrived.

Mr. Speaker: Did the Minister of Labour hear the question?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I did not.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I hate to see the Attorney General floundering so badly.

My question to the Minister of Labour is this: I listened to him this morning on Metro Morning; during his comments he dismissed the proposal of my colleague the member for Hamilton East, that Johns-Manville should be obligated to set aside adequate funds in order to meet the needs of workers who might have asbestos-induced injuries or health conditions later. He dismissed this as being unacceptable -- indeed, I think it is not inaccurate to say that in his view it was an outrageous proposal in a free society that one should seek to freeze the assets of a corporation in this fashion.

My question to the minister is this: What is outrageous about the proposition of insisting that a company accept its social and community responsibilities and that it set aside the funds for doing that -- when we have growing evidence that it is going to cut and run and get out of there altogether -- so that the public purse won’t have to meet these social and community obligations at a later date?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is not quite fair that the member, unless he has knowledge that I do not, should say that the company is cutting and running. The information I have, and I am sure he has, is that the two other divisions, two other lines of Johns-Manville, the fibreglass and the insulation lines, are going to continue. I do not think that is something I should get into defending. They have simply told me they see good business reasons to continue those two, and they think they are viable.

As to cutting and running from other responsibilities, I think the member knows full well that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act certain rates are charged to certain rate groups in industry throughout this province. Should something happen to one industry, that it fails for some reason, then the accident fund picks up the benefits that may be required to be paid to workers presently disabled or workers disabled in the future.

2:30 p.m.

As I made it clear on Friday, I have an understanding with the Workmen’s Compensation Board, following discussions with the vice-chairman, that in the event something should happen and those workers who are at present in the Transite pipe division do not get transferred into the other two divisions, they will be eligible for the special rehabilitation program. Indeed, should workers who do get transferred want to leave that employment for some reason at a later time, they too would be eligible for the special rehab program. I think the system is responding reasonably well.

Mr. MacDonald: Let me focus my question more sharply. Suppose I accept for a moment the minister’s contention that the WCB will pick it up and suppose I accept the minister’s contention that the company isn’t going to cut and run -- and he may find himself six months from now duped as badly on this as he was on the closing down last week -- why can the minister not take the necessary steps to make sure that the company, in the event of its leaving, will pick up this obligation and it won’t have to be picked out of an accident fund carried by everybody else other than the company responsible for the conditions in the first instance?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member has asked a question the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) has raised in the past; that is, the right of the Workmen’s Compensation Board to receive compensation from any particular employer who may on some sort of terms have been accused of being and proven to have been grossly negligent and to recover certain funds from that company. That is a matter I have asked Professor Weiler to review, but at the present time the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not allow that type of action, and the member knows that.

THREE SCHOOLS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Last week I asked the minister about the Three Schools problem. He told me at that time that he is in a state of negotiations with them. Why would the minister say that when the last communication they received from the minister or his ministry was on May 5, when the minister said in a letter: “We are informing you that no major increases in grant will be available from the ministry to the school in the upcoming year”?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, that was the last official communication. In the meantime -- don’t shake your head because I know better than you do.

Mr. Peterson: No, you don’t.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Yes, I do. In the meantime we have reopened the case. Even this morning I was looking at comparative figures of grants made to the other alternative art schools in Toronto and in other parts of this province. It is not a closed book.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Why is the minister being so parsimonious and niggardly?

These people are going to have to close up on June 6 and sell off the assets, and they are going to have to start doing that in the next two, three or four days to meet the current payroll problems. Why doesn’t the minister just cough up something and stop being so cheap and save this marvellous school?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We are not being parsimonious at all about this.

Mr. Peterson: You are being niggardly.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That is your word. It might interest the member opposite to know that at present the Three Schools gets 29.6 per cent of its total revenue from the Ministry of Culture and Recreation as compared to 15.9 per cent of total revenue coming from my ministry to another art school called Art’s Sake Inc. and 10.3 per cent for the Toronto School of Art.

In other words, even now the percentage of the total revenue from the provincial government to the Three Schools is way out of line. If we were to meet their request they would probably be getting about 40 per cent or 50 per cent of their total revenue from my ministry. I don’t think we have been parsimonious at all.

As I said earlier, in spite of the fact that they are way out of line we have not closed the book entirely on them. There are people on this side of the House as well as the other side, including myself, who are trying to do our very best to save the school. But I can tell the member they cannot depend entirely on the provincial government to prevent them from going belly up.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I trust the minister has received my letter on the matter and is giving it the profoundest perusal. There are 150 jobs at stake here. The minister seems to be terribly negative about it. Is he saying there is a real possibility that continuity may be given to the life of that school?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, because of our own interests and because of interests expressed from many quarters, we are trying to do our very best to save the school. I am simply throwing out the added caveat here that the Three Schools cannot depend for a disproportionate percentage of revenue from the provincial government as compared to the other alternate schools with which it is competing. But the book has not been closed.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: That is very decent of the minister, but does he realize that the deadline for closing down is June 6? They are under very serious financial pressure. They are going to have to start making those plans in the next two, three or four days. It is not nearly as much use to come in 10 days from now with a sudden reprieve at the end when a lot of adverse decisions have had to be made. Why does he not do that this afternoon? He does not do very much anyway. Phone them up this afternoon and save them.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I will ignore that little editorial, Mr. Speaker; it is a piece of nonsense. If the member would like to follow me around for some weeks we will see who is doing something and who is not.

Before I go back and negotiate with them or even begin to discuss with them any possible way of saving the school, I want to get some facts and it is taking me a little time to get the facts. I am not going to rush in there without the facts just because the member is grandstanding on their behalf.

REGISTRY OF ASBESTOS WORKERS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour which also involves his friends at Johns-Manville Canada Inc. Does the minister recall that about four or five years ago between Chapleau and Timmins there was an asbestos mine known as Reeves mine because it was in Reeves township? There were approximately 100 workers employed at that mine but over a number of years there were hundreds of workers who worked there at different times. Although he was not the minister then, does he recall that both the mine and mill were closed down due to occupational health problems at that time?

Could the minister tell us whether his ministry responded to demands from this party that a registry of workers who worked at these mines be established? Has that ever been done?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to the use of the word “friends,” one cannot always associate the word with who might be a friend and who might not. For instance, I have a dog that hates the member’s guts even though I happen to like the member. She has been after him several times; she is a Tory dog. He understands this; he has had those attacks before. So I think friendship is always a relative term and one should keep that in mind when one accuses someone in the way the member has.

I am well aware of the fact that Reeves mine was closed by this ministry or by what was then part of this ministry, the mines division of the Ministry of Natural Resources, because of the occupational health hazards. As to whether or not there is a registry of workers, I would have to check into that. But I know that extensive efforts were made to try to locate all those miners. The member knows that. Letters were written to them all and ads placed in the papers. Diligent efforts have been made to try to locate as many as possible and their names are kept on record. If the member wants more details about the record, I will have to inquire into that and get back to him.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: That is very interesting to know. I did not know that. Would the minister tell me too, if it is a fact, as I am led to believe, whether there is a very high rate of both lung cancer and associated lung diseases among workers who were employed at the Reeves mine? The figure I have, and one the minister probably has too, indicates seven people died of cancer and there were 30 cases of lung disease among workers who worked at the Reeves mine.

Is the minister aware of those figures? Has he established contact with all the workers who have had problems? Has he completed his search? How many of the total number of employees who worked at Reeves have been contacted? Does he know where they are and what their health is? Has Johns-Manville been assessed a higher rate of compensation assessment as a result of the performance at that mine? Would he table all the information he has about the number of workers who were employed at the Reeves mine and their health condition?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have that information available to me because obviously I didn’t know this question was going to be asked. But let me just reaffirm a couple of things. Clearly, we must have a list -- and it is my recollection now we do -- of the last payroll and of other payrolls, because it is from that list that we have sent out requests to try to locate the miners.

Incidentally, we are also able to follow any miners who worked at the Reeves mine through the annual chest X-rays which are carried out on all people working in the mines. There is a broader study on the health of miners being done by the ministry. The names of the people involved are, I believe, now at StatsCan and we are waiting for a report from them.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board, in addition, has a list of the people who were at those mines. But if the member would be kind enough to give me, in writing, the specific things he wants I would he glad to discuss them with the board and get back to him.

