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

April 21, 1977

30th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L018 - Thu 21 Apr 1977 / Jeu 21 avr 1977

ESTIMATES

DEATH OF MAJOR G. R. SOAME, CD.

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JUBILEE MEDALLIONS

COURT OF APPEAL

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

POINT OF ORDER

CLASSIFIED DRIVER LICENCE EXEMPTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

JOB CREATION

PEEL TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

ENVIRONMENTAL TAX

AGRICULTURAL JOBS

WIRETAPPING CHARGE

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS

GROUP HOME REGULATIONS

WOMEN IN LABOUR FORCE

GRANTS TO CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

DRG GLOBE ENVELOPES LIMITED

WOMEN CROWN EMPLOYEES

NIAGARA REGION OFFICIAL PLAN

MEDICAL SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

TRAINING SCHOOL TEACHERS

GOVERNMENT COMPLEX IN TIMMINS

GASOLINE RETAIL PRICES

POINT OF ORDER

REPORTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECLAMATION COMMISSION ACT

PERFUME AND COSMETICS BARS LIMITED ACT

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE ACT

LEGISLATIVE

SCHEDULE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTION NO. 2

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: By her own hand, Pauline M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1978, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, April 21, 1977.

DEATH OF MAJOR G. R. SOAME, CD.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Just while you are standing, I regret to inform the House of the death on Wednesday of our former Sergeant-at-Arms, Major G. R. Soame, CD.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved, seconded by Mr. Deans, that the House note with profound regret the passing of Major G. R. Soame, CD, Sergeant-at-Arms of the Ontario Legislature from February, 1972, to October, 1976, and that the House do now observe one minute of silence in his memory.

Motion agreed to.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before we embark upon the procedures for the afternoon, I am sure that all hon. members will wish to welcome a distinguished visitor to our Legislature, the Treasurer and former Premier of New South Wales, Australia, the Hon. J. B. Renshaw. Mr. Renshaw is seated in the Speaker’s gallery.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JUBILEE MEDALLIONS

For the members of this House, the silver jubilee medallions have been encased in Lucite forms and they were placed on your desks this afternoon. Should any member prefer to have the medallion in French, I will be very pleased to make arrangements for them to receive it.

COURT OF APPEAL

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to place today before the assembly the report of the Attorney General’s committee on the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Ontario.

This committee was appointed by myself in the fall of 1975 to examine the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Ontario as a means of meeting the appellate needs of the province and, if necessary, to formulate a more effective means of discharging the appellate function.

The committee recommends an increase in size and a radical restructuring of the Ontario Court of Appeal by creating two separate divisions of that court; one division to hear appeals generally and the other division to hear appeals involving legal issues of general public importance. These recommendations would involve major legislative change.

The committee recommends a number of changes in the administrative organization of the work of the Court of Appeal and makes a number of recommendations on practice and procedures which could be effected without legislation.

In the course of its study the committee distributed a questionnaire to every member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and had extensive discussions with all segments of the legal community.

The committee states that the aims of its recommendations are to provide speedy justice for the participants in litigation and to provide sound jurisprudence for Ontario.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to express my gratitude to the members of the committee for the considerable time, effort and thought that they have put into this study. The chairman of the committee was Mr. Justice Arthur Kelly, formerly of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and the members were Mr. Robert Carter, Mr. Brendan O’Brien, Mr. Clay M. Powell and Mr. James M. Tory. They have made a most important contribution to this government’s continuing work of improving Ontario’s legal system.

The report contains more than 59 recommendations and my ministry is now considering them.

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am tabling today a copy of the order in council appointing the Hon. Mr. Justice John David Cromarty to conduct a public inquiry into the exemption granted under the provisions of The Land Speculation Tax Act, to Ronto Development.

