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

December 11, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L145 - Mon 11 Dec 1978 / Lun 11 déc 1978

APPOINTMENT OF REGISTRAR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOOD LAND GUIDELINES

OHIP BENEFITS

SCHEDULE

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAPER MILL CONTROL ORDERS

HYDRO PURCHASING POUCY

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

ONTARIO EXPORTS

PLANT LOCATION INCENTIVES

STERILIZATION

POLYFIBER LIMITED

MINE LAYOFFS

BROUILLETTE NURSING HOME

TTC PAY AWARD

WOOD-BURNING STOVES

PAPER MTLL CONTROL ORDERS

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

OHIP DATA PROCESSING SERVICES

SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING

FOOD LAND GUIDELINES

REPORTS

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

FOOD LAND GUIDELINES

MOTIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE ASSEMBLY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, PROVINCIAL SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF ENERGY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS (CONCLUDED)

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

APPOINTMENT OF REGISTRAR

Mr. Riddell: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: You no doubt recall the exchange the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) and I had last week regarding the appointment of a registrar in Huron county. In responding to my questions, the minister was talking about the deputy registrar or the acting registrar.

He stated: “He, indeed, was brought to Toronto for an interview. It was found after the interview that somebody else had much higher qualifications. It was a straight management decision.”

That news was no sooner off the press than I got a call. I was informed the deputy registrar was not called to Toronto for an interview and the last time he appeared in Toronto was last February when it was about an entirely different matter.

Surely the minister should demand nothing less than reliable and accurate information from his staff and we, as members of this august assembly, should expect nothing less than factual information.

Mr. Speaker: The alleged point of privilege seems to be a difference of opinion as to what actually transpired. I would have hoped that the honourable member would have waited until the minister had been in the House for an opportunity to respond. I am sure the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will respond at the earliest opportunity.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOOD LAND GUIDELINES

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it will be my pleasure to table this afternoon my ministry’s food land guidelines. This document represents the Ontario government’s policy on agricultural land use.

The guidelines will enable municipalities to establish priorities in their planning process where agricultural land is concerned. Where land is of high agricultural value, the guidelines Clearly indicate that agricultural uses should receive the highest priority.

We recognize it is not always possible to accord priorities on the basis of agricultural criteria. There will be times when some land will have to be withdrawn. But the guidelines ensure that no land will be withdrawn from agriculture before very careful consideration has been given to all the factors involved.

As members will recall, the guidelines were issued as a green paper early in 1977. They were widely circulated among municipalities and agricultural groups. The government invited any interested citizens or groups to submit briefs to us on the guidelines.

We gave careful consideration to the many suggestions we received. As a result some changes were made. I should point out, however, the basic principles remain substantially unchanged. But, as I indicated, we did incorporate a number of suggestions found in the briefs into the food land guidelines.

When we first issued the guidelines, we believed they would best be implemented through the municipal planning process. We still believe that. The new version of the guidelines contains clear information on how municipal planning authorities should go about evaluating the agricultural priority of their land. There is also a new

section describing the questions which must be addressed when the withdrawal of land from agriculture is being considered.

Members will receive copies of the guidelines in their mail-boxes later today.

OHIP BENEFITS

SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government and the Ontario Medical Association have today reached an agreement on an average increase of 6.6 per cent to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan

schedule of benefits. This agreement is effective January 1, 1979, to December 31, 1979.

The agreement was negotiated by the Ontario Joint Committee on Physicians’ Compensation, consisting of three representatives of the government and three representatives of the Ontario Medical Association, under the chairmanship of Mr. Harold Clawson. The committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the agreement by both parties.

The agreement recognizes the increased cost of practice and provides a reasonable increase to the physicians’ income.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAPER MILL CONTROL ORDERS

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker. Keeping in mind the comments of the minister on the weekend about being practical and reasonable, as he puts it, with polluters, will the minister tell us in this House which of the seven mills with control order deadlines for December 31, 1978, will face prosecution after that date according to :l present knowledge?

Will the minister outline whether the three mills -- I’m speaking, of course, of pulp and paper -- that are on program approvals and the two mills on requirements and directions are expected to meet their December 31 deadlines as well? Are we going to have some action taken on these control orders and on these other categories or not?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, we are, Mr. Speaker. I met with one of those parties this morning. I think if there had been a listener to that discussion, the listener would not have come to the same conclusion as the headline writer in the Star on Saturday. Indeed, I think the party in question very well understands how serious I am and our ministry is about what has to be done in this province in the pulp and paper industry, particularly now that so much assistance is available to that industry.

I will be glad to supply those details to the Leader of the Opposition. I have them. They are fairly extensive.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, accepting that the question I asked was somewhat detailed in terms of the reply at demand, could the minister, while he is supplying this to me, also supply it to the rest of the House? More importantly, could he say whether or not there will be prosecution in the ease of Reed and in the ease of CIP?

Whatever happened to the amending control order on the Hawkesbury plant? Is that going forward or will we see action taken on this company as well?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I asked my deputy that and got a very full answer this morning because I thought it likely questions would come today on that issue.

As I understand the legal process, it is necessary for us to serve notice in the courts before I announce we are proceeding outside the courts. So in anticipation of today’s question period, I thought I should be familiar with that procedure. Therefore, I cannot say to the member that I will do this to that particular company. I can tell him that within the last week I signed six instructions to proceed with prosecutions on various companies.

Mr. S. Smith: Not pulp and paper companies.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, not in that instance. We are treating the pulp and paper industry separately for this reasons We wanted the statement of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) to have an opportunity to be seen, to be understood and to be reacted to by the pulp and paper industry. Following that -- indeed, this very morning -- I had a discussion with one pulp and paper company.

I think it only fair that we give them a short period of time to react to the incentives of the Treasurer, for the dual purpose of economic compatibility with themselves and, of course, to get back into a competitive position here in Ontario. But we are never losing sight of the fact that the basic premise of that discussion that has taken a good deal of time with the pulp and paper industry was that we could, and I could as the Minister of the Environment, insist -- and I shall -- that the pollution abatement equipment will be purchased, installed and proceed according to orders.

Mr. Laughren: We’re buying it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, no. I would like to react to that if I could.

Mr. Speaker: That was an interjection.

Hon. Mr. Parrots: I know, but I think it’s an important one, if I could have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

The interjection was that we’re buying it. I think none of us should underestimate the fantastic costs that are involved, not only with the modernization of plants, but in the pollution equipment that is also part of the actions that will be planned now.

Ms. Bryden: I find it hard to understand how the minister can say he has to extend these orders and give people more time to comply, when his own ministry, in a report by his ministry staff, particularly Dr. Victor and Dr. Donnan, has concluded that the pulp and paper industry is quite able to meet the current environmental requirements without further extensions.

Mr. Speaker: Can the honourable member put an interrogative in there some place?

Ms. Bryden: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister, since the present control order system does not seem to be enforceable under the ministry’s methods, why does he not adopt the recommendation that was in the Victor and Donnan report in 1974 and in the 1976 update, which suggested that financial pollution control delay penalties be instituted instead of the present system of control orders with prosecution? In other words, make it cost the pulp and paper companies money not to meet their deadlines. Give them an incentive to carry out the control orders which, according to the economists, they are quite capable of carrying out without further assistance.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would draw one point to the attention of the honourable member. The statements in the particular

article she is quoting did not refer specifically to the pulp and paper industry. We were talking about all orders of the ministry. I want to make that point first.

Second, I think it is only fair to point out that orders may change. Indeed, they may be tougher. This last week we made one order quite a bit tougher than it was previously. I would draw that to the attention of the member as well.

We are not talking about a one-way street. It is a two-way street. Indeed, some of the orders will be tougher than they were previously.

And, as I said earlier, that

article did not refer specifically to the pulp and paper industry.

Ms. Bryden: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister said that I was referring to a report that did not deal with the pulp and paper industry. I have the report here, Alternative Policies for Pollution Abatement: the Ontario Pulp and Paper Industry.

Mr. Speaker: I think the member for Beaches-Woodbine has simply misunderstood what the minister was saying.

[2:15]

Mr. S. Smith: A final supplementary: Since the control orders are presumably issued only with regard to financial feasibility and with regard to the financial capability of the firm to meet those orders, why should there be the slightest delay in their implementation, pending this new $100 million program of which the Treasurer was speaking? Presumably, the financial capabilities of the firm were taken into consideration when the control orders were issued in the first place. Why should we now have to wait before implementing these properly?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the leader should realize that indeed those orders are negotiated. In that sense, the inference he has drawn is correct. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the companies have unconditionally accepted the inference that there is no problem of money. In many instances, it’s a very difficult problem for the company to face up to. If they choose not to, then we have recourse to the courts to enforce those orders. In some cases, that may very well be the situation.

I can understand and accept that his inference is correct, except that it may not be the inference that the companies would place on it. Therefore, they have a very difficult decision whether to comply, regardless of the consequences, or face court actions. In some cases, they’ve complied and in others they have not. Therefore, the consequences of a court action may have to be considered.

Mr. S. Smith: Do we have to wait for the company to agree before we enforce it?

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. S. Smith: If the ministry official is convinced, that should be enough. If not, the minister should fire him.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

HYDRO PURCHASING POUCY

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to direct a question -- I guess the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) is not here -- to the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Is the minister aware that Canadian Porcelain Company Limited in Hamilton is now threatening to shut down the plant and in fact is saying that such a shutdown will occur unless the workers take a seven percent cut in pay? This would result in the loss of 75 lobs. I ask the question, particularly wanting to know whether the minister is aware that this plant produces electrical insulators, many of which are purchased by Hydro, and that Hydro has now apparently permitted this same firm to bring in the insulators from an American associate of the same company rather than have to deliver them from the Hamilton firm.

Is the minister familiar with that and what is his comment on it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m sorry, I missed the name of the company.

Mr. S. Smith: Canadian Porcelain.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will see if I have some of that information with me.

I can see it’s not with me. I’ll be pleased to look into that and report to the House tomorrow at two o’clock.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, when the minister is doing this, could I ask him to lock into the comment made by a Hydro purchasing agent Mr. Jeffries, to one of our research people, who says there is no Hydro policy giving preference to the purchase of goods manufactured in Canada?

Can he explain why Hydro has apparently permitted a tender document which said that these insulators would have to come from Canada Porcelain in Hamilton to be altered so that the shipment was able to take place from Victor, New York, instead of from the Hamilton firm, thus threatening the Hamilton firm with closure? How was that permitted to happen?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’d be very interested to know if those facts are accurate. If they are, I can assure the member that I’ll be taking some action as a result of it. I’ll let him know tomorrow.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: At the same time that he’s checking with Hydro on the porcelain insulators would the minister also check and find out why Hydro is purchasing 1.6 million metres of Incoloy tubing which is manufactured and fabricated at the Huntington, West Virginia, plant in the United States?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course I would, and maybe even by tomorrow afternoon as well.