DISPUTE AT AMR CENTRES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I know the minister must surely feel, as I do, that the workers among the mentally retarded in Hamilton who have been on strike now for some eight weeks -- it is the ninth week of their strike now -- are dreadfully underpaid. They should not have to be out there on strike to get a decent wage, but they still are. Can the minister tell us how it was that a similar strike in Toronto lasted only a matter of days, following which a reasonably acceptable settlement was made?

Was there additional ministry money offered to the Toronto organization in order to help them finish this strike, money that has not been offered to Hamilton? Is the Toronto organization able simply to go into debt and assume the ministry will bail it out? Or does it have some other source of revenue? What is the understanding of the minister as to how the Toronto settlement could have occurred so quickly -- and a more generous one for that matter -- when the poor folk at Hamilton have been out now for nine weeks and still have no sign of a settlement?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree with the honourable member that it is unfortunate that the strike in Hamilton has continued for a period of eight weeks, both for the persons who are on strike and also for the mentally retarded persons whom they serve.

The allocations to the associations for the mentally retarded in all cases this year were on the same basis. They received an eight per cent increase in their allocation for existing programs. That is true also of the Metro association.

I do not know specifically how Metro arrived at its settlement. I mean by that it is free to make certain reallocations within its budget. I don’t know precisely what it did in order to arrive at the agreement it did. But I can assure the honourable member that there has been no increased allocation to the Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded over and above the allocation which was on the same basis as the Hamilton association.

The staff of the ministry is in regular contact with the Hamilton association, attempting to assist it in identifying possible available resources it may not have identified within its budget. In fact, there is a meeting taking place this afternoon with the representatives of the association and senior staff of my ministry. I hope that will be a further fruitful meeting.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, could I ask that the minister do two things if he would be kind enough to consider this? Could he, first of all, include members of the union in these discussions? The workers are quite mystified as to how Toronto could have settled so quickly for more money than they have been offered. They can’t seem to get a settlement, and they are out there on a picket line day after day instead of taking care of the retarded. Could he possibly bring them in on the meeting so they will understand how this has happened?

Second, would the minister immediately please take whatever steps are necessary to let them earn a living wage and get back to work? It is simply intolerable that they should be expected, after years and years of experience, college degrees, diplomas and so on, to be earning less than the average civil servant receptionist. I think this has to be brought to an end. If the association is wrong, then for goodness’ sake the minister should show it where it is wrong.

But if it is the government’s refusal to put a sufficient amount of money into the pot -- it has enough money for everything from car rebates to pulp and paper projects -- would it please put a few dollars in and get these people back to work?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, there was a series of questions. I will try to remember each of them. I think that at this point in the negotiations it would be inappropriate for me or the staff of my ministry to meet together with both parties at the same time. I think what we are doing, in terms of our meetings with the association, is attempting to assist them in identifying possible areas within their budget where they may have more flexibility than they have identified. I don’t think it would be appropriate to hold that meeting in conjunction with the presence of the labour union.

On the other hand, I think it’s important to bear in mind that the settlement between the Metropolitan Toronto association and its employees, however quickly it was arrived at, was arrived at through the collective bargaining process with no intervention on the part of my ministry.

I cannot at this point answer for the member where the Metropolitan Toronto association may have identified areas within its budget that gave it the added flexibility. I also think it’s important to bear in mind, and I can’t be certain of this because I don’t have a percentage figure for the Metropolitan Toronto settlement, but I think if the member checks it as a percentage of the prior existing rates, the percentage settlement was probably not in excess of the percentage increase offer that has already been made by the Hamilton association. In fact, it might have been less.

Mr. Charlton: I would like to direct a supplementary on this matter to the Minister of Labour. It is our understanding that the two parties involved in this strike are not meeting at all. Would the Minister of Labour or his staff get involved in finding out why they are not meeting and doing whatever is necessary to get the two parties back to the bargaining table?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it depends on what the member means by involved. Members of the industrial relations staff have been involved and continue to be in touch with the parties. As I am sure the member knows from the nature of the negotiations, when one has an indication that there’s a good reason to get back to the table, then one calls people back to the table. I will be glad to review the matter again today with staff and see if there are any such indications.

KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING

Mr. R. F. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. I was surprised to hear the minister talking about an environmental assessment hearing for the Keating Channel and I would like to follow that up if I might.

Is there actually to be a full environmental assessment hearing on the matter of the Keating Channel dredging or will it only be a matter of monitoring the dredging already approved for this year as referred to in the minutes of the meeting of the board of harbour commissioners of February 28, 1980? I quote from page three, item four, under environmental considerations: “The Ministry of the Environment will continue to obtain water samples from the endikement basin and closely monitor the dredge rate being placed within the disposal basin to determine the success or failure of confinement methods.

Failure will result in dredging being curtailed pending development of further refinements.” Is that all the minister is going to do, just monitor their testing, or is he going to have full environmental hearing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We are having both, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary: As Dr. Robert Slater has written to Mayor Sewell of Toronto concerning the sludge to be dredged, saying it is heavily contaminated with organics, oil, greases and lead, could the minister confirm this evaluation and could he table in this House the results of all tests done by his ministry or received by his ministry on the contamination levels of the material? Will he assure the House that this full environmental assessment will take place prior to any dredging taking place?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think I have already covered the last part of that question, Mr. Speaker. I spent some time on that this afternoon. The important thing to realize in this instance is that the materials that all of us are concerned about are at present in the channel and therefore have access to the waters of the inner harbour and from there to Lake Ontario. No wishful thinking will make those materials disappear. They are there, so the purpose of what is to be done is to remove those materials to a safe site.

2:50 p.m.

One possibility of a safe site is into the diked area. If that is safe and is proved safe, then it is much preferable than having that material, the sludge, exposed to the water on a 365-day-a-year basis. Far better that it be in a contained area. If it won’t work, if it can’t be satisfactorily contained in the diked area, then another secure landfill site will be found for it. Anything will be an improvement on what exists at present. We want the very best that can be done.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister consider issuing a stop-work order under the Environmental Protection Act in order that the proponent could undertake an environmental assessment hearing under the act before any approvals are given on this particular project?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: What worries me about that is the material at present is totally exposed to the water of the inner harbour through the channel. Are we not agreed on that? There it is.

Mr. Gaunt: It is at the bottom of the lake.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: But it still can get into the water.

Mr. S. Smith: Stirring it up would make it worse.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If indeed it is safe there, it is of no significance. It will be a lot safer in a diked area where there isn’t the action of the waves and the passing of water over that material. Nothing could he worse than what at present exists.

Mr. S. Smith: That is not true. It is safer at the bottom rather than dredging it into the infiltration system.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Eventually, the sediment would totally close the channel. Some day we are going to have to get rid of that material someplace and the sooner the better.

Mr. S. Smith: But where? First you should decide where.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am saying if it is in a diked area and is not contained, then we will issue a stop order. What is being proposed is infinitely better than what exists today. I wish some members of the House would get that through -- the member shakes his head no. It is so easy to live in an imaginary world, and that is what those members are doing.

Interjections.

Mrs. Campbell: We would like to see you do a little planning some time.

FOREST FIRES

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in regard to the forest fire situation in northern Ontario. In view of the statement of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) indicating that the government would be paying the evacuation costs and return costs for people who have moved, can the minister indicate to the House today what steps his ministry will be taking in providing what I think we can safely call disaster relief funds to the people in northern Ontario, particularly those who may lose their homes if the fires continue?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we would be taking the same steps we have taken in previous disasters, particularly during this past year. If the municipalities or the unorganized areas ask for it and we declare them disaster areas, the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program would apply. That involves a certain amount of money being raised by local areas, which we would match. That would be available, and we are considering that for the various areas when we find out exactly what the situation is.

I should point out to my friend the only difference between that and some of the other disasters that have occurred is that it is not possible to have insurance for floods, for instance, while fire insurance is a very common thing and most people do have fire insurance of some form.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister could spell out a little more specifically exactly what he intends to do. Does he recall that in 1978 in the Cobalt fire disaster the government put up $4 for each $1 raised locally? Some of these areas in northwestern Ontario are unorganized, and there isn’t going to be a base or source for a lot of funds to be raised locally to assist.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is too early to be able to tell in any detail exactly what we are going to do, except to say we will do everything possible to assist. I can assure my friend that will be done.