The terms of reference for the inquiry read as follows:

“To inquire as to whether any undue or improper influence was brought to bear from any source or whether there was any other impropriety of any kind in respect of the decision by the government to grant an exemption, under the provisions of The Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974, to the partnership carrying on business as Ronto Development Company; and to report thereon and to make such recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as he may deem fit.”

The purpose of this inquiry is to respond to the innuendo that has arisen during the debate and discussion --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Hear, hear!

Mr. Breithaupt: You were doing well until then.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- that has centred on the aforementioned exemption, both in the public accounts committee and in this Legislature.

Mr. Cunningham: Whitewash!

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Such innuendo has, without question, created doubts in the public mind that must be resolved clearly and unequivocally.

It has been suggested by members of the opposition, I understand, that any such inquiry should also review the ministerial procedures that were followed in this instance as well as the decision.

Mr. Bullbrook: You are wrong. That wasn’t the understanding.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In our opinion, it is not an appropriate matter for a judicial inquiry since it would involve a member of the judiciary in what could clearly be an exercise in the second-guessing of a ministerial decision.

Mr. Nixon: Then why shouldn’t a select committee deal with it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The proper forum for that type of exercise --

Mr. Lewis: Louder!

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- is obviously this Legislature and/or the standing committees which have been created for just such purposes.

Mr. Bullbrook: That isn’t what we suggested at all, and you shouldn’t be allowed to do it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Should opposition members wish to pursue further the matter of procedures, as well as the ultimate decision of the cabinet to grant the exemption, through a standing committee of this Legislature, there would certainly be no objection from this side of the House.

Mr. S. Smith: Why didn’t you do it in the first place?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I give that assurance, even though it must be observed that there has been ample opportunity already, in the public accounts committee, to ask all of the relevant questions which now, for reasons which I quite frankly find difficult to understand --

Mr. Reid: We didn’t get any relevant answers.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- some would want to impose on the judicial inquiry.

Mr. Lewis: We don’t mind your concerns.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In conclusion, the government is anxious that the public should have all of the relevant information as well as all of the necessary assurances that relate to the exemption granted to Ronto Development Company, and we are taking this step today as a clear indication that we are willing to pursue all necessary and appropriate paths to ensure that this is the case.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order.

Mr. Deans: On a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Point of privilege?

Mr. Deans: My point of privilege, sir, is that having been the member who moved in the public accounts committee that the entire matter be referred to a judicial inquiry, I take great exception to the suggestion by the Attorney General that innuendo, on the part of anyone in this party at least, had any bearing on the decision of the government to conduct such a judicial inquiry.

I want to suggest to the Attorney General that this inquiry, with those terms of reference, cannot possibly find any wrongdoing since no one has suggested there was any. I want to suggest further that it would have been appropriate for such a judicial inquiry to have looked at whether or not the minister and the ministry had before it all of the relevant material necessary to come to a reasonable conclusion with regard to the exemption; that was all that was asked for.

I want to say further to you, sir, in conclusion, that it would make sense -- and I’m sure it would be supported by others -- that the public accounts committee, adequately staffed, should continue its review of the matter that was before it to come to the conclusion on the matters that the ministry has refused to deal with.

Mr. Bullbrook: There was no need for that statement. The Premier wasn’t here for his statement, which was in error and provocative -- and it didn’t have to be.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: I believe this is more properly a point of order. It’s correcting an impression which seems to have been wrong.

Mr. S. Smith: On the same point --

Mr. Speaker: I will hear the hon. member for Hamilton West.

[2:15]

Mr. S. Smith: On the same point that was raised by the hon. member for Wentworth, I want to make it clear that the Liberal Party dissociates itself from this inquiry because, despite our respect for the learned judge, we believe that the judge’s hands have been tied to avoid the real issues. What the Liberal Party has requested is that the terms of reference include whether the Minister of Revenue was correctly and adequately informed of all the facts; and if he had been correctly informed of all the facts, would there be in the public Treasury today an additional sum of money, be it $500,000 or $2 million.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is no substitute question.