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

Mr. Laughren: I have a question of the Treasurer. In view of the fact that in the Toronto Star today the Treasurer indicated, in response to my leader’s proposal on equity participation in the pulp and paper industry, that he thought the idea was “not unreasonable,” and also in view of the fact that Mr. Bell, chairman of Abitibi Paper Company Limited, indicated that the proposal was a very interesting one, would the Treasurer explain what he intends to do to ensure that the people of Ontario get a full return on their tax money in terms of equity participation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I had quite an interesting chat with the Star reporter on the telephone on Saturday or Sunday. We ranged across many topics. The one thing I tried to point out is that I didn’t have a white and black attitude towards this kind of problem.

Mr. Laughren: You had blue.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I simply pointed out there have been times when this government, at least in Syncrude’s ease, for example, has chosen the equity route. There usually were specific reasons for choosing the equity route at the time.

There were other times -- and I used the Ford example -- when I believed the equity route was not right. In fact, in most cases I assumed it would not be compatible with both the needs of the corporation and the aims of the government.

I think there would be a wide gap between my friend’s approach to it and mine, I suspect, in that I would see the equity route as being the exception, needed once in a while;

whereas, I suspect my friend would see it as the rule, seldom avoided.

Mr. Martel: Wherever you put money in. You are right. Any good businessman would do that.

Mr. Pope: Not necessarily.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would simply say that reflects our difference in terms of what role government has. I don’t see us as being a regular partner of companies. I see once in a while our having a special role to play when perhaps an enterprise as important as Syncrude requires an equity position for a go/no-go decision.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: In order that there is a guaranteed return to the taxpayers of Ontario for their investment, would the minister indicate to this House just what kinds of guarantees he is willing to seek or extract from the pulp and paper companies in return for that investment, in terms of jobs, in terms of reinvestment of profits in Ontario and in terms of the whole question of buying capital goods and services in Ontario or elsewhere in Canada?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, I would share some of my friend’s objectives. Obviously I would like to see Canadian content wherever possible. I don’t care whether we support them or not; I want to see Canadian content. But that assumes viable Canadian sources of certain materials.

Mr. Martel: It might strengthen our economy then.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The word “guarantee” is one that I’m not sure can be put in many cases and be anything more than an unsupportable statement. I would say the real return for the people of Ontario, if, as and when we assist industries in this province, is either the creation of employment, through which we profit in many ways --

Mr. Martel: That’s what happened at Falconbridge.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- or the maintenance of employment, which would be the case in the pulp and paper industry, and/or the attainment of an objective such as cleaning up the environment while protecting jobs.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Could the Treasurer explain further a comment that he is quoted in the Star as making, indicating that he doesn’t see his role as speculating in the stock market on behalf of the people of Ontario, when he believes there is nothing wrong with handing out $100 million or so without any guarantees whatsoever? Doesn’t he see that in one way he is handing out the money with no guarantees whatsoever on return, but in the other case he is at least getting equity in return for the taxpayers’ investment?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I simply would not, nor would any minister responsible for the administration of a program -- because the Treasurer will not administer programs, as I’m sure my friend knows -- that would be giving money away blindly --

Mr. McClellan: That’s what you’re doing.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- without being sure that it was not being accompanied by, as we pointed out in the report, at least a 3:1 ratio of private money in those companies --

Mr. Deans: That’s nonsense.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- and, secondly, achieving stated objectives in advance.

Mr. Martel: You lost everything in Falconbridge. There are only 2,100 left; it was 3,600 then.

Mr. Laughren: Would the minister at least table the guidelines he set up, if he says he has some?

Mr. Martel: They didn’t guarantee a thing.

ONTARIO EXPORTS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the fact that at the first ministers’ conference in Ottawa the Premier (Mr. Davis) stated that the thrust of Ontario’s manufacturing strategy was to increase exports -- and I would like to quote what the Premier said at that time: “If we are to correct our economic problems, the export of industrial goods has to be our first priority for the next few years.”

Considering that the deficit on end products in this country is in excess of $11 billion, how can the minister explain establishing that as his top priority, in view of the fact that we had $27 billion worth of imports in this country? Why isn’t the first priority of any kind of economic or industrial strategy one of import replacement programs designed to command, first of all, a dominant share of our domestic market?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think if the honourable member is trying to suggest that we have neglected one of those priorities at the expense of the other --

Mr. Breaugh: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- then he’s misstating the facts. As the member well knows, this province was the one that suggested the Shop Canadian program, for example, and has made a major investment in that regard.

Mr. Warner: It’s the Buy Canadian program.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have spent a lot of time and money on import replacement, including what was essentially the import replacement exhibition here in Toronto --

Mr. Warner: Buy Canadian.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- where three levels of government participated. In very simple terms, I would point to the Shop Canadian program as the major example of the emphasis we are putting on import replacements -- Shop Canadian -- and by no means --

Mr. Warner: Buy Canadian shops.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- is our emphasis on promoting exports at the expense of any of the other programs.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary: With all due respect, the minister can only have one top priority.

Could I ask the minister what happened between the beginning of November and the first ministers’ conference which caused the minister to shift his ground so completely in terms of what that top priority should be?

Mr. Warner: That’s right, don’t deny it.

Mr. Laughren: The minister also changed his statement as time went on when he said, and I quote: “We can begin to achieve that scale of operation for international export only if we are able to command a dominant share of our own domestic market. We must begin by competing effectively here at home.”

Can he tell us why he switched from that policy, which made a great deal of sense given the import problem in the province, to the one of first priority for exports? Why did he do that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, having heard both of those and obviously not having the complete statements in front of me, I do want to say that on the basis of even the portions the member has excerpted for us, I still see no inconsistency. The Premier stated quite clearly, particularly in the context of the GATT negotiations, that our first priority subsequent to the GATT negotiations and in this time frame has to be to take advantage of all of those situations.

Mr. Mattel: The minister made them.

Mr. Laughren: The minister has two first priorities, I see.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The problem with simply concentrating on the former which, I take it, the member was suggesting we should, making that our first priority, is that as a result of those same GATT negotiations we may well see foreign firms better able to compete in the Canadian markets when tariff and other barriers disappear. It simply won’t be enough to concentrate on that first priority because it will be a tougher number here in this country, faced with new competition. Therefore, it becomes even more important to take advantage of what we gain.

Instead of simply concentrating on our 20 million or 22 million population as the number one priority, we have to concentrate on not only the American population of 223 million but all the other world markets as well. That makes good common sense just from the standpoint of numbers.

I really see no inconsistency in those two statements. We’re doing them both.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps the minister would explain to us at some point, perhaps during his estimates, how he is going to establish the expertise and the scale of production and so forth that will be required to get into the export markets if he doesn’t cater to his domestic market first.

I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that only seven per cent of Ontario’s trade is with developing countries and fully 80 per cent is with the United States, why is the government’s main emphasis going to be on increasing exports, in other words increasing that seven per cent, rather than dealing with that tremendous problem of imports we’re faced with in this country? The minister still hasn’t told us. It’s almost as if he’s replaying the Reisman report again, where they failed to deal with the central problem, mainly trade with the United States of America rather than other countries.

Doesn’t the government think it’s time it zeroed in and became consistent in its policies? How is it that the Premier says one thing after the minister has already made a decision and the minister immediately follows in behind him? Is there no consistency whatsoever in the government’s policies?

Mr. Martel: No policy.

Mr. Deans: Just tell the truth, Larry, there is none.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have to respond by saying this: no matter how many times the member stands up and says we are doing one at the expense of the other, no mailer how many times he asks that same question, I can only respond by saying exactly the opposite.

Mr. Laughren: The minister is. He has two first priorities.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: At no time in any of those documents did we indicate we were doing one at the expense of the other. In fact, the clear emphasis in terms of public reception would be the Shop Canadian program which clearly indicates that we have a great deal of emphasis on the former, which the member clearly supports. It doesn’t matter how many times the member rephrases it, the answer is we’re not doing one at the expense of the other.

[2:30]

PLANT LOCATION INCENTIVES

Mr. Bradley: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism concerning the financial incentive to Hayes-Dana. Since the Hayes-Dana plant in Thorold as I understand it, has ample land at the present time for either an expansion or another operation; since they already have an operation in Thorold and the city of St. Catharines; since the service industries that would service a plant of this nature already located in the Niagara Peninsula; since there are skilled trades people available in the area and transportation is very good; and, most importantly, since the unemployment rate in the city of St.

Catharines is reputed to be close to 10 per cent, would the minister not agree that if the government is going to provide financial incentives and if it is the policy of the government to provide these financial incentives, it would be wise to channel the companies into those areas which are now experiencing high unemployment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have programs in place through EODC and NODC to try to address those parts of the province which admittedly need some special consideration in order to attract industries.

Mr. Nixon: How about putting it all together?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I must say quite directly that I would be surprised if a lot of members of this assembly supported the proposition that where we are going to aid an industry we should dictate the municipality into which that industry must go.

It would seem to me to be quite unfair to the residents of those municipalities for Queen’s Park to purport to do two things: first, to play one municipality off against another, given that we are willing to make available the same amount of money to them and, secondly, it would seem to make bad financial and business sense for us to purport to have more expertise than the particular operation in question, in this case, Hayes-Dana, with regard to what is the best location for the particular operation it might want to go into.

Obviously, the member makes some points, as indeed he should, on behalf of the advantages of expanding the Thorold plant. On the other hand, I am sure Hayes-Dana did not pick Barrie by throwing a dart into a map of Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I referred to on the last day the House sat, one of the things we happen to know, for example, is that they hope to rely to some extent on the machine shops in the Barrie area for tool and die work. All I can say is that I think it would be inappropriate for the Ministry of industry and Tourism to come along and say to Hayes-Dana, “No, you are wrong. There are more advantages to Thorold, St. Catharines or Cornwall.” That has never been the way government programs have run here.

Mr. S. Smith: Have you ever heard of DREE?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Quite frankly, I can’t see a major statement in that regard coming from any side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition says, “Have you ever heard of DREE?” Of course, EODC and NODC are attempts to deal with regional disparities which is quite different from saying to a plant from the standpoint of labour force and so on, “We in the government say you ought to be better located in this particular municipality as opposed to that.”