Mr. T. P. Reid: One short supplementary: Will the member provide assistance, if necessary, on the same formula he used in the Cobalt situation -- four to one? Has anyone asked up there that the area be designated a disaster area yet?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t think I want to commit myself exactly to the four to one; certainly that is a possibility. As my friend knows, though, we paid at the rate of three to one in a couple of other disasters recently. I am not going to give him a definite assurance until I see in black and white in front of me exactly what we are facing. I just want to assure him that everything possible will be done, and he can assure the people up there of that.

Mr. Breithaupt: But has anyone asked for that assistance?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t think so. Not yet.

POLICE ROLE IN LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour relating to the strike at Dufferin Aggregates and Nelson Crushed Stone that I asked last week. Can the minister justify -- now that he has the information, I suppose -- the use of 30 to 40 police officers at the legal strike in progress, in order to run the five company trucks through the picket line three times a week? There are usually not more than 20 to 25 picketers on the line. Can he also explain what the right to picketing means when many of those are in trucks with the side windows boarded up, and the police escort is travelling at high speed?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, last week the member did raise questions about police activities on the picket line at Nelson Crushed Stone and Dufferin Aggregates, I believe it was, and I did refer those matters to the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry). At that time I suggested that matters regarding police should be referred to him.

At the present time, we are still in the midst of acting as mediators in that dispute and I prefer not to comment any further at this time.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, can I redirect the question to the Solicitor General? Do I have to repeat the question?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

Mr. Di Santo: Can the minister justify the use of 30 to 40 police officers at the legal strike in progress at Nelson Crushed Stone in order to run five company trucks though the picket line three times a week when there are usually no more than approximately 20 picketers on the line?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have been assured, Mr. Speaker, that the only police activity in that area with respect to the strike at Nelson Crushed Stone is in relation to preventing anticipated breaches of the peace. I am told the number of police officers in the vicinity has not amounted to that many at any one time, or if there were that many at one time it was for a very short period. We will continue to be concerned that police officers who attend at any of these strike situations do not even give the perception of favouring one side or the other.

They are there simply to keep the peace -- to prevent anticipated breaches of the peace. That is my information as to what is occurring at that strike.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Solicitor General is aware that several charges have been laid -- charges that the union doesn’t think are very serious? Is he aware that the function of the police is to protect only the scabs and the trucks that are “independent brokers,” so the police are seen by the union as one-sided, protecting the employer? Since that is the situation, will the minister tell the House whether the costs of the police will be charged to the American company, Flintkote?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Solicitor General: Would it be for the same reason the Solicitor General had seven police cruisers at the scene of a picket line with four rather small women on the picket line?

3:00 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I do not understand the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the minister was suggesting the police were to be there to prevent violence, to keep the peace and to ensure there was an objective attitude both to management and to the strikers. Could the minister, therefore, give me his explanation as to why seven police cruisers should be called to a picket line which had four rather small females walking on the line?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not aware of the situation to which the honourable member refers.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Bradley: A question for the provincial Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Members of the Legislature are aware that the Ontario government has consistently carried out a very heavy program of advertising at the very hint of a provincial election. In view of the obvious continued support of the NDP, which will likely last for some time yet, would the minister inform the House whether, in order to practice financial restraint, he is prepared to look at eliminating or reducing those advertising programs that appear to be designed to promote the ministers in the provincial government rather than to provide essential information to the people of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I sense that question is loaded somehow. It is interesting to us that while they often complain about advertising campaigns of any type run by government, the members opposite are often very prompt to say we should improve our attempts to disseminate information. When a minister adds his or her prestige to an advertisement, it cannot help but bring attention to the problem.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, would the Treasurer agree with me that the commercials that feature the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) telling us his efforts have produced an increase in Canadian retail sales, or the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) telling us what a great job he is doing with hospitals, or the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) being promoted as the sole champion of conservation of energy in this province, should be paid for by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario? Ultimately he could benefit, because he would come across as the true master of restraint in that government.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when the honourable gentleman wishes to direct a question or lay some blame, he chooses those same ministers.

FOSTER CARE ON RESERVES

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I am sure the minister is aware of the extraordinary number of native children in the northwestern Ontario area in foster care. I want to ask the minister whether he is aware that at the Whitedog reserve alone there are 45 children in foster care off the reserve? I am sure that is about 50 per cent of the child population.

I want to ask the minister if he is prepared, at this time, in view of the appalling statistics and in view of the Mandamin case we talked about last year, to accept proposals from the reserves themselves to establish residential homes on the reserves to provide a foster care service for children who require it so that native children will not have to be taken out of the community and placed into the inadequate network of foster care facilities that exists outside the reserves?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the specific numbers in the Whitedog reserve to which the honourable member made reference. Certainly what he proposes is what we would like to see happen in more and more instances. However, we do still have some problems we have not been able to work out with the federal government in terms of jurisdiction. In one instance on one reservation, we have proceeded without the co-operation of the federal government. We feel we cannot afford to do that without appropriate cost sharing in all cases.

I am not really in a position where I can proceed on a broad basis to provide on-reserve group home accommodation for example, for children, however much I might like to. I do believe that is the way to go. In the interim, what we have attempted to do is encourage children’s aid societies in the north to accelerate their efforts to recruit native workers to work with the children who might come into their care. That is at least a step in the right direction.

The member is certainly not going to get any argument from me with respect to the advisability of what he suggests, if we can simply work out the problems that currently exist.

Mr. McClellan: That is a distressing answer.

Is the Minister of Community and Social Services aware that there are at least three reserve communities in the Treaty Three area -- Rat Portage, Northwest Angle, and Whitedog -- which are in the process of developing proposals for foster care residences on reserves? Is the minister aware of those three projects? Will he send George Thomson or somebody with the equivalent authority up to discuss the three projects and other projects with officials from both the Kenora Children’s Aid Society and the reserves?

Will he sit down with his colleague, the so-called cabinet co-ordinator for native affairs, and try to resolve the jurisdictional buck-passing which has been going on now since the 1960s, and which is simply intolerable, in view of the kind of thing that is happening to children in the north-western Ontario areas? Surely the minister can afford to move ahead --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if there are proposals being prepared I am not aware of them. I accept the member’s information on that. I think the appropriate person to follow up directly with the persons involved would be our northern Ontario director, whose office is located in Sault Ste. Marie and serves the total northern area. I will communicate with him to see if they are aware of the proposals that are being prepared.

Furthermore, I would like the member to know that I sit down regularly with my colleague, whom the member identified as being the co-ordinator of Ontario native policy. We have been making substantial efforts to resolve those differences. I don’t think the member has to ask that my colleague put forth more effort. I think perhaps the member himself could assist us by asking his federal colleagues to put some pressure on the federal government to move in ways that will assist us in what we would like to accomplish.

POLICE COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that Commissioner McKay keeps reiterating the statements which I understood even the Solicitor General found somewhat distasteful, would it not now be advisable for the Solicitor General to take some action to replace this commissioner, since many people believe he is speaking with at least some encouragement from the government?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I don’t understand the suggestion that Mr. McKay is speaking on behalf of the government. He certainly is not. He has made very clear the circumstances which promoted his statement. I have indicated to Mr. McKay that I have some difficulty with some of the statements he has made. He has assured me he is aware of the fact that, for example, he does not really enjoy the luxury of speaking as an individual private citizen.

When someone enjoys a sensitive position such as he is holding, as a member of the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police, whenever he speaks on any issue it will he perceived to be a statement uttered by the police commissioner. He has indicated to me that he agrees with that position, that he can’t distinguish between Winfield McKay as a police commissioner and Winfield McKay as a private citizen. I would be very surprised if Mr. McKay makes any further utterances that are going to cause what, in my view, is a needless and unhappy controversy.

3:10 p.m.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Is the Solicitor General not aware that about a week ago Mr. McKay did, in fact, virtually repeat the statement he had made. I am sorry, I have not got the date with me. That being the case, since he seems to be unable to refrain from those remarks, would the Solicitor General not think that he should now take some action?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Perhaps the honourable member would enlighten me further in regard to the incidents to which she is apparently referring.