Mr. Nixon: That’s precisely it.

Mr. S. Smith: That is the question precisely. There is no suggestion of innuendo, no suggestion of criminality, no suggestion of wrongdoing --

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Read what some of the members have said. Where is the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent)?

Mr. Speaker: Order; order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: -- and I would like to inform the House that I shall be releasing a statement to the press in Ontario to make that very clear. These are straw men that the government is setting up --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on.

Mr. S. Smith: -- in order to knock down and give themselves a pat on the back when they don’t deserve it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are embarrassed beyond need.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Kerrio: Miffed again.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The statement has been made --

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s the problem. The statement was made, you allowed it.

Mr. Speaker: -- and the points of order have been properly taken.

Mr. Bullbrook: It didn’t have to be that --

Mr. Kerrio: You could have built houses with the money you allowed them on paper work.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

CLASSIFIED DRIVER LICENCE EXEMPTION

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to announce today, Mr. Speaker, that Ontario regulation number 906/76 under The Highway Traffic Act pertaining to the classified driver licence requirements is to be amended.

My ministry has been approached by members of the farming community and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food --

Mr. Reid: And the member for Rainy River.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- who expressed concern that the requirements of the classified driver licensing system might impose restrictions on the farmer’s freedom of action in assigning helpers or temporary employees to drive farm vehicles, for example during seeding or harvesting time.

Together with those interested groups, we studied every aspect of the problem and considered several options. One option emerged which we think will meet the main concerns of the farmers, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and MTC.

In the regulation, we speak of class D and class C motor vehicles, Class D includes motor vehicles which exceed 18,000 pounds gross vehicle weight provided any towed vehicles are not over 10,000 pounds. Class G refers to the licence requited to drive cars, light trucks, et cetera, up to a registered gross vehicle weight of 18,000 pounds.

The amendment in effect deems a class D motor vehicle to be a class G motor vehicle if the vehicle is owned by a fanner and used for his personal transportation or the transportation of his farm products, supplies and equipment to and from his farm.

Under the existing regulation which deals with vehicle registration, the farmer’s permit for the vehicle is marked “farm vehicle” by the ministry. And such a “farm vehicle” could now he driven on the highways by the farmer or his helpers holding a class G licence.

I feel that this amendment to the regulation will provide a workable solution for the great majority of farmers, while maintaining control over drivers of the more complex class A vehicles such as tractor-trailers.

Mr. Riddell: Glad you listened to my suggestions.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Lewis: May I begin, Mr. Speaker, by putting a question to the Treasurer? In establishing a new unemployment norm of 5.3 per cent, has the Treasurer calculated the additional and continuing costs of social assistance and unemployment insurance benefits to the people of the province of Ontario to pay for the difference of more than 100,000 people who lie between the original three per cent and the present 5.3 per cent; and if indeed he has tabulated those costs, which one would assume he has done, does he not think that those dollars would be better used to create lobs than to pay people for being perpetually unemployed?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, those calculations have not been done.

Mr. Deans: They have not been done?

Mr. Speaker: A question?

Mr. Lewis: I don’t know how they haven’t been done, but they haven’t been done.

By way of a further supplementary then, can the Treasurer indicate rather more precisely the definition of people who would be involved in this perpetual unemployment syndrome that he has now adopted as social policy, beyond the generalized references in the budget paper to women, young people and those over the age of 54? Can he categorize it more explicitly for us than that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, no more than I would categorize -- and what a cruel term that is --

Mr. Cassidy: You have done a lot of categorizing in this budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No more than I categorized -- nor did I think the hon. member categorized -- the people who were in the three per cent full employment figure or three per cent unemployment. You don’t categorize people that way.