Mr. S. Smith: You should do precisely that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That hasn’t been the way we have operated those programs and, quite frankly, I think the way it is currently going is more appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I might take this opportunity to give some more information to the Leader of the Opposition on this same subject as I promised on Friday, if that would be appropriate. To clarify the figures, the Ontario Development Corporation approved an Ontario business incentive program loan of $1 million for Hayes-Dana, which forms part of a $12.5-million program launched by that firm to build a plant to manufacture axle housings for trucks. The company expects to employ 200 people in the Barrie area during its first year of operation there, expanding to an employment force of 800 by the fifth year of operation.

I have been assured that this new plant will not reduce the company’s manufacturing operation in Thorold in any way. The firm employs some 2,500 people at its Thorold plant and I have been told that this figure will increase. The loan provided to Hayes-Dana will be interest-free for five years, then repayment will commence for five years at an interest rate of 11% per cent.

When Hayes-Dana decided to build a new plant, they looked at three locations. Two of them were in the United States, in North Carolina and Indiana. An analysis of land costs, building costs, labour rates and incentives at each location indicated $1 million would be needed, if the Barrie site was to compete on an equal footing with the two United States locations.

As the honourable members realize, the auto industry and the auto parts industry are vital to Ontario’s economic strength, and we have referred to this substantially at earlier times. We recognize in this case an opportunity to assist Hayes-Dana in locating in Ontario. The resultant employment opportunities, along with the fact that this is a repayable loan, not an outright grant, I believe are ample justification for offering what is, let me make it clear, an incentive to Hayes-Dana to locate in Ontario.

STERILIZATION

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health on the subject of illegal sterilizations. Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention a study undertaken by Dr. Donald Zarfas of CPRI in London which revealed that 686 sterilization operations were performed in hospitals in this province in 1976 on persons who were unable to give consent on their own behalf; that 308 of these were performed on children, most likely retarded children; and that all but 50 were performed on females.

I want to ask the minister whether he is aware of this practice, whether this practice continues, and whether lie is aware of the view of the official guardian of Ontario that any sterilization of a person who is incapable of giving a legal consent on his or her own behalf is illegal?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, just late last week I saw a report from one of our staff on that matter. It is not yet complete in pulling together the legal opinions on hat might be done or should be done. With that in mind, I will take the question as notice and get back to the member as soon as possible.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary: May I ask the minister to table the equivalent figures on such sterilization procedures for 1977 and 1978, whether these procedures are still taking place in our hospitals and when he intends to bring in legislation that will require the obtaining of a court order before sterilization of persons incapable of giving consent on their own behalf can take place?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think part of the supplementary was part of the original question, which I have already taken as notice. As I indicated, I will report back as soon as possible. Of course, this does involve a number of aspects, including the rights of parents of those unable to consent for themselves to become involved, the role of the public trustee, et cetera. It is a very complicated matter, as the honourable member knows.

Mr. McClellan: Are they still taking place? Have you stopped the practice?

Mr. Havrot: Oh, go on. You’re just a bleeding heart.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I have already said, once we have all the material pulled together -- and I think the member would want a complete answer -- I will give it to him.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister not recall that this precise question was raised in his estimates a month ago and that he agreed at that time to get the information? How can he say now that he has to start from scratch? That was a month ago in the estimates.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t say I was starting from scratch. I said some material came across my desk at the end of last week and it was incomplete, as I recall it, and additional work is being done to pull the material together.

POLYFIBER LIMITED

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. I don’t want to overwork the minister today -- he’s had a lot of questions already --

An hon. member: Then sit down.

Mr. Martel: Poor little Larry.

Mr. Bradley: This one is a setup.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- but in the Renfrew area there are 20 or more families who are very concerned about this problem, and I’m wondering what the minister and his people are doing --

Mr. Speaker: Are you wondering or asking?

Mr. Yakabuski: -- or if he could give us a progress report on their efforts I to keep the Polyfiber Limited plant in the town of Renfrew open. I believe it’s threatening to close its doors about the middle of the month.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister just happens to have the answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, that’s not true, but I have a great memory.

We have been communicating with those people for quite some time, and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism put the people in touch with 26 prospective buyers. Unfortunately, none of those to this date has proved successful in terms of the negotiations.

I am told one of the reasons for the plant closure is, as always, increasing costs plus the loss of a very major contract which was really the basic part of the operation.

Notwithstanding all of that, our efforts do continue to attempt to put the company in touch with prospective buyers, and further discussions will go on as we get more details. Those efforts have been rather extensive up until now, and we will continue to try to find some prospective buyers.

MINE LAYOFFS

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources related to the mining sector of our economy. Since I the minister has become Minister of Natural Resources and has the responsibility for mining communities, has he had any meetings of his committee on the economic future of mining communities? Is he aware there have been layoff notices in the town of Atikokan to employees of Steep Rock Iron Mines that will take effect on January 31? And can he tell us of any recommendations or policies that have arisen out of this committee that has been set up to deal with these problems?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The committee continues to meet. Because of the fact most of its work relates to the various ministries that are part of CCRD, the resource development committee, its meetings, I would say, are about as frequent as those. Not every meeting has something involved, but many do.

I can’t tell the honourable member of any specific thing at the moment in regard to Atikokan since the original announcement, but I will get myself updated and report to him tomorrow.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Is the minister aware the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle) is not a member of that committee on the economic future of mining communities? And may I ask, has the minister attended any of these meetings in his new resurrection as minister responsible?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Ever after.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It depends on whom I am talking to, I guess.

Mrs. Campbell: Nobody has invited you.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have not attended a meeting since I have been in this portfolio, but most of the meetings have been attended by senior staff. I am sure the honourable secretary of the committee attends whenever he feels it necessary, as do other ministers. Nobody is prevented from attending simply because they don’t happen to be on the list of people there.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Can the minister indicate to the House when he and the Treasurer will be making a statement on incentives to the mining industry so that we can hold the employment we have in these mining communities in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I believe we will be dealing with the amendments to the Mining Tax Act tomorrow. I am sure the Treasurer would announce any further incentives at an appropriate time and probably when he is dealing with the budget.

BROUILLETTE NURSING HOME

Mr. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Could the minister explain why certain relevant facts concerning the Brouillette nursing home were not brought out in a recent inquiry -- namely that staffing was inadequate, nursing care diverted from that prescribed, nursing records were not complete and some nursing equipment was inadequate?

Could the minister tell us why these infractions were not brought to the attention of the coroner’s inquest which took place last week, even though they were confirmed to me in a letter of September 8 by Mr. Graham?

Further, is the minister aware of the following statement made by Mr. Graham in his letter to me where he says: “Mrs. Leopold’s deterioration after being admitted to the nursing home is a matter of great concern to our service. Although our investigation has not enabled us to conclusively assess fault, we have determined that deficiencies existed in significant areas of resident care?” Why was this fact not brought out in the coroner’s inquest also?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would think in part the member should ask the coroner. Certainly there have been several letters on this case: the one Mr. Graham wrote to the member in September; I believe I wrote to the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) myself about the same time; he had expressed concern. If memory serves me correctly, there are at least one or two others, either to other members of the House or to other interested citizens, detailing the same information.

I have before me, strangely enough, some material indicating the dates of inspection and what was done. I can go over it now or can do it later this afternoon in estimates. That might be the more appropriate time and place to do it. It will still be on the public record and we can discuss it there. But as I read over this, it is clear that, going back to the inspection in March, a number of problems were identified and were followed up regularly through inspections in April and later in the year.

[2:45]

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I find it very interesting this information didn’t get in front of the coroner’s inquest. Does the minister not agree the nursing homes should have to accept the responsibility for seeking medical attention for a resident? Will he change

section 46 of the regulations which at present imposes this responsibility on next of kin and was used in this coroner’s inquest? Further, does the minister understand that in the Leopold case, chronic care, as recommended by the doctor, and other nursing homes were sought out by the family but neither was available because of lengthy waiting lists in Windsor? When will the minister act to provide an adequate number of beds in chronic care and adequate quality nursing home beds in Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the honourable member knows, one of the ongoing problems in Windsor is that a number of chronic patients are occupying active treatment beds and should be in chronic units. This is part of the rationalization exercise in which all of the hospitals and the district health council are involved -- to find ways to rationalize the service, that additional chronic care beds can be added, and also that a chronic home care program can be added from the savings arising out of the rationalization in the city of Windsor.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I wonder if the minister would share with the House the kind of involvement across the province, in dollars and stall, as it relates to the issuing of age-of-majority cards? Is he aware that as recently as the last week or 10 days in Brock University some students researched the identification method the minister is using?

I have two cards in my hand issued to the same individual with two different pictures.

Mr. Nixon: Surely not.

Mr. Kerrio: I will send the minister a copy. I wonder if he could explain the criteria for receiving these very meaningful identity cards?

An hon. member: Two-for-one sale.

Mr. Nixon: They send them to everybody who sends his money.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks, in order to facilitate a significant number of people 18 years old who for rather obvious reasons want to obtain 18-year-old cards prior to January 1, people from the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario have been visiting community colleges and university campuses getting people to enrol for these cards. As to how this incident occurred, I obviously have no idea because the member just handed it to me.

But I will suggest to him if this was a deliberate stunt by these students, they are in very serious difficulty, because it involves a statutory declaration when one applies. I will report back to the member tomorrow on exactly how it happened. As to the amount of dollars and cents, I will report back tomorrow as well.

Mr. S. Smith: Instead of blaming the students, consult your own system.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am not blaming the students.

Mr. Kerrio: The point I want to make is that I wonder if the minister is aware that all one has to do is present some means of identification the government is not now willing to accept as proof of age of majority now to get the age-of-majority card?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The procedure has been tightened up very significantly.

Mr. S. Smith: Obviously.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There are a number of documents that are required now as a validation matter that were not required some months ago. I will tell the member what those are in detail tomorrow.

Mr. Kerrio: If they are under age, they don’t need anything.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If they are under age, they can’t apply. H they don’t have a driver’s licence on them, one can’t say it’s the only thing we will take. There are a number of documents that will be taken.

Mr. Kerrio: No, they take a friend’s and they get a card. It’s as simple as that.

Mr. S. Smith: Right now the proof is in front of the minister’s nose.

TTC PAY AWARD

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Deputy Premier who I gather today is assuming the mantle of power in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie). I would like the Deputy Premier to take some action since it appears the TTC is trying to alter the arbitrator’s award to chisel away a settlement which was legally awarded to the employees. Will the minister ensure the terms of Bill 141, now

an act, passed in this assembly, will be enforced? I refer to the

section which indicates that within seven days of the arbitrator’s award both sides are obligated to accept the arbitrator’s award.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would be happy to ensure that the concerns of the honourable member are communicated to both the Minister of Labour and to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: I hope the Deputy Premier realizes that unless some action is taken the whole business could be precipitating another strike in Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member mean “does he realize”?