TRAPPING OF ANIMALS

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Now that Bill 15,

An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act, has received royal assent and that the setting of leghold and body-gripping traps by unknowledgeable people in urban areas is illegal, has the minister had an opportunity to consider the suggestion I made to him a number of weeks ago that a fund should be set up to provide local municipalities and/or humane societies with the funds necessary to provide box traps to those people who are bothered by nuisance animals?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, we are looking into that. I have asked my people to give me some idea of how many are needed, what they cost and whether there might he some way of interchangeability with fewer numbers. I think it is an excellent scheme. I know there are problems in a lot of municipalities in getting that kind of equipment. I cannot give the member a definitive answer at the moment.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview, (Mr. Di Santo), has indicated his dissatisfaction with an answer given to him by the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) about police activities on picket lines. This matter will be debated at 10:30 tomorrow evening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Minister, I believe you were in the course of making certain replies when we terminated the last session.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I am just going to respond very briefly at this time to a couple of the things that have been raised, because they will all be covered in the various votes that we come to in these estimates. To reply at this time in detail to all the points that were brought up, particularly by the municipal affairs critics for both the New Democratic and the Liberal parties, would lead us into a full discussion of the estimates under this particular opening statement

section of the vote.

As I recall, one of the things my friend from Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) raised was communications between this assembly and the municipalities in the province. As far as communications are concerned, I have to think communications between this assembly and the province are probably as good as they ever have been. Each of the members of this assembly represents various municipalities and there are 838 municipalities in this province. If there is one thing I am sure of it is that those members, whichever party they may represent, are in very close touch with the municipalities in their own ridings.

In other words, the contact between the municipal politicians and the clerk-treasurers of an area and the members of the Legislature representing that area is as good as it has ever been.

It has always been a traditional method of communication and one that works well and serves the municipalities well. I think the proof of my statement is in the kinds of questions and matters that are brought before this assembly during question period or privately to myself or to my colleagues from the members of this House on behalf of their municipalities. In that particular regard I think communication is very good.

We could carry that to the next logical step, which is the collective communication between municipalities on particular points of interest and this assembly. I have heard the proposition put forward by the mayor of Toronto, John Sewell, and some of the other mayors that perhaps there should be a standing committee of this Legislature dealing with municipal affairs. It was always my impression that over the years we have had some sort of a committee, perhaps not quite as particularly designated, although I can recall, and some of my colleagues who were here back in the 1960s will perhaps recall, we used to have a standing committee on municipal affairs.

I have to say to my friend I do not think communications were any better or any worse then than they are at the present time. The standing committee on municipal affairs considered all the municipal bills; the municipal groups came down and talked to that committee, and they worked well.

One of the things we have been doing recently here that is different from what we did in the 1960s is that we do not refer as many municipal bills to standing committees. If we referred all the municipal bills that were here each year to a standing committee, that standing committee would become a municipal affairs committee, quite obviously, because we always have three, four, five or six bills, usually with a fair number of sections, covering the whole wide scope of municipal-provincial interests. Those bills in that committee would create for us a municipal affairs committee.

I don’t think we need specifically to designate a committee as such now and then have it embark upon all kinds of make-work projects in this particular area just to justify its existence. The present plan of having standing committees of this House handle legislation and matters of urgency can serve just as useful a purpose. As my friend knows, if there is a matter of urgency, there are means and techniques for referring reports to create discussion and so forth.

I might say I would like to refer the regional Ottawa-Carleton bill to committee when it comes for second reading in this House. I had suggested it should go to committee because the municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area would like to come down and talk to the Legislature about the sections in that hill.

3:20 p.m.

After listening to two, if not more, points of view about representation on regional council, we finally had to come down on one side. We proposed what we think is a good solution in the bill. It isn’t universally accepted in the region. I think the next logical step is for the members of the region, the Ottawa city council and the other mayors and councils, to come down and talk to members from all parties in this Legislature in the standing committee on general government and discuss that particular issue. That gives them co-ordination, co-operation and so forth.

There is sometimes a great danger in drawing the line between what are the lines of communication between the members of this Legislature and the municipalities -- and I have talked about some of those lines already -- and the day-to-day ongoing communication between the government department and departments that are dealing with municipal matters all the time and the municipalities. There has to be different communications and different modes of communication in these areas to what there is with the members of the Legislature.

There are problems, differences of opinion and controversies that include all of us and for which we have different opinions. The Legislature becomes the forum to discuss those. There are the ongoing day-to-day communications between the municipalities as they carry out their job in co-operation in conjunction with the provincial civil servants, who also have responsibilities that are directly connected with the municipal function in this province. That gets us into the whole MLC-PMLC process.

The process involving the Municipal Liaison Committee and the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee was set up so that the municipalities collectively could talk with us as a government charged with administering -- not just developing -- the various laws and municipal functions we have to handle. The MLC was set up so that there would be some kind of joint voice on behalf of the municipalities. The PMLC was the Municipal Liaison Committee with provincial people also sitting on it to give a committee where municipal-provincial concerns could be discussed.

It was a good idea in its time but, as I have said in past estimates, we have to look for new modes of communication, and that is what we are doing. I am not going to get into a long discussion on it now, but I am sure my friends know there has been a joint committee of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association and the Association of Counties and Regions. That group has been looking at new arrangements on the municipal side as to how they can improve their interaction and co-ordination effort.

Once they get that done, and if that is accepted by the municipal people, we can then adjust what we see as the kind of interface they should have with the province. The chances are that the PMLC process will slowly fade from the picture and we will develop a new type of process that allows for the municipalities to interface with the government departments that are working with them day in and day out.

Under Dick Illingworth, the provincial-municipal affairs secretariat function has been a very useful function. I might tell my friends that actually is the function that has been operating now, as the formal meetings of the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee have not been held. Mr. Illingworth and his people are acting with the MLC, which is still functioning with all members participating.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is still part of the MLC function. But Dick Illingworth is functioning as a co-ordinator, innovator and facilitator who is able to take the municipal concerns and get them to the right ministries and departments and to keep the ball rolling, even though there are no formal PMLC meetings being held. I have not had any complaints directed to me in so far as municipal-provincial co-operation or communication has been concerned over the last few months, even though we haven’t had any PMLC meetings.

In other words, the various groups that have concerns about various pieces of legislation, policies, regulations and functions are getting to those ministers concerned. They are having their meetings and are putting forward their positions, and those positions are playing a very important

part in the development of the kind of legislation and policies that are growing out from the government.

I guess one of the fallacies we operated under at one time, and one I think we have to divest ourselves of, is that municipalities can always have a common position on every issue. I think that would be just like expecting this House to have a common position on every issue. There are times when all the municipalities -- the small ones, the large ones, the counties, the townships, the regions, the cities -- can all agree. I can’t really think of one where they all agree, but one where perhaps a larger number of them agree is on the term of office.

Even that is a good example where certain of them have a predominant feeling for a three-year term, for instance. Many smaller ones still feel a two-year term is preferable, or some of them even think a one-year term might be all right.

It is probably very unlikely we will get a common opinion. I think it was one of the areas where we expected something that was unattainable for the MLC -- that through that process we would have a common opinion on practically every subject that would represent the municipalities of this province. That just was not to be; it was not so.

I think they will always be communicating with my ministry, or even with the members of this Legislature, positions that say most think this should be done, but there is a very large minority who still do not agree and feel this should be done. As with most issues, we will find there are two sides, or three or four sides. All we can do is communicate with the municipalities and get a pretty good spectrum of opinion. Then we have to go through the majority opinions and the minority opinions to make up our minds. I am just pointing out what we go through as we develop legislation; that is generally the way it is.

The other point raised, I recall, by my friend from Wentworth was concerning property taxes. I think perhaps we can get into that in more detail when we get into the estimates. I read some notes I made the other day and they have eluded me for the minute. They will be back in a few minutes. I am sure they are in my other briefcase. But I remember as the member spoke I wrote down all the points carefully. I remember he said that this certainly was an area of great concern.

I have been around this Legislature for about 16 years. Other members have been here longer, and some for less time.

Mr. Epp: Your grey hair reflects it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is right. My grey hair reflects it. But I can’t recall a year when there has been less controversy and less problem about property taxes than this year. I really have heard very little about property taxes from councils, from individuals or anyone. Basically, everyone bitches at some time or other about their property taxes, even remembering that it is part of our system.

3:30 p.m.

I think my friend indicated he would like to see the property tax drastically reformed, if not eliminated. I will still argue with him over the regressivity-nonregressivity feature of property taxes. I still think it would be almost impossible to replace the amount of money that is raised by property taxes by some other form of taxation at the minute and it probably wouldn’t be that helpful to eliminate them.

I saw some figures the other day in a poll, and I can’t remember where it was, but people were asked which tax they disliked the most. Of course, the one they disliked the most was the most nonregressive one, the income tax. In the poll I saw most people said they disliked the income tax the most and they rated property taxes second. I don’t know whether that would hold up in a number of polls, but this was one that I saw. It wasn’t a special one that I had done just to get that piece of information.