An hon. member: You sound like the leader, Darcy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We’re not accepting that that is an acceptable level of unemployment --

An hon. member: You already have.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- but I’m not going to categorize people in some bureaucratic and abstract way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer has embodied in his budget paper the punishing and morally reprehensible categories of women as exploiters of unemployment insurance -- as secondary earners -- of youth as having no particular option or hope for continuing employment, and older people over the age of 54. Does the Treasurer not think it is now appropriate to show how particularly vulnerable certain groups will therefore be, such as workmen’s compensation recipients seeking light work; single parent families; those presently on social allowance; those whom he classifies as permanently unemployable?

Does he not understand that by categorizing people in his budget paper he has created no prospects for all of these vulnerable groups in society?

Mr. Deans: I don’t think he understands.

An hon. member: He doesn’t care.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the member refuses to recognize that there have been changes in the composition of and the participation in the Ontario, and I assume the Canadian, work force. The fact is that as recently as 1971 participation, for example by adult males, who are males of 15 years and over, was 79.5. That figure has not changed to 1976, when it was 79.6. During that period in time, for a whole variety of reasons, the participation by females in the work force has risen from 40.2 to 48.9.

Mr. Lewis: What’s wrong with that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nothing is wrong with that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think it is of some interest to members and to the public to examine how the work force has been made up and how it is changing. I am not, for one minute, accepting that 5.3 is an acceptable figure.

Mr. Lewis: You accepted it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have not accepted 5.3 as an acceptable level.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been asked and the hon. Treasurer is answering; now please, order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted if the hon. member --

Mr. Lewis: You are retreating now.

An hon. member: The budget’s only two days old.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- could point out in the budget document, or in my statement since, where I have said that 5.3 per cent was an acceptable level of unemployment. I suppose there is no acceptable level of unemployment. The fact is that in 1976, the level of unemployment for prime age males from 25 to 54 was 3.4 per cent. I knew people in 1976 who were prime age males who were unemployed and it as unacceptable to them and it was unacceptable to me.

Mr. Lewis: And you do nothing about it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m not accepting --

Mr. Lewis: You have no policies, that is why you use this.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m not accepting a level of unemployment at three, at one, at 5.3, or at six. That is not the point of the exercise. Nor is the point of the exercise to go on playing politics with the unemployed people of this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Your point of order.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, my point of order, Mr. Speaker, is far from playing politics with the issue, I was attempting to --

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Well let me state the point of order. I was attempting to convey to the Treasurer that his establishment of 5.3 per cent as a full employment norm is an excuse for the absence of job-creating policies, nothing less, nothing more; and he should understand it that way.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Just on response to the point of order, very briefly.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Responding to the point of order, let me say this: There is no excuse, there is no justifying the levels of unemployment in this province today. Some of us, and I think some people, are interested in trying to understand the facts; and again I say not play politics with unemployed men and women.

Mr. Deans: You have done it all along, you have always done it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is getting to be a debate. Thank you.

Mr. Lewis: No, on a point of order, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Your point of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order: The Treasurer has asked where did he say it. On page 12 of the budget, under job creation, he says categorically: “Even in 1973 and 1974, during a period of high growth and rapid inflation, unemployment remained above the then accepted full employment norm. Budget paper A suggests that the full employment target for Ontario appropriate for the 1970s is 5.3 per cent, up from three per cent -- ” and if it was acceptable then, the Treasurer clearly indicates that 5.3 is acceptable now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the record has been set straight. We will hear a supplementary. Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, this whole debate has been out of order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: On a point of order, nowhere am I saying that 5.3 per cent or three per cent or one per cent is an acceptable level of unemployment.

An hon. member: You are not going to weasel out of that one, Darcy.

Mr. S. Smith: This whole exchange has been for the benefit of the television cameras. It has all been out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

An hon. member: Where are the jobs?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think that so-called point of order has been stretched far enough. We will have a supplementary question from the member for London Centre.

Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Given his new definition of 5.3 per cent for full employment, could he tell us what that relates to, is that to the federal average? Why couldn’t it have been four per cent or five per cent, or indeed six per cent; and is it the Treasurer’s intention, if unemployment gets worse, to increase that next year to define away some of the problems? The second part of my supplementary is, doesn’t the Treasurer think that the relevant numbers are the total number of unemployed, rather than this by and large totally meaningless debate that he has introduced with respect to three or five or six or whatever number he chooses.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, for the member’s edification, that if he would read the budget paper he would find the rationale for 5.3. I don’t propose to take the time of the House to repeat it to him today. It is fully explained in the paper how 5.3, rather than 3.3 or 6.3 was arrived at. It will be a good experience for the member to sit down and read it.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s to make your failure look better, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The second part of the member’s question --

An hon. member: Get that on TV.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The second part of the member’s question concerned whether numbers are more important. I couldn’t agree with him more. Whether it’s one person, 100,000 or 300,000, we are concerned on this side of the House and we are not going to go through the twisting that they go through over there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary; Within this permanent army of more than 200,000 unemployed that the Treasurer proposes for Ontario, can he give us the target rates of unemployment for so-called prime aged males and for the three classes of secondary working groups?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s straying from the original question, I believe. That may be a good later question. The hon. Leader of the Opposition’s further question.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Treasurer: Can he tell the House where he discovered that President Carter of the United States -- can he show us the statement in which President Carter has ever announced that 4.9 per cent unemployment is a full employment norm? Would he like to show us the document? I assume he has it.

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, that was the Council of Economic Advisers to President Carter; and I would refer the member to a very excellent

article in this morning’s paper by Wilfred List documenting a number of other sources.

What he also points out is that labour economists don’t accept it; so I wouldn’t expect the member to either understand or accept it.

Mr. Deans: Where is Carter’s statement?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But the fact is that independent research is accepting a higher number than three. If the member wants to live in his cocoon and twist facts that’s fine with us.

Mr. Deans: Did you make that up?

Interjections.

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

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer said so assertively in the budget delivery that President Carter had made such a statement; I gather he’s saying now that it isn’t the case?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, as I believe I made clear the other night -- I said it ad lib -- I said that the Council of Economic Advisers --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It was not in the budget statement and the member knows it.

Mr. Lewis: You added it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I added it because you were interrupting me -- so very rudely, I might say.

An hon. member: How do you expect him to concentrate when you’re interrupting him?

Mr. Lewis: I apologize for distressing such a frail Rower of an adult male.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Two people do not have the floor. Is the statement completed?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, if I could just answer the question --

Mr. Lewis: Are your petals wilting a bit, while I ask a supplementary?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can give the member some figures.

Mr. S. Smith: I hope it isn’t ad lib, I hope it’s true.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Four point nine per cent is the full labour force, according to the Council of Economic Advisers; three per cent for prime age males of 25 to 54, is the level set by the Brookings Institution in a report which is coming out soon; 5.6 per cent is, of course, the rate which triggers the federal contribution to the unemployment insurance fund; 4.5 per cent was the figure used by the Economic Council of Canada in the 13th annual review, The Inflation Dilemma.

Mr. Lewis: It would be lower for Ontario.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Institute for Policy Analysis of the University of Toronto used a figure of 5.5 per cent. Those are just some of the numbers which 5.3 fits into --

Mr. Lewis: For Canada?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- but if the member wants to go on using something that is 15 years old; something almost as bankrupt as his policy.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Since the Treasurer is in fact forecasting higher unemployment, growing at about five per cent and with job creation falling behind that, is it his ministry’s intention to revise its full employment figures up?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. leader’s question had to do with President Carter’s so-called statement.

Mr. Peterson: This relates absolutely and directly, and I think you’re being very uncharitable in this particular instance, Mr. Speaker, I really do.

Mr. Speaker: It relates to President Carter’s statement? It is very difficult to hear when there are so many interjections. The original question, I remind the hon. member again, had to do with President Carter’s alleged statement. I haven’t detected the relationship; if here is one I’ll hear the hon. member.