Mr. Warner: Does he realize -- and now all of us realize -- that when either side fails to co-operate in executing the arbitration award, this government has the power under the Labour Relations Act to impose the award, and that unless this kind of direct action is taken we may very well see a strike in Toronto?

Interjection.

Mr. Warner: He doesn’t realize.

WOOD-BURNING STOVES

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, on November 10 I asked a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about the safety of wood-burning stoves, and he agreed to report to the members. I wonder if the minister now has a report, in view of the fact that over the Christmas season there will probably be a great many of these stoves installed?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do have a report. I brought it with me on Friday to read it but the honourable member wasn’t here. Unfortunately, I didn’t bring it with me today. I will bring it tomorrow.

Mr. Nixon: Would you two guys get together?

PAPER MTLL CONTROL ORDERS

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment: Since the minister doesn’t seem to be very familiar with the Victor and Donnan report from his own ministry on the pulp and paper industry, and claims that it really applies to other industries -- a statement which is not true, Mr. Speaker -- I would like to ask the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand the member suggested that something the honourable minister said was not true? I will ask you to withdraw it.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the report --

Mr. Speaker: Are you prepared to withdraw it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I’m sure the honourable member realizes that any indication that somebody has been untruthful is just not acceptable.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, if I withdraw the statement that it is not true, will you accept that he misled the House?

Mr. Speaker: No, no. Now you have two statements to withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Why don’t you simply ask the question?

Mr. Speaker: Is the honourable member prepared to do that? I will have to insist that the honourable member withdraw both of those suggestions.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw those statements, but I felt it was not entirely accurate.

Mr. Speaker: No, no. I think you should unequivocally withdraw any indication that either the minister was stating an untruth or was misleading the House.

Mr. Makarchuk: Point of order --

Mr. Speaker: I’m on my feet. Order. Order.

Is the member for Beaches-Woodbine prepared to withdraw those two statements?

Ms. Bryden: In the interest of getting on with the questions, I will withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Does the honourable member now have a supplementary?

Ms. Bryden: I haven’t completed my first question, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment if he can give us a progress report on how we are succeeding in controlling the pollution of the greatest polluter in Ontario, namely the pulp and paper industry, by tabling for us a statement on the discharges of suspended solids and BOD -- biochemical oxygen demand -- at present for the seven mills which are facing deadlines in their control orders on December 31, and give us a comparative figure for a year ago, so that we can see whether these mills have made any progress in the period when they were under control orders, and whether there is any reason for extending those orders or relaxing them in any way?

In particular, could he report on the Abitibi Paper Company at Smooth Rock Falls which had a deadline for October 31, 1978, to complete the separation of all sanitary sewage from processed wastes and treat that separately? Could he deal with those two questions?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think those questions follow the question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) today. We’ll supply that information at that time.

I want to be helpful to the member for Beaches-Woodbine. She perhaps didn’t hear the earlier reply in which I said I was referring to the press

article and not the report. I think I made it reasonably clear, but if that’s any help to the member, I’d just like to reaffirm that in our original question.

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. Breaugh: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Health, concerning the settlement that has been reached with the Ontario Medical Association. Will he now provide us with the number of doctors who have opted out of OHIP across Ontario and does he feel this new settlement will stop the trend of doctors opting out?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As of the end of November 15.8 per cent of the doctors in the province opted out.

Mr. Warner: That’s up.

Hon Mr. Timbrell: I think this is a reasonable settlement. Those numbers are far less than anything the members opposite were predicting last April and May and represent, I think, a reasonable position.

Mr. Warner: That’s up from a couple of months ago. That’s astounding.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: We’ve now had an admission of the highest percentage since the beginning of the plan having opted out. Has the m:nister any indication the new settlement will bring some of those doctors back into OHIP?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think that’s possible. If memory serves me correctly -- and I’ll check this -- it is not the highest figures since the beginning of the plan.

Mr. Warner: Are you trying to get something higher?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Going back to some of our discussions in the spring, it seems to me there was a figure of around 17 per cent at one point a number of years ago. It is possible it will encourage some back in.

The total effect, of course, will depend on the apportionment of that increase. It’s a 6.6 per cent average increase, and as the member understands, we have now between the government negotiators and those of the OMA, to work out the apportionment among the general practitioners and specialists of that increase. That remains to be seen.

OHIP DATA PROCESSING SERVICES

Mrs. Campbell: My question, too, is of the Minister of Health. Could he advise us as to what procedures he is taking in his tendering of work as it relates to the data processors and others in the Overlea Bottleyard area? These women -- and they’re largely women, are being phased out of work. Is he going to full contracting out of services?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m sorry, was that for the hardware or the software? What did the member have in mind?

Mrs. Campbell: The tendering of the work itself. The minister is tendering out the work these girls have been doing. While he’s trying to eliminate them, is he going to complete contracting out for all of these services? Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think because of the complexity of the subject and, frankly, because I’m not sure I entirely understand the question, I’ll take it as notice and get the information for her.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The minister said he would take the question as notice.

Mr. Warner: I have a supplementary to the original question that was asked by my colleague from Oshawa.

Mr. Speaker: No, I allowed the member for Oshawa a supplementary to his question. We now want another new question. The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING

Mr. Bounsall: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Can the minister indicate to this House why he is delaying the approval of the rent subsidy program to 50 units of the City of Windsor’s Windsor Housing Company senior citizen development at the corner of Riverside Drive and Bridge, particularly inasmuch as for some time now this approval has been given by the Ontario Housing Corporation and awaits only the minister’s transmission of this approval?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Back about a week or 10 days ago the member asked a similar question relating to the Norton-Palmer development in that particular community and the disposition of that land.

[3:00]

Mr. Bounsall: They are not connected.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just let me finish.

Mr. Breaugh: Don’t get upset now.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That land will be closing on a tender basis on December 13. I indicated to the member at that time that before we proceed with any further developments in that area I’m going to be meeting with the mayor of Windsor. I communicated with him again last week on a date when we could meet and discuss the senior citizen housing development in relation to the Norton-Palmer settlement that will come out.

The government believes there is a commitment by the city of Windsor in relation to that Norton-Palmer development and we believe there has to be some financial settlement between the province and that municipality. At that time I said clearly to the mayor we will try to conclude with him the arrangements for the other developments in his community.

Mr. Bounsall: How can the minister possibly believe there is any connection between rent subsidy units at the corner of Riverside Drive and Bridge and the Norton-Palmer property, particularly inasmuch as there was never any written agreement or commitment by the city of Windsor to be involved in the Norton-Palmer development as a senior citizen apartment building?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will admit to the member and to this House there was no signed agreement with the city of Windsor on that arrangement --

Mr. Bounsall: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- as there is very seldom, prior to the commencement of operations on a particular site, an agreement signed by any municipality in the province. A great deal of the effort that goes in from the member’s community and all the communities in this province with OFIC is on a promise of understanding on whatever we’re trying to succeed in doing. There have been many municipalities that would have liked to have backed out of some deals, but they also realized they had a personal commitment with the ministry in providing some housing. That stands for the city of Windsor as it does for any other community.

I’m prepared, even in the light of the fad there was no signed agreement, to bring forward documentation from the city council of Windsor and the clerk and various other people of that municipality which clearly indicated their desire and concern and wishes for the province, through the Ministry of Housing, to advance that project.

When the cost of the project became excessive in the opinion of Central Mortgage and Housing, in the opinion of the Ministry of Housing of Ontario, and in the opinion of the city council of Windsor, they decided to back away from the project and recall tenders, which we did at that time.

Mr. Cooke: How are the two projects connected?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In the recalling of tenders, the city of Windsor at that point decided that they would like to forgo the whole project. That might be fine, except there’s a very large sum of money invested on behalf of the people of Canada through CMHC and the Ministry of Housing for Ontario. We believe that when certain commitments are given, verbally, by the council and other members of that community, there should be some honouring of those commitments in the division of costs in bringing the land on market.

Mr. Warner: That’s right. We remember the Edmonton commitment.

Mr. Cooke: How are the two projects connected?

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister aware there are 291 senior citizens, as of December 1 of this year, urgently needing housing? Is he going to hold up their needs for ransom over some dispute that he may have with the city council and the mayor?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Far be it from this ministry to fail to honour any of the true needs that exist in any community in the province, Windsor included.

Mr. Bounsall: You are doing it, that’s all. That’s exactly what you’re doing. and opening up of Hall Farm and some of the land in that community for housing of certain citizens in the Windsor community. In no way, shape or form do we intend as a government to hold up a group of citizens, whether they be senior citizens or families, to the ransom of any community.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s exactly what you’re doing.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: On the other hand, while we are in the process of getting other developments under way, we believe the government has to be treated fairly -- federally and provincially -- in whatever commitments it has undertaken with a municipality. Let me suggest very strongly the same commitment should be honoured by municipalities when dealing with the other two senior levels of government.

FOOD LAND GUIDELINES

Mr. J. Reed: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In regard to the minister’s statement today about the preservation of food land, which appears to attach at least somewhat more importance to the preservation of productive agricultural land, how does he spall out his priorities in relation to the use of agricultural land for garbage dumps?

Hon. W. Newman: I think the food land guidelines, when I table them this afternoon -- if the member reads them over carefully -- will answer that question.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Does it mean now that class one and two, and perhaps three and four, agricultural land will no longer be considered as potential candidates for garbage dumps?

Hon. W. Newman: As I said before, it is indicated that any agricultural land in classes one, two, three or four, and specialty soils as outlined in here, should be preserved in this province. Also, I should point out to you there are circumstances, if you read into the guidelines in here, where other things have priorities. We can’t stop the world. For instance, there is the gravel concern, reforestry preserves, environmental concerns and many other concerns.

These are agriculture and food guidelines for the municipalities to follow. I think they do spell out the procedures that should be followed to preserve the better land. As far as any particular individual site is concerned, I am sure the Environmental Assessment Board, or whoever is involved in it, will take all the factors into consideration.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We are proceeding to continue with the design and development

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

In view of the statement of David Medhurst, president of Medhurst Hogg and Associates, in the current issue of Alcan News, that almost every brick veneer apartment building and townhouse in Toronto has a water penetration problem, as well as the statement of George Fleming, building commissioner for Scarborough, that SO per cent of the apartment buildings in the city leak and that this is due in large part to the technique of bonding every seventh course of bricks into the masonry wall and clamping rigidly together two substances, the brick and the cement, which expand and contract at different times and temperatures, has the minister had this brought to his attention and is he contemplating any change, if necessary, in the building code to look after this situation?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had it brought to my attention, other than we do know there have been one or two problems because of certain remarks or suggestions that have been made to HUDAC as the result of some water leakage into some of the buildings we have had mortgages on through the Ontario Mortgage Corporation. I would like to suggest, in response to the last part of the question relating to the building code, it doesn’t fall within the Ministry of Housing but within the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

REPORTS

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report on the standing orders of the House and moved its adoption.