If you did away with property taxes you would obviously have to raise that money from some other form of taxation. While it is nice to be able to say you can put some kind of resource taxes on and perhaps that will raise the money, I submit to you that it wouldn’t raise the nearly $2 billion we need and that is raised by property taxes in this province. To think that amount would have to be raised through income tax, sales tax or other forms of taxation, I don’t think would be very acceptable today.

The fact is you have to try to make property tax as nonregressive as possible. Of course, the property tax grants we are introducing do this now, as the property tax credit did before. I agree it doesn’t remove all the sting and it doesn’t remove all the sting for everyone, but for some people it does get at the problem of the regressivity of the property tax and assists people who are in those categories where we feel there should be some assistance.

When we get into arguments or this discussion about property tax and how inequitable property taxes are and how we should pay more attention to making them less inequitable and less regressive, I always think we do nothing in this society to decide or to put any limitations on the kind of property or houses anyone should buy, or whether they should or should not own a piece of property. I don’t think we ever should. We put no restriction on that.

I could not afford to buy one of those homes up on Russell Hill Road or Dunvegan Road, and yet if I can swing it with a friendly banker somehow I can work out arrangements to go up and buy one. If I was to make some kind of arrangement to do that, to then complain that I didn’t make enough money to pay the big property taxes that were going to be assessed on that house I bought wouldn't really be fair. I probably shouldn’t even own that house if that is the case. Believe me, there is no way I ever will.

We do nothing to put any restrictions on the kind of piece of property or home a person buys, and I don’t think we ever should. Therefore, to then have people complain that the property tax on a home that they knowingly bought is regressive and should be more tailored to their income, I am not sure is a fair position. It certainly doesn’t jibe philosophically with what I think. Maybe my friend will think differently, but I don’t think that is so much tied up with the whole argument about property taxes.

We would all like the property tax not to be too high, and I don’t disagree with that, but I think we have to remember that tax covers a wide multitude of services. If we take the services and average out those services and what we get for them, and then remember the kind of increases that are going on, what the inflation rate is today, we are not getting bad value for our property tax.

I was looking at my tax last night and I think it came out this year to about $1,472. That is about $70 up from last year, which is a not quite six per cent increase in Metropolitan Toronto. That is well below the rate of inflation.

For that $1,472, which, granted, is just the property tax portion, 50 per cent of it going to schools -- I can argue this because I have three children in the public school system -- so I am getting education for those three children and for the municipal portion I am getting a whole host of services, like garbage collected twice a week, a fire service and an excellent police service and so on. All the people are paid from that property tax that I pay, the salaries of the fire department, the civic employees, the police department et cetera in Scarborough and Metropolitan Toronto.

Looking at it that way and thinking of all the investments I make, the $1,472 I pay in property tax is a pretty good investment.

I needed a little work done on the trees that have grown out in my area and got someone in to spend a day and a half cutting down some trees and doing some trimming and so forth. I found the bill for that was around $500, so I realized the kinds of services we are getting for our property tax money are not really all that bad.

Mr. Epp: He must have known you were a cabinet minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, he didn’t know who I was, but it was something I really had to have done and that’s why I felt it was money well spent. When you compare the costs of some of those services to the kinds of services municipalities provide through keeping up our parks and so forth, if anyone has ever priced getting people to cut lawns and do gardening services and cut trees down and so on, all the kinds of things municipalities do to keep the boulevards and the parks and cities looking nice, you find the kind of money you have to spend on those services --

Mr. Young: You sound like a socialist. This is an argument for public enterprise.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have never argued otherwise than for public enterprise in this particular area. I believe in the free market system; I always have and I think it is a great system that has brought this country to where it is today. But I do not criticize people who work for the public sector. The people who work for our municipalities are people who enable us to have the standard of life we have. It is through the free market system we have the money to buy things and so on.

We are protected from fire, we are protected from crime, we have nice clean streets, we have our garbage picked up, we have beautiful parks, we have great recreational services, all because there are people who decided to work for the public service. Those people deserve a lot of credit and I would be the first to defend them. To stand up and criticize those people and say they would be far better out in the private sector is nonsense, as far as I am concerned, because those services have to be supplied.

I would certainly make a case for private disposal firms; there is nothing wrong with them. If a municipality decides that hiring a private garbage firm would be better than having its own employees, and they compare the costs and decide how they want to operate, that’s up to them. That shouldn’t be justification for criticizing the municipality which maintains its own solid waste disposal service and has its own people or the school board that has its own bus service rather than private hire. I think a good case can be made for having the two of them and letting them compete, one with the other.

It keeps the municipality on its toes, but it certainly isn’t grounds to criticize the municipal one.

3:40 p.m.

I will limit my remarks and stop there. This really shouldn’t be a dialogue by myself alone. I don’t want to take two hours replying to the opening statements, since I did make a fairly lengthy opening statement, which was alluded to. As the minister, I have always felt this is kind of an annual report. In fact. I don’t think our ministry has an annual report. Perhaps my friends can take the long opening statement we made at the beginning of these estimates as the annual report of this ministry. Now we can carry on with the detailed discussion and look at the estimates.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: That took 27 minutes without notes.

On vote 601, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word or two to the minister with regard to a problem I have had in my own area. I know the minister is well aware of this, but I want to bring something to his attention that I think he should be aware of and which may have caused some of the problems that have been hanging fire ever since with regard to the town of Essex and whether or not the explosion there on February 14 was a disaster and what kind of a disaster it was. Anyone who was in it would know it was a disaster. We do know it was caused apparently by natural gas. A car, hitting one or two parking meters and breaking off gas lines, caused a gas explosion.

The clerk of the town of Essex made an appointment with the minister’s office for the mayor, the clerk and one councillor to come down and see the minister. They advised me they were coming down, so I said I would sit in with them. On that particular day, we went to the minister’s office on the second floor where two people from his department, one from the subsidies branch and the other from the municipal affairs branch with regard to assessment, I think, attended the meeting, plus the parliamentary assistant to the minister, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg).

The minister did not show up at first, so we thought we would start the meeting. The clerk of the town handed over some presentations they were making, a list of all those who were apparently involved in the explosion. Quite frankly, I haven’t seen that particular presentation. We started our meeting, and there was some discussion as to whether the town would be eligible to be named a disaster area because of the type of disaster. It was not what some people would call a natural disaster or

an act of God; it was

an act of man apparently. The meeting continued on and some discussion came about that in all likelihood we would not be eligible to be named a disaster area because of the type of explosion it was.

Then there were discussions with regard to what other assistance might be available. We came around to the possibility of lending money to the business people involved through the Ontario Development Corporation. The discussion centred on a six per cent basis of interest for special circumstances. This basis was discussed with the parliamentary assistant.

During the discussion, we were a little concerned that the minister still didn’t come to the meeting after half an hour. I can understand he has other things to do, but when a meeting is set up and three people fly 200 miles to Toronto and back, which costs $350 for the town to pay, I think the minister was wrong in not appearing at the meeting. The discussion centred on the six per cent basis of interest that the business people would be entitled to.

Because what happened in Port Hope, the Ontario Development Corporation was going to allow six per cent there for business people. We know of the flood there and also of the tornado in the county of Oxford last year. We all know what caused that. The discussion centred around the six per cent most of the time. When the town people finally left, we did try and get hold of the minister later. I am not sure where he got to. Anyway, they got a car and went back to the airport, got on a plane and went home. But they had the six per cent interest well set in their mind during the discussion, and did not expect to be named a disaster area for any matching funds.

I think that probably started the concern. I raised it with the minister later on in the question period because I knew it was being discussed with him and his officials. I did not raise it in the House because of that, until there seemed to he no action going on.

Then it was turned over to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and the Ontario Development Corporation people went down to Essex to interview -- actually, they had a public meeting -- with most of those named in the disaster area. Then I think they met privately with some of the business people. That meeting gave the impression that there would not be any money available at six per cent but there certainly would be at 11.5 per cent, the normal lending rate for the ODC. So all these things have been going on ever since about who is going to get what and what is going to be involved.

The town people came down at a later time to meet with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) over a business improvement development area they had been planning for some time previously. With the disaster, they thought maybe they could fold it all in together and work something out. That meeting was, to some extent, successful. Although there was some thought from the planner the town of Essex had hired that there may be some grants available through the Minister of Housing, that was not so when they came to meet with the deputy minister.