Mrs. Campbell: It’s a point of order.

Mr. Peterson: In fairness, I will work President Carter into this question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll decide that.

Mr. Breithaupt: I am sure he will appreciate it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: His energy policy or his speech?

Mr. Peterson: All of it, eventually, depending on how much time we have.

Supplementary to the Treasurer: Since he is forecasting higher unemployment running ahead of job creation, does that mean then -- so that we are clear on this side -- that he will be revising his full employment figures up to match the more dismal figures that are appearing? Is there a possibility that it will be 5.6 per cent or six per cent next year? Is that what he is telling us?

Mr. Speaker: That is supplementary to the first question, not to number two. It is a good question for later.

Mr. Peterson: President Carter is very concerned about this too, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

JOB CREATION

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Treasurer: Given the Treasurer’s assertion in last year’s budget that 116,000 new jobs would be created in Ontario in the calendar year 1976, can the Treasurer inform the House as to how many jobs were in fact created during the year under his administration?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’ll get that number; I don’t have it here. It’s not under my administration. What utter nonsense, what utter nonsense!

Mr. Breithaupt: You said it was not going to happen.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s the private sector in this province that creates the jobs, not socialist governments and socialist opposition. What utter nonsense!

Mr. Lewis: That was the Liberal leader’s question! Why is the Treasurer so rigid and inflexible all the time?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are straying from a proper question period. The hon. member for Hamilton West with a supplementary to his question:

Mr. S. Smith: I have a supplementary. I recognize, of course, that the Treasurer denies any responsibility for the atmosphere when things go wrong in the private sector, but accepts responsibility when things go well in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary question now.

Mr. S. Smith: But since he doesn’t seem to know, and since we wouldn’t want him to say anything ad lib, heaven forbid, I will tell him that his own officials say that only 76,000 jobs were created. This means a difference of 52 per cent between the reality and his prediction. I would ask him, therefore, why we should believe his predictions this year about employment when they were 52 per cent off last year.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I made a speech the other day, and I would be glad to indicate the variation between what we forecast last year and what actually happened. Our one serious error was job creation, most of our other forecasts were on. There is no question that for a number of years the Ontario government, in the person of the Ontario Treasurer -- not just me -- has stuck his neck out and forecast figures, which the member’s good friends in Ottawa have never done because they don’t have the guts, they just don’t have the courage.

Mr. Breithaupt: Now it is their fault.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Eakins: Ask Clark.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we get back to a more proper question period and not be quite so provocative on all sides? A supplementary for the member for Hamilton West first.

Mr. S. Smith: Since the Treasurer admits that his figures were in serious error last year -- to use his own words, given ad lib -- would the Treasurer tell us in what way his method for predicting the unemployment figures this year has changed from last year so that we can have more confidence and lend more credence to the figures this year?

Mr. Eakins: That’s a fair question, Darcy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have greater confidence in myself and less in the leader of the third party, and that allows me to think anything I want.

Mr. Ruston: Answer the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are wasting good time here. We’ll have the final supplementary from the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Treasurer just said, can he explain why it is that in this year’s budget he did not put a figure on the number of jobs that he hopes will he created in the economy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, we used, in the forecast -- on page 41 -- we used percentages. There are many things not in my speech -- aren’t you glad? But I’m saving them for you, I really am.

PEEL TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. S. Smith: My question is for the Premier, if I may just attract his attention for a moment:

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is it my attention or the television you are after?

Mr. S. Smith: Since the Premier represents a Peel riding, could he make some comment regarding the Peel teachers’ work-to-rule situation, especially in view of the fact that it is now reported that the teachers intend not to set final exams, that marks will be withheld and the mood has turned rather ugly? Could I ask him specifically would he consider intervening personally, as the students have asked him to do; and can he report on whether the Education Relations Commission have been requested to report immediately on this very unfortunate situation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in that the city of Brampton is a very important part of the board’s activities, I obviously have a very personal interest. The fact that I also have one of my family in the secondary grades who has not received his examination results -- which, probably for him, has not been such a bad thing, in his view; in his view -- I emphasize that.