Mr. Breaugh: I would simply like to inform the House there is a debate scheduled for Thursday evening of this week and to caution the members that if they have amendments they would like to see put to the standing orders they make every effort to table those with the Clerk if possible so we may all be aware of them. The proposal before the House will be a revision of the standing orders to establish a new permanent set of standing orders. We will have a complete debate on Thursday evening.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Havrot from the standing resources development committee presented the committee’s interim report on liquid industrial waste.

FOOD LAND GUIDELINES

Hon. W. Newman presented the Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s policy statement on food land guidelines.

MOTIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that notwithstanding any order of the House the House will continue to sit tonight until 7 p.m., and at 6:55 the Chairman of the committee of supply will put every question necessary to complete the consideration of the estimates and of the supplementary estimates now before the committee of supply.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE ASSEMBLY

On vote 201, Office of the Assembly program:

Mr. Peterson: Could the minister explain to us why he requires another $284,000 for the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses?

Hon. Mr. McCague: That’s the final item in this vote. I’ll get you that answer.

Items 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

On item 6, members’ indemnities:

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, maybe the Chairman of Management Board would explain why, under members’ indemnities, there’s another $185,000 for transportation and communication. What could that possibly be?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, the minister is expecting the director of members’ services to be here. However, that second question, of course, relates to the four per cent adjustment, and it will be some partial allowance for the four per cent adjustment in mileage allowance, which is part of the overall increase in indemnities and allowances.

Mr. Peterson: This strikes me as a fairly unruly way to run estimates.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is no question about that. If the honourable member will just simply wait, he is entitled to answers. The minister usually has advisers. The adviser has not yet arrived.

Mr. Peterson: That is not my problem. You are the one who called supplementary estimates.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s right, that is our problem.

Mr. Peterson: I have had these in my office for an hour.

Hon. Mr. Welch: They were tabled Friday. Of course, you weren’t here Friday.

Mr. Peterson: If you are not prepared to go ahead that is your responsibility.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We stand rebuked. That’s fine, if you feel better.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, might we just move to another item and then come back to this one when the minister’s advisers are here?

Mr. Chairman: If the committee wishes to stand down item 6 we will do so.

Items 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for London Centre like to place his question on item 6 now?

Mr. Peterson: I’d like to know why there is a $185,000 increase. Could you give us a breakdown of that?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I understand a supplementary estimate of this kind is customary, and that the full amount is not budgeted at the first of the year because it’s not known what it will be. There is $115.000, as the member mentioned, in travel and accommodation and $70,000 in postage.

Mr. Peterson: Postage for what?

Hon. Mr. Welch: For the members. It’s your postage allowance.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The members’ postage allowance.

Item 6 agreed to.

On item 11, Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses:

Mr. Peterson: Would the minister be good enough to answer the question on item 11 and tell us what it is and why it seems to be quite an extraordinary amount?

Hon. Mr. McCague: It is for services paid to the end of the year that weren’t included in the last fiscal year. There was a previous budget but these bills were not in on time.

Mr. Peterson: Why weren’t they in on time? Why are we doing this? I think the minister owes us a little more explanation than he has given us.

An hon. member: The old Tory ship sinks.

Mr. Peterson: While the minister is figuring it out, allow me an editorial comment. I have never sat in estimates like this in my entire life, when people come in so ill-prepared and when the minister, who has only got about six or eight lines, doesn’t know. We have had these for about an hour or two; I got them in my office this morning.

Hon. Mr. Welch: They were tabled on Friday morning.

Mr. Peterson: I got them today.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s your fault.

Mr. Peterson: Obviously the minister just got them, because he hasn’t seen them yet. I am appalled. I understand the Deputy Premier standing up and trying to fudge the thing and frying to wing it for him, but the minister is responsible.

Frankly, I am just appalled that the minister would come to deal with these not knowing the answers. Surely any minister in that government should be able to master six lines of expenditures within about 10 minutes. I am just amazed at this. I have never sat in any estimates procedure like this ever before, when the minister couldn’t at least come up with some half-baked explanation.

Hon. Mr. Welch: In your long association with this House.

Mr. Peterson: The minister hasn’t even given us a half-baked explanation; he has given us a quarter-baked explanation.

Hon. Mr. McCague: That’s very true, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think the honourable member has ever sat in estimates for five minutes before.

Hon Mr. Welch: No.

Hon. Mr. McCague: However, I can tell him that these really aren’t my responsibilities. I am taking them through, and I am a very new member of the Board of Internal Economy. I can’t really help it if the honourable member is a little cranky because he didn’t get them until this morning, or an hour ago.

Mr. Peterson: When did you get them?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The Chairman of Management Board has had them since Friday.

Mr. Deans: The minister is not making much headway. Why doesn’t he just answer and get it over with?

Mr. Kerrio: The minister should just let his deputy answer.

Mrs. Campbell: What should we do, rubber-stamp all these?

Mr. Deans: There’s no point in trying to be offensive because you ain’t going to win.

Hon. Mr. McCague: It’s to provide for the 1977 campaign period return audit fee subsidies and campaign expense subsidies outstanding as at December 31, 1978.

Item 11 agreed to.

Vote 201 agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

On vote 1103B, local government affairs program:

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I think we supplied the full details of these supplementary estimates to the members about half an hour ago. They concern two particular programs. One is the Ontario Youth Employment Program and, of course, the supplementary estimates are because of the change in policy.

As you will recall, the former Treasurer cut off the program at one point, indicating the reason for that cutoff to be to keep the program within the estimates that were available for it. We all experienced some problems with that arbitrary cutoff and there was an adjustment made to it. The result of that adjustment means we need this extra money for the Ontario Youth Employment Program.

The other is the Ontario unconditional grants, and the changes here are necessitated because the estimates of the grants have changed slightly. In order to bring them into balance with what, in fact, will be paid out by way of grant under the unconditional grants -- and there are three grants: resource equalization, the general support and the special support -- it is necessary to ask the House for approximately $3.2 million more for that particular vote.

Mr. Peterson: I am sorry, I don’t quite understand what you are saying. What part of the fiscal year is this making up for? Is it the latter part of the year, is it a new program, is it because you were underfunded or oversubscribed? What exactly was your explanation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: You will recall there was a certain appropriation in the budget for the Ontario Youth Employment Program. In order to keep within that allotment, the Treasurer, on June 1, 1978, put a cap on applications for the program; and this was done to put a lid on the amount that would be spent in that program.

Because of the hardships this produced -- I think many of them brought to the Treasurer’s and the government’s attention by members on all sides of this House -- the program was then expanded for a little longer to take into account applications that were on the way and so forth.

The result of that was there is a need for more money in the appropriation for the Ontario Youth Employment Program than was voted in the regular estimates. So we are asking here for $4847 million more. If you would like a breakdown of just how that works in the program, I can give it to you.

Mr. Laughren: I wonder if the minister could tell us how many applications that $4847 million covered, how many jobs that involved and how many applications, in terms of jobs involved in the applications, were turned down as a result of the curtailment of the program?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can give you this information. I am not sure I have it broken down for the extra amount of money, but the total number of applications approved was 20,100 and the number of jobs that number of applications covered was 48,500. This worked out to an average number of jobs per employer of 2.41. The average grant per employer would have been $1,849, which would have meant a total commitment of $37.2 million.

Based on experience from the year before in the program, we figure there will be about $16.3 million of that which will not be spent, based on shortfalls, no-shows and so forth. In other words, of all those applications, when we get around to processing them, auditing them and so forth, the need for the program will probably be about $20.9 million or $21 million, and the total number of jobs created about 34,000. That is based on the experience in the program with the applications that came in.

Some of them aren’t followed through; when they go to audit them they find the people didn’t carry through, didn’t employ the people and so forth, but the actual final accounting will probably produce about 34,000 jobs at a total cost of $20.9 million.

Mr. Laughren: You were talking one minute ago of 48,500 jobs approved. Yon are saying there was that much shortfall between approval and what actually -- is that right?

Hon. Mr. Wells: As between the actual number of applications that are received and what they will come to when we get to finally paying them and verifying that those jobs were created, there is that drop-off and shortfall.

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to ask the minister with regard to the previous amount of $3.2 million in transfer payments to municipalities, is this part of the moneys that are going to the city of Windsor as a result of the shortfall over the past year and previous years?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It’s not part of that money. These are the regular payments under those three unconditional grant payment schemes that I indicated. It has nothing to do with any ad hoc special arrangement for Windsor.

Mr. Epp: Under the Ontario Youth Employment Program, otherwise known as OYEP, the minister has indicated an additional expenditure there of $6 million. There is some detail there but not very much. I wonder whether the minister -- and I don’t expect he would have it with him right now -- could indicate some kind of breakdown, first as to the different kinds of industries that have received these grants; and secondly, on the basis of the municipalities that have received the grants?

As you know, they could be distributed in one part of the province or they could be distributed in another. I am wondering whether you could provide us with these details some time in the future.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be happy to do that, provided it can be obtained. We could see if that kind of statistical breakout could be done on the applications. That’s in regard to municipalities and the types of jobs.

Mr. Chairman: Any further questions or comments?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I just thought that I should indicate to my friends, the opposition critics, that they have the backup paper that we gave them. However, I neglected in my opening remarks, to point out that while the additional amount required for the Ontario Youth Employment Program is actually $6 million and the additional sum for the unconditional grants is $5 million, we have partially offset that by savings in other sections of the ministry, totalling nearly $3 million. Therefore, the totals to be voted are $8,047,000.

I thought I should point that out that while we are asking for additional moneys for several of the programs in the ministry, there have been savings in a number of other programs, which are itemized on the support sheets which I sent to the critics.

Vote 1103B agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

On vote 1301, law officer of the crown program; item 5, royal commissions:

Mr. Peterson: Could I ask the parliamentary assistant what specific royal commission is this referring to or are there various ones?

Mr. Sterling: This deals with several commissions and inquiries. Basically, the supplementary was necessary for three major inquiries and commissions. First of all, the Kim Anne Popen inquiry accounted for $272,000 of this.

Mr. Peterson: That’s the total cost of that? Mr. Sterling: That’s the estimated cost for 1978-79, to March 31; of course, that was not foreseen at the time the estimates were brought forward. The major one of all of them was the confidentiality of health records commission. Although there was some indication that this commission would take place, it was not known at the time the estimate material was produced. That accounted for $795,000.