Then we get reports and the news media bring out, “ODC to loan at 11½ per cent,” -- that is in bold print in the local paper. It has gone on for a month since then and we have had no action. I understand people from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and Ontario Housing Corporation are coming to Essex this Friday, May 30, to discuss further whatever they are discussing. It amounts to whether the Business Improvement Association and the ODC can involve themselves now with some of the business people.

In the meantime, naturally, some business people are rebuilding. Some are not because they are having a bit of a problem borrowing the money, although with interest rates going down, naturally it is getting a little better. Some of them did not have enough insurance to cover the replacement. They had what they thought was enough insurance for the type of building they had. But they did not have enough, when it came down to it, under costs today, to rebuild.

In all these goings-on for the last two months, the initial mistake was made by the minister in not attending the first meeting that was set up with his office, with the mayor and the clerk and one councillor who came down to discuss the whole situation and make the presentation to him.

The thought they left with, to a great extent through the minister’s parliamentary assistant, was that in all likelihood the business people would be entitled to borrow at six per cent interest the difference between the amount of their insurance and the cost of rebuilding.

That has left a bad taste in the mouths of many of the business people in Essex and the council. If the minister had attended that meeting they would probably have had a better idea. When they come all the way to Toronto and spend $300 or $400 to fly here, take a day off work and so forth, and then not meet with the minister, I think that was too bad.

3:50 p.m.

I didn’t set up the meeting. If I had made the appointment for them and you hadn’t been there I would have asked them not to go ahead with the meeting, but since they made the appointment through the minister’s office I didn’t feel it was my place to cancel the meeting because you weren’t there.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my friend. First of all, I apologize -- and I think I have, if not, I will now -- for not being at that meeting. I know he sent me a note asking if I would attend.

My recollection is that when the meeting was set up I indicated that I would try to be there, but it wasn’t guaranteed that I would be there. I would like the members of this House to realize that my parliamentary assistant is a person who, because of the diversity of responsibilities I have, as has been the tradition in this ministry, takes a very active role in the municipal side of this ministry.

I’ve tried to get the message across to the people who were coming down that meeting with him is the same as meeting with me. He’s there to represent the Ministry of intergovernmental Affairs and the government on these things, and to hear the concerns of the people we meet with and to come up with some answers. I would probably have left them with the same impression that the six per cent loans were a possibility. That was the general thinking at that particular time.

I think we would all agree that the traditional designation of a disaster area matching grant type of arrangement was not the kind of thing that would suit the disaster in Essex. We were then looking at other things that might be a possibility. One of them was the low interest loans which, as the member rightly points out, had applied in the tornado disaster in the Waterloo area and was also applying in the Port Hope area flood disaster.

Upon consideration, the principle of low interest loans for Essex was not accepted because the disaster was of a different nature. It was of a nature where much more insurance was involved, I am told, than in the other disasters. It wasn’t the same act of God type of thing, although I guess we could argue that. The car going out of control and hitting the natural gas facility, and the fact that it exploded and set most of the main street on fire, I suppose some would argue is

an act of God. However, in the sense that a tornado and a flood are called acts of God in insurance terms, this was different.

Therefore, the decision of cabinet was that those low interest loans would not apply, but the Ontario Development Corporation would go down and talk to the businesses. There weren’t that many. Was it 25?

Mr. Ruston: There was a total of 28 involved.

Hon. Mr. Wells: About 28 were involved to some degree. We had a pretty close estimate of the kinds of money they were talking about and what would be involved in getting them going again. The Ontario Development Corporation was to go down and have a talk with those businesses and see if it could be of any help under its regular programs.

The regular loans were of the nature of 11 or 11.5 per cent interest. I really can’t talk about this in depth to the member at this point because much of this involves the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and the Ontario Development Corporation, but the only problem was that although the regular loans they had available were at 11.5 per cent, the criteria for getting those loans were not such that those businesses would be eligible. In other words, to have those buildings eligible for those loans presented a different problem.

As I recall the last time we discussed this, a couple of weeks ago, the general consensus was that we did not want to start breaching the criteria established for the Ontario Development Corporation, which we would have to do to branch out and allow those 11.5 per cent loans for the Essex people, and that maybe it would be better to look at some other mechanism to provide some help to Essex. We started looking at some kind of downtown revitalization. Would it be possible through grants, through the municipality or in some measure?

I am not as familiar with this as perhaps I should be, but I understand most of those grants come through my colleague the Minister of Housing. We said it might be better if our avenue of assistance came through that channel rather than the ODC loans. That was two weeks ago. That is where it stands at the minute. There were to be some discussions going on and we were to get back to Essex. I have to tell the member at this point that I don’t know any more, but I will try and find out for him by the time we get into these estimates on Thursday evening and see if I have some further update for him.

I just want to assure the member the fact I was not at the meeting in no way diminished my interest in the problem, or our total look at the problem, or changed in any way our attitudes towards the problem. If I had been there I probably would have left them with the impression that maybe the six per cent was a good idea, although I am assured by my parliamentary assistant he certainly did not guarantee them that six per cent loans would apply. I don’t know. The member was at the meeting and I was not.

That is the situation at the minute. Perhaps by Thursday night I can tell him what has happened in so far as the talks about downtown revitalization are concerned, or some help coming through that channel rather than through ODC loans.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, under the main office vote I would like to ask the minister -- and I know my colleague from York South (Mr. MacDonald), who will return in a moment, will be raising similar questions -- about the constitutional debate that is going on at the present time and will likely be going on for some months.

While the matter came to a peak very recently, and the situation that is before us is now slightly more clear because the people of Quebec have expressed their collective opinion, we nevertheless face a great uncertainty in the immediate future.

It is very clear that only a small part of the future of the constitutional discussion rests in the hands of the government of Ontario, but I hope the minister will see fit to provide us during these estimates with a clearer understanding of the direction the government of Ontario intends to take in the constitutional conference that will be upon us fairly shortly, and in terms of putting forward the viewpoint of the provincial government and of the people of Ontario at that constitutional conference and in other meetings that will be going on in the future.

We know there is to be a select committee of this Legislature, but we still have great uncertainty as to how the government intends to involve the opposition parties in the constitutional discussions. We have great uncertainty as to the role of the select committee in the constitutional debate. Will the select committee be involved in Ottawa in the discussions, or will the minister be making the presentations on behalf of the province of Ontario, or will it rest entirely with the Premier (Mr. Davis)?

Does the government of Ontario intend, either through its own channels or through the select committee, that an Ontario proposal for constitutional reform will be developed? Is it the wish of the government or the expectation of the government that opposition parties will in some sense be seated at or near the table of the constitutional conference?

4 p.m.

I wonder if the minister is in a position now to begin to elaborate on some of those things so that the members of the Legislature and the public of Ontario get an understanding of what the Ontario government is going to be doing at the constitutional conference when it heads there in less than two months?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a little early to answer all of those questions or to indicate exactly who will be doing what at various meetings, since no meetings have yet been called. When I concluded my remarks in the House on Friday, I indicated that the Premier, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and I had supper with Jean Chrétien last Wednesday. That was his first meeting. He was then going out west.

He went out the next day and met the Premier of Manitoba. He met the Attorney General of Saskatchewan -- I guess Mr. Blakeney was probably away. He did meet the Premier of Alberta and he met the Premier of British Columbia. He then went to the east and met Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Peckford and the Premier of Prince Edward Island, Angus MacLean. He met these people and has not yet had a meeting with the Quebec people, who declined for the present.

Mr. Chrétien was to then go back and talk to the Prime Minister of Canada about what kinds of positions he had heard from the various Premiers and see when the Prime Minister could then call a first ministers’ conference. I think that meeting is taking place either today or tomorrow. I understand the Prime Minister of Canada has a fairly busy day with the President of Mexico today, and probably tomorrow will be dealing with this matter and making some statement.

Once the statement is made, we will find out when the first meeting will occur and the type of meeting it will be. However, the general feeling I got was towards a rather quick meeting of a more informal nature, rather than the more structured, large federal-provincial conference at this time -- in other words, as a quick follow-up.

Until we find out when the meeting is and the nature of it, we cannot really answer some of the questions the honourable member has raised, such as what would be the role of the opposition, would the opposition parties be on the delegations, would they be there sitting close, where would they be and what contribution would they be making.