Mr. Peterson: Very much like his father.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don’t misunderstand me -- or feel that I’m condoning what is going on -- but it all depends on the individual attitude of one or two students. I hope that won’t be widely reported.

Mr. Reid: You can count on it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I should never have said it, I should never have said it; I can see it now.

Anyway, all facetiousness aside, the ERC has summoned both parties. They are meeting at 7 o’clock tonight, and either the minister or myself will keep the House fully informed as this matter progresses. The meeting is called for 7 this evening.

Mr. S. Smith: A brief supplementary: Would the Premier or the Minister of Education feel that their own presence in the situation could be helpful at this point?

Mr. Martel: Probably not.

An hon. member: Definitely not, knowing him.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Always.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the hon. member if I felt at this moment that my presence would help, I would be there. Hopefully that occasion will not occur. I really think it is better that it proceed the way it is, with the meeting that has been arranged for this evening.

Mr. Ruston: Get Lorne.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Given the bitterness with which the students have expressed their opinion on this particular issue, regardless of what ERC recommends, is there some way the Premier could guarantee that the exam results and the career potential of these students would not be damaged by this particular situation? I’m concerned about the bitter feelings of the students.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned not only about the feelings of the students, I’m very concerned not just as a member but as a parent as to the actual potential effect on the students. I am optimistic that if this matter can be resolved from a straight administrative point of view, the present difficulties can be sorted out immediately. The condition precedent to that, of course, is getting a resolution between the two parties.

If that comes about -- and I can’t comment any further at this moment -- if that happens, I can’t speak for all the schools but in some I know the testing has in fact taken place and the marks are there. It’s a question then of the reporting. This is, shall we say, the mid-term examinations. The escalation of the work to rule has been referring to “final examinations,” to the extent that some of the schools allow students to finish --

Mr. S. Smith: Some schools still have those?

Hon. Mr. Wells: All schools.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, listen, I will say the ones I know have them. Perhaps in Hamilton they don’t, but in Peel we do; I can’t speak for Hamilton.

Anyway, to get back to the question, I really think, knowing a little bit about it, the problem can be solved if the broader problem is concluded in the very near future.

ENVIRONMENTAL TAX

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Will the minister provide for the House the documentation -- which I’m sure must have been available at the time the decision was made to place a five-cent tax on non-returnable pop cans -- with regard to the impact of that tax on the employment picture in the industry producing the cans?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This bill, of course, will be debated some time in the near future, but in the meantime I would be happy to let the hon. member have any information, background studies, assessments, analyses, that led to that decision.

Mr. Deans: As a supplementary question, I wonder if the minister would be able, today in the House, to tell us what he meant when be said that he did not think the tax would affect the pop can industry substantially? What is his definition of “substantially,” in relation to the pop can industry and employment as a result of this five-cent tax? How many jobs may be lost?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, my conclusion is, from the information I have, that there need not be any layoffs in the industry. The question was referring particularly to the steel industries in Hamilton. In our opinion, there need not be any layoffs as a result of the five-cent tax on pop cans.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: Wouldn’t the minister agree that, given the serious difficulties we’re having with litter across the province of Ontario and the need to, in fact, emphasize recycling, a five-cent deposit wouldn’t have been a better direction?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, Mr. Speaker. For one thing, as the hon. member knows, the retail outlets, stores, corner stores, are finding it difficult now to handle a greater increase in returnable bottles. There are complaints that they’re not able to handle them, they haven’t got the space or the manpower and things of that sort. If we placed a deposit on cans they would immediately have to handle empty cans.