[3:30]

The third major one was the one dealing with freedom of information and individual privacy. Although there was an estimated cost of $406,100 in the original 1978-79 estimates, at the time that it was done it was not known how high the profile and the research would be at that particular time. We have now discovered they have increased their research at a much faster rate than we had originally anticipated; that accounts for $319,500.

The other areas relate basically to finishing off commissions which had acquired printing costs at the tail-end of those particular commissions.

Mr. Peterson: May I ask a supplementary:

Have you reviewed the suggestions of the public accounts committee with respect to royal commissions? You are aware of the very sloppy procedures that have gone on in the funding of some of these royal commissions. They have been very unclear as to what date, in fact, the commission was finished; and there is certain evidence, mostly as a result of the LaMarsh commission, that people were drawing their per diems some time after the publishing of their report.

Could you bring us up to date on the current state of the guidelines under which the royal commissions are operating to curb these abuses we saw in the past?

Mr. Sterling: I cannot comment as fully as the member would perhaps like me to, unfortunately, however as you can appreciate, there is always some difficulty in relation to commissions and inquiries in knowing exactly the scope of the material and the problem with which you are getting involved.

Also, it is difficult to control expenditures and not be accused of trying to force the commission to a conclusion without having all the facts placed before it.

The ministry is now, I understand, actively considering the guidelines as produced by the public accounts committee. I would hope the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) would have some information for you on the progress of that consideration. Could I have the Attorney General give you some date on which he would expect that consideration to be completed?

Mr. Peterson: You will undertake to speak to him and furnish me with any knowledge that you have, or at least to inform me of the current state of the work in that area?

Mr. Sterling: Yes, I will.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the other matter pertaining to royal commissions that has always concerned me a bit is that we seem to have developed a sort of standard fee for counsel, or at least a minimum fee; no counsel worthy of the name would accept a royal commission appointment at less than $100 an hour. These commissioners spend a good deal of time hearing public presentations, and while their counsel would of course be very intensely interested in the views expressed by the many delegations, paying $100 an hour for that kind of advice seems to me a bloody waste.

I don’t know what the way of this might be. It could possibly be that the Justice policy secretary might maintain a short list of senior counsel, who as a matter of service to the community and the taxpayers are perhaps prepared to act for something less than $100 an hour, on the basis that once their expenses and some moderate assistance is met they don’t have to make the family fortune in one royal commission.

The same, to a lesser degree, applies to our select committees, where the going rate is now about $70 an hour. While the people advising our select committees and commissions are undoubtedly extremely capable, I don’t think anybody is worth that kind of money. I am sure the parliamentary assistant agrees with me, now that he is not in the running for those appointments at the present time.

I just wanted to express these views before the vote carried, because I’m quite convinced the size of the amounts voted are not so much to serve the royal commission in any aspect other than to be sure legal counsel is available, that’s where the money goes. I think we spend too much money on it.

Mr. Sterling: I’d take note of your comments. I think perhaps the problem related to the hourly fee and the per diem fee, that is not reflected, is the overhead that lawyer has accrued around him in terms of his legal office.

Mr. Martel: Here comes the legal beagle.

Mr. Sterling: For instance, if you are a criminal lawyer who practices in the courts, the overhead surrounding that type of a legal person is much less than a person who is practicing solicitor’s work. I would think if a certain counsel is doing a great deal of this type of work in fact he should be paid a lesser rate per hour, then he or she wouldn’t attract that kind of baggage around them. I take note of your comment and we’ll pass the same on to the Attorney General.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t know, really, what the solution is, obviously; and I guess no one does, but it could possibly be there are certain senior members of the bar, particularly those who are Queen’s counsels, who perhaps might rise above the crasser aspects of the size of their retainer. Perhaps we should make those QCs more desirable by not giving them to everybody who stays alive, or stays warm for 11 years.

Mrs. Campbell: And out of prison.

Mr. Nixon: And out of prison. That, I understand, is not one of the major requirements. It may be in the future only QCs could serve on royal commissions -- at no fee but as sort of one of the responsibilities that goes with the QC. It could be that a designation as counsel to royal commission would be restricted to QCs and be considered more or less as a command performance, or perhaps even a once in a lifetime service to fellow taxpayers, in partial repayment for the education and the opportunities given to that individual.

Honestly, for us to sit placidly by and fork out $100 an hour plus, really makes me feel we’re not accepting our duties. The $100 an hour is minimum. There’s a rumour going around that some of the better-known lawyers, when they appear before committees of the House, command a fee of $1,000 a day. While I suppose there are certain people, learned in the law, who can charge any fee they want as long as there are those gullible enough to pay it, surely we don’t have to be in that category.

I have a feeling the royal commissioners, when they are selected by order in council, and they are almost without exception judges, with all of the impartiality and wisdom that go with their learned and honourable responsibility; the first thing they do in looking around for counsel is select somebody who probably doesn’t need that kind of money.

I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the parliamentary assistant, we should do something about this.

An hon. member: I think we need legal aid.

Mr. Sterling: I can only comment that in so far as I have not yet been appointed a QC, I would agree with many of your comments.

Mr. Martel: Except when it affects the lawyers’ income.

Mr. Sterling: If I’m not a QC, then some of the comments don’t apply.

Mr. Mattel: But you’re aspiring.

Mr. Sterling: I haven’t been practicing long enough to qualify. At any rate, I would think the only possibility is there might be some movement, and I think there should be some movement, perhaps towards a sliding scale in relation to the total time spent on a particular commission. As the time increases, as a lawyer spends more and more time on a particular commission, if it’s a very involved commission, then his overhead really does drop, because his secretary starts to get picked up by other members of the law firm and they utilize his overhead around him.

An hon. member: Picked up by who?

Mr. Peterson: What are you accusing lawyers of doing now?

Mrs. Campbell: Wait a minute; would you come again on that last statement about his secretary?

Mr. Sterling: They pick up the time that she would normally be doing legal work for him and utilize her fully. Again, I don’t know what the total answer is, but I also agree that there should be a look at it.

Mrs. Campbell: I would just like to ask just how it is that this comes in this time, when, as I recall, during the estimates of the Attorney General there was some considerable discussion about royal commissions when we were on that vote. I regret I haven’t had an opportunity to really research what happened or what was said on that occasion, because I too didn’t receive these until today, although I’m told that they were available on Friday. I was here. I didn’t receive them.

I wonder if we could ask that the Attorney General might give us at some future time, hopefully before the House prorogues, further information on these matters? As I say, there was discussion and I don’t think there was any indication at all given that these estimates would be coming in as high as this. I think there was some suggestion that we would need an additional amount.

It does seem to me that when we’re doing estimates as late as we were doing the Attorney General’s estimates, we should have had this kind of information when we could enter into an appropriate debate.

As far as the counsel are concerned, I don’t suppose that the government is in the position to apply for legal aid for the appointment of counsel. However, I too am of the opinion that sometimes these appointments seem to get out of hand. I would hope that we would be looking at them.

I would also ask if there is no way that we could monitor these expenses as they go? Surely there must have been some point in time prior to this point when we knew a little better just where we were going with all of these overruns in the various commissions. I would hope that we would have some kind of monitoring procedure so that there could be some attempt at some control, or at least an ongoing explanation of increases.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to undertake to the member for St. George that we are quite willing to provide her with the full details of the supplementary estimates. We appreciate her problem in not having all the full details at this time.

Again, I relate to my opening remarks in answer to the previous question that it is, indeed, difficult to control these expenditures. We are looking at the public accounts report in trying to give better guidelines to these commissions so that we can account better to this Legislature for the spending that is going on.

Mr. Laughren: We need a socialist Attorney General, that’s what. You guys don’t know how to control expenditures at all.

Vote 1301 agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, PROVINCIAL SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

On vote 1701, resources development policy program; item 1, resources development secretariat:

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I wanted to give a brief explanation, Mr. Chairman. The amount requested is $57,300, which represents one-third of the total budget of the office of the Indian Commission of Ontario. The total budget is $171,900, and that is divided three ways -- one-third, federal; one-third, provincial; one-third from the native organizations.

As the honourable members recall, in Mr. Justice Hartt’s interim report of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment, it recommended that a secretariat be established to facilitate the tripartite process and to assist with the mediation of issues when the three parties request such assistance.

[3:45]

The secretariat was named the Indian Commission of Ontario. It was established by an order in council on September 27, 1978, and Justice Hartt was appointed as commissioner. As the honourable members know, the tripartite process came into being in March of this year with representatives from the federal government, the provincial government and the native people.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk for a few moments about the commission and the whole problem of native people this commission will attempt to grapple with.

I well recall meeting with Chief Justice Patrick Hartt to discuss the problems of the native community. No one knows them any better than my friend the minister, who has been in this building a little longer than I; but I despair.

I’ve been here 11 years now and we have talked about assisting native people for those 11 years. We really haven’t got to first base yet and we haven’t even made a dent on the problems encountered by our native people. I get so depressed as we use the native people as a political football. We toss them back and forth between the federal and provincial authority and nothing gets done, so you don’t have to spend money helping our native people.

As one who comes from northern Ontario, I find it really depressing how long it’s taken. The province is now 111 years old, or some ridiculous figure, and the government has simply ignored the needs of the native people. We’ve done that successfully by saying, “The jurisdiction is with the federal authority.” The province opts out of it that way and the federal authorities have got another thing.

I remember reading Harold Cardinal’s book. He advocated the abolition of the Department of Indian Affairs because most of the money for our native people --

Mr. Nixon: The Department of Indian Affairs offered that, the Indians rejected it.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I’m not talking to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: I just wanted to help you, I want to help you in every way possible.

Mr. Martel: I hardly think I need your help today, maybe tomorrow I’ll call on you, Bob.

Mr. Kerrio: You sound like a scattergun, you talk to everybody.

Mr. Martel: Well those that want to get in the way --

Mr. Nixon: Bang.

Mr. Martel: That’s right.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Martel: I want to go back to the treatment of the native people in northern Ontario without any interference. I kind of resent that when I talk about native people, about acting on their behalf --

Mr. Kerrio: A great entry; Elie the actor.

Mr. Nixon: The big reserves are in the south.

Mr. Kerrio: You’re acting when you turn to speak to everybody.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Martel: When I talk about the native people it is because I have seen the plight in northern Ontario. You will see native kids today, in 1978, with lousy rubber boots on and summer stockings. You might come and see that sometime, Vince. It might do your heart good to go out there and do a little work among them.