Likewise, we hope to bring into this House the motion to set up the select committee and name the personnel this week. The select committee of this House will be organizing itself in the next few weeks and preparing to meet and carry on discussions. I am sure the work of that select committee will mesh in well with the positions that will be put forward by this province.

One of the honourable member’s questions, I think, was whether I saw the select committee actually being at the conference and putting forward positions as part of the delegation. My personal opinion is no, I do not see that as the kind of role the select committee would be playing. I think the select committee’s role will be within the purview of this House and the ministry and the Premier and the government and the Legislature. Then we will have to decide what are the mechanisms and the kinds of delegations that meet at the meetings when we know the kind of meetings that are to be held.

It is really a little hard to lay out exactly how all these things will fall into place until we know a few more details. But I think the aim is to get this thing going fairly quickly.

The other big, unanswered question is what is the federal government going to do? I think that, to a degree, will set the tone of the way the delegations are made up. Is the federal delegation going to be made up of the government and the opposition parties and are they going to play a role in it? I think we will have to wait and see what their position is too.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the member for York South have a follow-up on the same matter?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I got drawn out of the House right at the time when I wanted to get into this. Let me pick up on what my colleague has asked and the minister’s reply.

I take it the scenario which the minister envisaged in his statement a week or two ago -- that there might be a meeting of intergovernmental ministers to sort of lay the groundwork in preparation for a first ministers’ conference -- is perhaps going to be replaced by a so-called informal meeting of first ministers in order to map out the whole program. This would then be pursued in detail by the intergovernmental ministers and such other groups as may be drawn into the picture. The minister nods affirmatively.

Hon. Mr. Wells: At the moment that looks closer to what the scenario will be than the other way around, which is the way I thought it might have been a few weeks ago.

Mr. MacDonald: I noted the minister’s comment that it would be difficult for the government to decide exactly how and to what extent all parties might be involved in delegations until we have a clear picture of exactly what conference scenarios there are. Let me emphasize, however, that I hope that in the most involved and intensive fashion possible -- and I acknowledge that when one gets into negotiations with, periodically, private meetings legitimately being held, perhaps everybody cannot be involved -- to the extent that it is possible, of all issues, I think the working out of a new constitution is one in which all the people of Canada should be involved.

One way of getting the people involved is to have all parties involved. I don’t want to be provocative in reminding the minister that this government, as with most governments across this country, didn’t have the support of the majority of the people in the last election. They likely had 40 to 45 per cent; sometimes even less than that. So an involvement of opposition parties to the greatest extent possible at least provides some opportunity for those people who enjoyed the support of the majority of the electorate in the last election to become part of this critically important creation of a new constitution for the future generations.

However, during the course of the mini-debate, or whatever you want to call it, we had last week replying to the Premier’s statement on the Quebec referendum, I raised with the Premier, and under those circumstances wasn’t able to get a reply, something I find quite fascinating and quite important. There was a news account a week or so ago, hopefully accurate, which in effect credited the Premier with saying that Ontario was now putting the finishing touches on a package of constitutional reforms.

I would like to ask the minister whether Ontario has moved in these new circumstances to a more comprehensive package rather than a collection of ad hoc reforms which might be picked upon one at a time to give proof to the public that we are moving with vigour and making something of a breakthrough in an impasse which has existed now for about a decade? I would like to contend with the minister that the new circumstances we face in the province at the present time would legitimize the idea of a comprehensive package.

Ontario is going into these constitutional reform conventions in a totally different kind of situation than it has traditionally enjoyed. As I stated last week in response to the Premier’s statement, Ontario’s position has been that of the honest broker in Confederation. We were the major beneficiary of Confederation. There are some analysts, some historians who will say that Confederation was created for the benefit of central Canada and it was opening up the hinterland which could be exploited in a colonial fashion to meet the needs of the industrial complex that was developing in central Canada.

4:10 p.m.

I don’t need to spell out in much detail how quickly that pattern is changing. As economic and corporate development is swinging to the west, it is creating problems for Ontario. Calgary is now becoming a financial centre which at some point may well exceed Montreal and be challenging the city of Toronto.

All this kind of development, combined with Ontario’s energy situation and combined with the problem Ontario is now going to have to compete with a secondary industrial development in western Canada with its resource development, means we have now got to get into the battle, so to speak, to protect Ontario’s interests in precisely the way that western Canada or the maritime provinces have always had to battle for their interests. We are not sitting up on a pedestal as the automatic beneficiary of the Confederation setup.

Therefore, it seems to me there is need for us to clarify what exactly are Ontario’s needs and how best those needs can be met, all of course within the context of bearing in mind that we are in a set of negotiations which will ultimately be seeking to meet the needs of the nation as a whole and that we are all going to have to make sacrifices in order to establish the necessary unity and strength of the nation as a whole.

Has Ontario got a package? Is the government putting the finishing touches to it? Let me proceed from there at the same time so that the minister can respond to both of these points when he rises. If Ontario has a more detailed package in response to the government’s perception of Ontario’s needs looking down the road to future generations, is it the government’s intention to place that package before the select committee?

It seems to me, as I envisage how the select committee will be operating, there are two alternatives. In one the committee is presented with a package which is the product of the considered thought of all the very competent and experienced civil service backup that the minister and the government as a whole have.

If one presents the product of that thought to the select committee, the select committee then can react to it. There can be a broader input. There may be certain witnesses who will come who can help to create that broader input. It can be modified, added to or subtracted from what the government has already concluded. Out of it will come much more quickly possibly an all-party agreement on an Ontario package.

The only alternative scenario, it would seem to me, for the select committee's operation is that it starts from scratch. It maybe lists the five, six, seven or eight different areas that are important for Ontario’s purposes or the national purposes in terms of building a constitution to meet our national needs. It then begins to accumulate the material to discuss the various views that have been expressed on each of these different areas. That will be a longer process. I do not know that it will be quite as fruitful a process as responding to what the government has come up with in a package on which it is now putting the final touches or changes.

May I ask the minister whether there is such a package and, if so, does he propose to present it to the select committee so that it will have something to sink its teeth into from day one, or is he going to let it move out ab initio in tackling this whole broad topic?

I want to raise a third area with the minister which I grant is a bit of a flyer because I recognize the limitations any one government can have on other governments. One of the ironies of the situation, in which it has been alleged, not without some measure of validity, that Ontario was not particularly enthusiastic about constitutional reform traditionally but now has committed itself to comprehensive and fundamental constitutional reform, is that at least in terms of our work within this Legislature we are a step ahead of every other province.

I am not aware that any other province has set up a constitution committee within the framework of its legislature to provide an opportunity for all-party working-out of that province’s needs and that province’s presentations with reference to constitutional reform. I am wondering if the minister, quietly or openly, at the earlier conferences cannot encourage the establishment of such a committee in each one of the other legislatures.

One of the aspects of constitutional reform that some experts have many times raised is the fact that at some stage along the way, in order to involve as broad a cross-section of the people beyond the politicians and beyond the governments, there should be an estates general or a constitutional convention, a sort of national town meeting in which everybody could have an opportunity to have an input and to discuss these topics.

It has occurred to me that if every province had a legislative committee with representation from all the parties in that legislature, a meeting of all those provincial legislative committees would be a very useful form of constitutional convention or estates general, if you will. I acknowledge that it would not automatically and directly involve native peoples and many of our new ethnic groups who are anxious to have a say in terms of reshaping the constitution, but at least it would become a forum with representation from all parties in all provinces.

Even if one does not look down the road that far, I think every province has its particular needs and, therefore, the desirability of working out that province’s particular approach to constitutional reform. In this context, legitimately all parties within the House have an opportunity, or should be provided with an opportunity. Therefore, the establishment of the kind of committee we are going to establish formally here this week in every one of the legislatures would provide an underpinning to the kind of superstructure that inevitably is going to emerge at the federal level or at the interprovincial level later.

So I raise with the minister three questions. First, what is this package to which the finishing touches have been put? Second, is it his intention to present that package, or some alternative to it, to the committee so that it does not have to start from scratch in terms of formulating an Ontario position as an approach to constitutional reform? Third, what is the minister’s thinking -- perhaps I should go no further than that at the moment -- on the desirability and the possibility of getting a comparable committee in all other legislatures for the kind of interprovincial co-ordination and working out of each province’s position?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I assume my friend from York South is referring to the statement the Premier made in his remarks on referendum night. Would that be the statement you are referring to: “My government will immediately commence our final detailed preparation for presenting Ontario’s position on the necessary reforms of our national constitution”?

Mr. MacDonald: One of the news accounts attributed to the minister the statement that they were putting finishing touches to a package of constitutional reform. Whether that was the origin of it, or whether it was a comment in a press conference afterwards or in an interview, I have no idea.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This is probably the statement referred to. As I recall, there was an exchange with the Premier and someone in question period about this. If you were under the impression that somehow there were final finishing touches being put on a document such as Claude Ryan’s beige paper or something of that nature, that is not so. There is no advanced detailed document on a complete package.

4:20 p.m.

What this really means is that the co-called packages of items, which were really represented in the principles in the Premier’s statement to the Legislature last Thursday, are the ones being worked on for presentation at a meeting. It is not a large document that is finally done and that a committee could start to work through. It has to do with the various items in the 10 principles the Premier outlined.

I would see no reason why those aren’t the kinds of things the select committee could get to work on right away. By the time the select committee has its first meeting it is more than likely the meeting of the first ministers will have been held, so the idea of what will make up packages and what will be the kinds of items we should be looking at will be much clearer to all of us, not only from ourselves, but from the other governments.

I don’t know if that answers your question sufficiently, but if you mean do we have a book like this ready to go to the printer, no we don’t. The reference here was to the necessary materials on these general points of principle the Premier mentioned in his statement. We are doing the backup work for them so if the meeting is held within the next three, four or five weeks we will be ready to go to that meeting with some background.

I answered your question about the select committee. Certainly, the principles that are there and whatever materials we can supply will be available to the select committee.

The next question was if we would encourage other provinces to have select committees. I would certainly be happy to mention that to my colleagues at the first opportunity we have to exchange views. I think it would be a good idea. However, as you realize, legislatures are very independent bodies. The fact that Ontario has a select committee will probably cut no ice in British Columbia. In fact, it might even encourage them to do something different. You are probably aware that British Columbia has already put out, in 10 beautiful coloured volumes, positions on everything concerning the constitution. It comes in a nice handy little package of booklets.

It is an interesting exercise. Sometimes we are criticized in Ontario because we don’t have a book like this or a statement of our position completely committed to print. Yet, sometimes when a province does that, unfortunately it then does not want to deviate one iota from that position.

We found through the exercise we went through a year and a half ago, rather than discussing and negotiating as you might do at a meeting, it was almost like a church where the Bible is open at a certain passage and they say, “There, that is our position.” If you asked about something, British Columbia would open their book and say, “That is our position.” If asked: “Well, wouldn’t you change it?”, they answer “That is our position.” In other words, they became wedded to what they spent a year or so developing and putting down as their position.

We run into the same thing with Alberta. We run into a lot of problems with Alberta from time to time. I don’t believe they have ever had a select committee of the House, but they have passed motions from time to time in their House. One of them was on the amending formula. Once those motions have been passed there has to be unanimity to change the distribution of power section. That was the position of the province of Alberta passed by the House.

I guess for all the Conservative members, plus whatever their opposition is, six other members, that was the position and no matter what came up they had to say, “Well, we are bound by a motion of our Legislature which says that is the way it is to be. The only amending formula we could accept is one that says you have to have unanimity if you are going to change the division of powers.” That is really inhibiting when you are trying to discuss working out an amending formula with a little flexibility around the conference table.

Nova Scotia, I understand, does have a select committee and Quebec has a standing committee of the House that discussed these matters before the referendum. But it’s a good point and I will be glad to take it up with my colleagues in the other provinces when we meet.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to pursue this much further, but just let me make one comment if I might.

I agree with the minister that there is a danger in this that if you set down a statement you become locked into it. The reason I agree with the minister’s concerns in that respect is that when you get into the kind of negotiating that must take place across this country with its variety of 10 provinces and regions ultimately one will have to forsake some of the original positions that were taken.

One of the interesting points made at the Queen’s seminar that your deputy can confirm with you privately, if he hasn’t already, was that you are going to have sawoffs and tradeoffs in the final stages of reaching an agreement. Western Canada will say fine, we will accept this that you want, if you will accept something else that western Canada is wanting. Inevitably that’s part of the process of negotiation.

Therefore, whatever one does by way of stating a position of the province should be in terms of working papers, in tentative positions or positions for discussion purposes, call them what you will. They are not something that a province should be locked into. You may find to your own embarrassment that later you have to forsake that in order to get the necessary overall agreement -- and forsaking it, you will be less embarrassed if you aren’t locked into it so tightly.

So I agree with the minister, at this point it is necessary to keep the position as fluid as possible. However, having said that, there are going to be certain things that Ontario, as undoubtedly western Canada, Quebec and the Maritimes, will dig in their heels pretty fiercely on because they view them as critically important for their future welfare.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Could I just make one other comment on this, because I think it’s relevant here too?

You talked about the different mechanisms that were available for developing a new constitution. One is this conference of representatives of elected governments, whether they involve just governments alone or members of all the parties in the legislatures and the federal Parliament and so forth.

Then there is the other idea of a constitutional conference, unrelated to the legislatures necessarily, called especially to develop a new constitution. This is something that doesn’t have too many champions in the Canadian situation. I haven’t heard too many people saying that’s the way we should go. In fact, I haven’t heard it mentioned at all.

I think the way it will be done is through the representatives of elected people. But I think we should also keep in mind -- and our select committee will perhaps want to look at this; it was mentioned in a speech by a federal minister again this weekend -- the idea of using a referendum for the constitution is certainly in the minds of the federal government.

As my friend knows, there is a referendum bill in the House which was not passed. It was never passed, but they did have a referendum bill in the House which would have allowed the federal government to conduct referendums on the constitution in Canada. I have heard several ministers talk about this over the last couple of weeks, so that has to be seen as another technique that may be used.

I find it a little difficult to see exactly how this would be used. In other words, I don’t see how a detailed constitution with all the intricacies involved in it could be put on a ballot. To ask people to approve that would be a very difficult thing. But it’s probably the ultimate in participation of the total electorate. It’s probably not exactly the kind of thing that we see as followers of the British parliamentary system. Yet we read from different countries in the world that they have submitted their new constitution to the electorate and it has been approved by 99 per cent. One was approved by 99 per cent the other day in Egypt and Anwar Sadat was guaranteed a job for life.

Mr. Conway: The last guy to get that guarantee was the Shah of Iran.

4:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It was just drawn to my attention that was another place this had happened. The use of the referendum somewhere in this constitutional picture is certainly on people’s minds in Ottawa. I do not know how that will be used and the ramifications of it.

Mr. MacDonald: It would provide national power to override the dissidents.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I suppose it could be used as a chance for all the people to talk and give their opinions, even if the political leaders of the country couldn’t agree after a certain length of time. I am sure that is something the select committee will want to look at.

Mr. Epp: Speaking about the constitution, Mr. Chairman, I certainly endorse the thoughts that have been expressed that there should be some kind of representation of the other political parties with the provincial government when it goes to Ottawa to discuss this very important document and its amending procedure.

I would think it would depend very largely on Mr. Levesque whether he will permit Mr. Ryan to be part of that delegation. If Mr. Levesque were to veto any suggestion that Mr. Ryan and some of the other federalists in the National Assembly in Quebec should participate, then I would think Ottawa would not be amenable to that nor would the government of Ontario and the other provincial legislatures. On the other hand, if the Ontario government and the others were to express a strong desire to have such representation it might put some kind of pressure on Mr. Levesque and on Ottawa to have that.

In addition to the representation from other political parties, as the minister knows, I asked a question of the Premier on Friday whether there would be some kind of municipal representation. I realize the PMLC is now somewhat split. As the minister indicated earlier, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is not being represented on the PMLC. The PMLC has not met as an Ontario body since last August or September. It would be helpful if the provincial government were to give some kind of recognition to the municipal governments of this province and have someone on that delegation, such as Mr. Beath or Mr. Clark Mason of Ajax as the president of the largest municipal organization.

I would hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would endorse that proposal and take it to the Premier to get his acceptance of something of that nature. When one considers that Toronto with almost two million people is larger than most of the provinces as far as population is concerned, it would be appropriate to have someone from the municipalities represented on that delegation. I think they would have a lot to offer and some very constructive suggestions to make.

The minister made reference earlier to Mr. Illingworth and his work. The Background paper that is put out on an almost weekly basis is very helpful from the standpoint of keeping municipalities and those of us in the Legislature acquainted with the goings on of the government and the various facets of various