We continue to toss them I back and forth. The Department of Indian Affairs spends more money on the bureaucracy than it does on the Indians or their problem. We haven’t done a thing, really. I’ve heard that back and forth for 11 years, that we’re going to do something on behalf of the native community. But we haven’t, and we should be ashamed of ourselves. We put them with the Ministry of Culture and Recreation for awhile, of all places. I think that’s an indication of how seriously the government of Ontario treats the native people, when they put them in the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

We’ve got to do more than that. Thank God Pat Hartt is heading this up. As I spoke to him he outlined the horrors he encountered in the year and a half or so he was involved -- horrors we’ve never even encountered in all our discussions in this Legislature, about youngsters eight and nine years old already on alcohol. It’s a sad commentary on a government.

We managed to have a budget of over $14 billion this year. I wonder how much of it’s going to the native community to make sure it has the funds necessary to get involved in a number of projects using the resources that might be on their reserve.

Certainly the size of the reserves is something that might he looked at some day, to make them viable. I don’t know any reserve up north that is all that viable at its present size. What is in some of those reserves isn’t going to help the native community to make its own way in the way it sees fit.

I recall making a suggestion to one of your colleagues a number of years ago, and to my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) about one of the projects one would immediately undertake or should undertake. I recall telling you, in fact, when you were then Minister of Community and Social Services and responsible for the native people, I believe I suggested to you that we should make Manitoulin into a federal-provincial park, using a full-scale plan to develop it, leaving what is in place there now but developing the rest of the island into a federal-provincial park employing native people. That is the type of work they are used to doing; that is what they would go on doing.

Mr. Laughren: They are too busy paving

Mr. Martel: We could employ them on a year-round basis. I think the unemployment rate up there, or the welfare rate -- my friend from Algoma-Manitoulin could tell me -- is about 17 per cent in the native community, or maybe higher. It is an idea. The minister was going to have it looked into, but I have never heard to this day the results of any inquiry he made or anything be had done with respect to that sort of idea involving the native people; utilizing funds from the province, hopefully in conjunction with the federal authorities, to provide meaningful work in the areas that our native people like and are used to.

You can’t take their culture from them as you would want to do. You can’t make nice little white boys out of them. It won’t work. I don’t think they want it taken from them.

You can’t take 10,000 years of history out of their bloodstream and say: “You will now be a nice little white man and you can do the white man’s work, with all his mentality.” It isn’t going to work. They have a different mentality from ours. We have to gear our programs, hopefully, to things they themselves want to do.

We are not prepared, in this province, to do that yet I hope the creation of the Indian Commission of Ontario might ultimately lead to some of those decisions involving our native people who have a lot to contribute; we could learn from them.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They are contributing.

Mr. Martel: Who is?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The native people.

Mr. Martel: I wish you would come to northern Ontario to help them contribute, because they are prepared to do it, providing they are given the wherewithal to do that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Don’t sell short the contribution of the native people.

Mr. Martel: We sent you off to university, God knows why. Look at what it has done to you.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Don’t sell short the contribution of the native people to northern Ontario.

Mr. Martel: If you are what comes out of our universities, heaven forbid. I’d prefer to pump some money in there to assist them at the same rate that we do in other areas.

Hon. W. Newman: You taught him.

Mr. Martel: No, I never taught him. You can tell that. I just say I hope the government will put a little of that green stuff up front.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Not just the money. It is how you spend it.

Mr. Martel: Will you rule him out of order, Mr. Chairman? He keeps interfering.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I would ask the member simply to ignore the interjections and proceed with his address to the chair.

Mr. Martel: How can I overlook stupidity like that? That is asking too much.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He is jesting with you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I asked the member for Sudbury East to please proceed. Would the member for Prince Edward-Lennox please wait his turn to have the floor?

Mr. Martel: I want to conclude. I hope we will find the wherewithal, the cash that is necessary to provide the equipment or materials they need in order that they can utilize the resources at their disposal to provide a decent livelihood for themselves and for their families. We have to make that commitment; it is time we stopped playing around as we have in the 11 years I have been here. One only has to look at the Whitedog and the Grassy Narrows reserves to understand that we haven’t even been prepared to move in there in any meaningful way outside of putting a refrigerator in the place.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t have much confidence, actually, in Her Honour’s chief advisers in the front row, but what residual confidence I retain probably rests with the honourable minister whose supplementary estimates we are now discussing.

Mr. Laughren: He is a doctor now.

Mr. Nixon: If he is a doctor then somebody showed a lot of good sense.

Mr. Laughren: He is Dr. Brunelle, compliments of Laurentian.

Mr. Nixon: Was it Moonbeam university that finally recognized him?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They saw the light.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Nixon: Anyway, I share a good many of the views expressed by the honourable member who has just spoken. I am not, however, nearly as confident as he is that this tripartite commission is going to do anything.

I am very much concerned that we are handing this continuing problem to another administratively top-heavy body, which is going to be a convenient repository to which we can hand the problem.

There was a time when I used to tell the government and this minister and some of his colleagues, that we in this Legislature had not accepted any of the responsibility at all, other than to rise for a five or 10-minute period once a year and berate the government for not doing enough about the continuing Indian problem. However positive we sound on this side, the minister is well aware that we don’t have any of the answers either. The solution to the problem has very little to do with money, even though we are now voting enough to hire a couple of staff members for our share of the tripartite committee.

I used to urge on the minister, believe it or not, that a select committee of this House made up of all three parties, constitute itself and go into the north -- and of course to the other reserves -- the bigger and more populous ones are in southern Ontario -- and meet the Indians on their own ground; that we try to shut up for a few minutes -- which is a very difficult thing for us to do, and that includes people of all parties -- and listen to what the Indians themselves have to say.

Sometimes it takes them quite a while to decide what they have to say, because really, the leadership in the Indian community is very similar to ours. We really would like to do something about it but it is not at all clear what should be done.

I do feel, however, that we might begin building a bit more goodwill if we would tear ourselves from the sumptuous precincts of Queen’s Park and Sutton Place -- which is where the ministers in the past have entertained the Indian chiefs when they come down, with Stilton cheese and everything else that all the ministers have grown used to -- and go up there and have some wild rice and moose meat and whatever else is there, and stay long enough so it is not some kind of a superficial intrusion into the lives of the people on the reserve but is a visit by people who want to talk about the problems of employment, the provision of basic living services, alcoholism -- which perhaps should be number one -- and whatever else could be put on the agenda by the spokesmen and spokeswomen for the Indian community and the members of the Legislature.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Right, that’s right.

Mr. Nixon: After all, the Indian people pay sales tax, at least off the reserve, and gas tax and so on; so we should be prepared, not to determine the number of dollars that accrue to the Indian account per se, but to see that those communities have the same facilities as any other by way of assistance for education and housing and so on.

I recommend that sometime in the future a committee of this House, made up of members from all parties, actually go and spend some time on the reserves. It has to be well-orchestrated, well-organized, that’s the basic point. I would suggest that the honourable minister who is answering for these special estimates would be one of the few people who could act as chairman and receive support from all people concerned, particularly the Indians. It is essential that we not have some kind of grand procession where we go in and have a meal and everybody claps hands all around, but that we do spend the time to hear what the Indians have to say.

[4:00]

I say again, the answers are not found in the minds of anybody in this House, or any experts in some bureau and within the Indian community itself, but together we might take some tentative first steps toward improving a situation which is almost as bad as portrayed by my honourable friend the House leader of the NDP, who is, as you can see, dramatically and continuingly interested in this subject.

I don’t have any answers other than perhaps sometime next summer, or the one after perhaps, the Liberal administration could call the minister back for this very duty, and that would be my recommendation.

Mr. Watson: Is that an Ontario Liberal?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I appreciate the constructive comments of the members for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. As the member for Sudbury East mentioned, I have, as one of the members of this Legislature, probably the largest number of native people in my riding. I try and visit them occasionally and I do get confused on what comes under federal jurisdiction and what comes under provincial jurisdiction.

The tripartite council was established, at the request of the native people and also on the recommendation of Justice Patrick Hartt, for that very purpose, to try and disentangle what is federal and what is provincial. I would like to mention that, as the member for Sudbury East knows, under the BNA Act the native people are the main responsibility of the federal government. This complex question is not one that relates only to Ontario; the four western provinces also have this very same problem. They meet occasionally, and we meet with them also, to try to come to grips with it.

I agree that the native people in our province certainly deserve additional assistance. They have a rich culture; they are very resourceful. Some of our best artists are Indian people and more should be done to help them upgrade themselves. I think we all agree that Justice Hartt, who has the interest of the native people at heart, is probably one of the best persons to do this work, to facilitate the tripartite process and at the same time provide mediation wherever there is a need.

The member for Sudbury East mentioned that more money should be spent. I am not sure it is a question of more money, because it would be very surprising to find the amount of money that is being spent by the federal government and the provincial government. It comes to a fair amount of money per capita, so it is not a question of more money. I think it is a question of better allocation of the resources and really trying to help them, especially those who live in remote areas. Tourism, for instance, has a great potential and more could be done there.

I agree that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has a very good recommendation, that a select committee comprised of members of the three parties should be established. I think some good could come out of it because I know that every member of this House has the interest of the native people at heart. Just what should be done is very difficult, but I think by getting together, by visiting the native people, we will be able to understand their problems and to assist them.

Again, the amount of money being asked for is only one-third of the total budget and it is to establish the office of Justice Patrick Hartt, who I am sure will do excellent work in helping the native people.

Mr. MacDonald: I have a question to ask the minister, but before I do that may I just comment briefly on the minister’s last observation?

Unwittingly, that observation is very provocative and not very constructive -- to say that per capita-wise a great deal of money is being spent by the two levels of government on Indians. The Indians have argued for years that a monstrous proportion of that money is being spent on the bureaucracy and a small percentage of it gets through in terms of real services to the Indians.

I would be interested sometime in the minister or somebody trying to analyze the expenditures to find out how much of it is going to the bureaucracy, because if there are cost benefits here, one sometimes wonders whether the cost benefit isn’t for the bureaucrats rather than for the Indians for whom presumably the money is in the first instance appropriated.

However, that isn’t what provoked me to rise. Over the weekend I was rather intrigued to hear a news story in one of the media to the effect that among the constitutional changes the federal government is now contemplating is the transfer of all Indian matters to the provincial level of government. I was curious to know whether the minister is aware of this consideration; and if he is, to what extent, if any, have the provinces been involved up to this point in this possible transfer of Indian affairs totally to the provincial level?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the first matter, the honourable member is quite right; I didn’t explain myself, it’s quite true. The amount of money that is being spent is mainly on the bureaucracy. I am told there may be 1,000 federal civil servants administering the budget, so it’s quite true the amount of money that goes to the individual Indian is certainly quite small.

With reference to the second matter, the federal government had been trying to transfer as much as possible to the provincial government; however, I am not aware of any change. To my knowledge there has been no change in the present position. I read the weekend papers and I didn’t see it. If the honourable member would send me a copy of that article, I would be pleased to look into it, but I am not aware of any change in policy. The actual policy at the present time, under the tripartite council as I mentioned earlier, is to try to sort out, to disentangle this huge very complex area.

Mr. MacDonald: Just briefly: I have nothing in fact to give the minister. I think I heard it on the electronic media, so I haven’t even got a copy to be able to give to him. I think the question to the minister, really, and I assume he has already answered it, is whether the switch of Indian affairs from federal to provincial is in the constitutional hopper at this point; rather than this pressure for a piecemeal transfer of Indian affairs to the province, which has been going on for years?

As you know, at both levels of government there’s a considerable amount of consideration as to what should be done in the transfer of powers once we get to stage two of the constitutional change exercise in which we are now engaged. I have nothing to offer the minister and I assume he has nothing to offer us.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is the Indian Act is under review, but I am not aware of any change at this time.

Vote 1701 agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

On vote 1802, agricultural production program; item 4, farm income stabilization.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out the reason for the supplementary estimates this year on the corn stabilization program.

As you know, we passed a stabilization bill in this House. The stabilization commission was into operation really effectively for the 1977 crop year. It was a record crop year for corn in the province of Ontario and the number of producers we estimated would be into the program was exceeded; and of course the yields anticipated on the corn crops across the province were exceeded. Using the formula and the program we worked out, our stabilization program requires a total gross payment of 12 cents a bushel, which is $4.77 per tonne.

The producer fee is four cents per bushel, and of course the provincial fee is eight cents a bushel. When this is all calculated out, and we are estimating very close right now, the total costs will be about $8.5 million. We estimated a little over $5.2 million in our budget, and the payout will amount to about $8.5 million to the 11,000 producers of this province. That’s why we need the additional funds in order to cover our commitment under the stabilization commission and under the act.

Mr. Riddell: I am never too concerned about the spending in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food when we consider that about 1.5 per cent of the total provincial budget is devoted to agriculture, which I think is really a crying shame. Certainly, we are not going Ito get up and object to any kind of a supplementary estimate or payments being made to farmers.

Mr. Laughren: Ag reps get most of that.

Hon. W. Newman: Nonsense.

Mr. Riddell: I would assume from your comments the farm income stabilization program has been more enthusiastically supported by the farmers than maybe you predicted. Could the minister give us some indication as to the percentage of producers who are making use of this program?

The reason I ask is that, as one goes across the country and talks to farmers, they think the program is a bit of a farce. I know a lot of them did not make application for corn stabilization this year when the application forms came out, particularly when you are asking for something like $1,000 to turn into the fund, which of course is for three years.

When the farmers sat down and figured out what the interest on that investment was going to be and the rest of it, they simply decided it wasn’t worthwhile going into.

Would the minister enlighten us as to the kind of response he is getting from the farmers to this stabilization program, which was brought into effect a couple of years ago?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, I would be glad to answer that. There are around 20,000 to 22,000 corn producers in Ontario. About half of these, or about 11,000 or 12,000, are grain-corn producers.

The member should keep in mind that the first year of the program was the 1977 crop year, which finished at the end of August 1978. In the first year, the Farm Income Stabilization Commission, which runs its own show -- it is very independent and so it should be -- came forward and suggested that to get the program started, rather than working on a three-year program, because it had just been put in place, it would work on a one-year basis to start with. Thus, we got the 11,000 producers.

The commission has been working very closely over the past years with various commodity boards; it has had meetings with many of them. There are three different groups that have joined lip on a three-year basis

I agree that, on a three-year basis, if a producer wants to -- it is a voluntary program -- he can get involved and make his payment. For every dollar he puts in as a producer, there is a potential $2 back if there is a payout from the province. If he wants to, a producer can take his chances. For instance, the cow-calf program is a five-year program, and this year the vast majority of the farmers decided they were going to take their chances and not get into the program.

Once the stabilization commission got to talking about a three-year program -- and it did get into a three-year program this year for corn, soybeans and white beans -- on a stabilization program they are signed up for three years. There aren’t as many producers there, because it is a voluntary thing; if an individual farmer wants to take a chance over the next three years on whether there is going to be a stabilization payment or not, that is up to him. I think that’s the way it should be.

There are not as many on a three-year program, nor would one expect as many on a three-year program, because they must sign up for three years. The 1977 crop year was a heavy crop year and prices were down; there will be a federal payment for the farmers as well on the 1977 calendar-year crop.

I am saying that I think the program, as we have it in place, is going to work very well for the farmers. There are always those who are sceptical of any new program. I could go back over the history of crop insurance and say how it started out very slowly and how, over a period of years, it has become a very acceptable program in Ontario for the producers of this province.

Like any new program, it was well advertised this time. We have three groups in, and we hope that on an ongoing basis more will come in during the coming year, and they will be on a three-year program. It will be an ongoing three-year phase.

This year, as the member knows, the price of corn so far has been a little better than it was in the 1977 crop year. A good deal of the corn is being moved out when it is harvested; although we are getting more and more on-farm storage, which is a good program, so that farmers can hold back and feed the market as it is needed.

[4:15]

I am confident that we are going to have a very productive program here, although we are having discussions with Ottawa regarding an overall change in their legislation, or a change in their stabilization program. We have had discussions as recently as two or three weeks ago when I was in Ottawa with the federal and provincial ministers to discuss a stabilization program called the guarantee margin approach. There are ongoing discussions on that now with the provinces. I think in the province of Ontario we have a good program. It’s proven itself in the 1977 calendar year profit for the farmers. I think as time goes by it will prove itself very beneficial to the farmers of this province.

Mr. MacDonald I don’t think I have anything more to ask really, because this appropriation is rather limited in terms of getting the extra money to be able to meet the corn stabilization proposal for the remainder of this fiscal year, which is only three more months. I must say, however, I was rather taken aback at the frank assertions by leading farmers at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture convention with regard to their near total bewilderment in trying to understand what the new federal program is going to be and how it is going to mesh with the provincial programs.

I recognize that this is the underlying policy rather than the specific estimate we’ve got here, but it seems to me that at some point soon it would be useful for all concerned if the minister could make a statement with regard to what is happening. I think Gordon Hill and Frank Wehl, two leading people from the federal and the provincial levels, were speaking to it and they both asserted at the end of their statements, “If you understand this you’re a little bit better than I am,” including Peter Hannam, who was at the podium at that point, chairing the meeting.

I repeat to the minister, some time soon, early in the new year, I think it would be useful if some sort of a memorandum of the state of negotiations or the state of the offers, and specifically how the two programs are going to mesh, could be made available to members of the House, and, indeed, if there’s that much confusion out among farm leaders it would be useful for farmers too.

Hon. W. Newman: I think the agriculture critic for the New Democratic Party makes a very good point.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, he does?

Hon. W. Newman: I give credit where credit is due occasionally. Not very often. I would say that we have already put the wheels in motion to ask the federal stabilization people if they will come down and meet with various organizations to explain the guaranteed margin approach. I tell you, it is very confusing. I have one example worked out here which would take me half an hour to explain to you. I’m saying, in effect, that the economists, when they get to playing around with those figures, leave me thoroughly confused. The bottom line is what I was interested in. It means they’d be paying more money out in Ottawa than they are now. That kind of intrigued me.

I am saying to you that we have already put into motion asking Ottawa if they will come down and explain the guaranteed margin approach to various farm organizations and farm groups, because it is complicated and it is difficult to understand. We’ve already asked them if they will have meetings to come down and explain their approach.

I have a lot of other concerns besides the guaranteed margin approach on the named commodities. I’m very much concerned about the regional commodities too and there are a great number of concerns there that would have to be ironed out at the same time.

Mr. Riddell: What commodities?

Hon. W. Newman: The regional, like provincial commodities, that are not covered under the proposed federal stabilization program. But we are doing just that asking them to come down and explain it to the various groups.

Mr. MacDonald: Just one final point if I may. If it’s not too offensive to the minister’s concept of protocol or to the concept of protocol on the part of the commodity groups involved, I would appreciate knowing when that meeting is going to take place. If they don’t object to the Liberal critic and myself sitting in, I’d like to sort out the confusion in my own mind, if nowhere else.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I’d be very happy, depending on which group they’re meeting with, if they’re prepared to have you along and would like to have you there, I would have no objection at all myself. Whether it’s the Ontario Federation of Agriculture or the commodity groups or whoever is involved, I have no objection to you sitting in at all. I think it’s a great idea. It’s very educational. I know it was for me when I went through it the first time.

Mr. G. I. Miller: My colleague from Huron-Middlesex asked how many participated in the 1978 crop year. I don’t think the minister indicated how many there were. What happens to those funds that have been paid in, say, in 1978? Are they held as a carryover for next year? Just how does that system work? Thirdly, has there been any announcement in the 1977 crop year for wheat payout? Has that been established yet?

Hon. W. Newman: As far as wheat payout is concerned, the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board was not involved in the stabilization program in 1977, so there would be no payout under this bill. It’s a producer-participating program, so there was no payout. Let’s make sure we keep the confusion sorted out. You’re maybe talking about the federal program. As far as the provincial program is concerned, there was no program in place.

I mentioned there were three programs put in place in the 1978 year -- corn, soya beans and white beans. Other groups are coming forward and having ongoing discussions with the Farm Income Stabilization Commission of Ontario now.

You asked me how many were joined up in 1978 under the corn plan; I think that’s what you asked. The answer is somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000. I’m not sure of the exact number at this point in time.

Mr. Riddell: Out of how many producers -- 12,000?

Hon. W. Newman: That many joined out of about 11,000 grain producers, yes. They’re into a voluntary three-year program.

The other question you asked me was what happens to the funds they pay in. Each commodity will be kept in a separate account; so the corn people won’t be paying for stabilization, it will be kept in separate accounts.

Mr. Riddell: Assuming there won’t be a payout in a period of three, four, or five years, what happens to the producers’ part of the payment to the program? It seems to me there was some indication they would get that back over a period of five years. Am I right?

Hon. W. Newman: A lot depends on whether there’s a payout or not at the end of a three-year period. For those who came in the first year there is some arrangement made that at the end of three years there would be a reduction in premiums for them. I think through the farm income stabilization commission each three-year period would be dealt with on a commodity basis, I think that’s exactly how it works.

Vote 1502 agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF ENERGY

On vote 1906, energy supply program; item 1, Ontario Energy Corporatio