It is my understanding that of the three considerations that we had in respect to the can -- whether they should be banned, whether there should be a tax or a deposit -- it was felt that the tax would be less disruptive to the industry and this would give the government the opportunity to get into the whole programme of recycling, rather than depend on the industry itself to set up recycling depots.

Mr. S. Smith: You are wrong there, part of it should be a deposit.

[2:45]

AGRICULTURAL JOBS

Mr. Riddell: A question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister clarify for us, and give us details, of the types of jobs that are to be created in the agricultural sector as outlined in the budget, which indicated that new funding will be provided for job creation in the agriculture infrastructure?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) can supply those details. He is not here, but no doubt he will be.

WIRETAPPING CHARGE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on April 6 the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) asked me about a case in Niagara Falls involving wiretapping and a telephone repairman. This is a rather complicated case, but I will attempt to set it out briefly in chronological order for the members.

Officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Niagara Falls had obtained valid authorization and renewals for intercepting private communications in a residence in connection with investigation of various drug offences. During the course of this investigation, a Bell Canada employee had occasion to be at the residence in question to make some telephone repairs or installations. The resident of the home told the serviceman that he felt there was something wrong with the telephone and asked that it be checked out.

The serviceman investigated. He found an intercepting device under the rug in the premises and described the nature of the device, which was operational at the time, to the resident of the home. This was apparently in contravention of Bell Canada policy but is not a matter which concerns the criminal courts.

Monitoring officers of the RCMP shortly arrived on the scene armed with a warrant, which purported to permit a search for electronic devices apparently used in contravention of

Part IV(

i) of The Criminal Code, and retook possession of their device.

Mr. Foulds: You’re kidding.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The RCMP officers then inquired of Alan Root, Crown attorney for the judicial district of Niagara South, as to whether a charge against the serviceman should be laid pursuant to the provisions of

section 178.20(

i) of The Criminal Code. Mr. Root was advised that this was possibly the second occasion upon which this particular Bell Canada employee had contravened Bell policy. The policy demands, apparently, that investigations concerning possible foreign devices on company lines are to be conducted by or under the authority of Bell Canada’s security department. In light of this information, the Crown attorney requested that a brief be prepared in order to assist him in resolving whether a charge should be laid as requested by the RCMP.

After reviewing the completed brief, the Crown attorney concluded the Bell Canada serviceman had not contravened

section 178.20(

i) of The Criminal Code. The serviceman had disclosed the existence of an intercepting device, but he had not wilfully disclosed an intercepted private communication; or any part thereof; or the substance, meaning or purport thereof; or the existence thereof, in violation of

section 178.20(

i) of The Criminal Code.

As a result, the Crown attorney instructed that there was in fact no charge known to law contained in the information prepared by the officer, and thereby no reasonable and probable grounds upon which the officer could so swear. The officer was told by the Crown attorney that although he could not tell the officer not to swear the information, the officer would have to be satisfied in his own conscience, on reasonable and probable grounds, that an indictable offence had been committed before he could so swear an information.

The Crown attorney also told the officer that if such an information was sworn, the Crown would seek a ruling from the court as to whether the information disclosed an offence known to law and would put his ruling on the subject to the trial tribunal.

On March 20, 1977, the charge came on for hearing before His Honour Judge Johnstone L. Roberts at the provincial court criminal division at Niagara Falls. The Crown attorney had discussed his position with the defence counsel, and in open court asked for a ruling upon the validity of the information sworn by the RCMP officer and made his submissions with respect to it. The judge agreed with the Crown attorney’s position and as a result thereby quashed the information, thereby discharging the Bell Canada serviceman.

In addition to this information on the circumstances of this case, I have also asked officials of my ministry and the Crown attorney involved to prepare a report on why the RCMP took this course of action in this ease, particularly in view of the advice given by our local Crown attorney.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary: Could the Attorney General advise us whether or not he has given instructions to the OPP and to the various forces throughout the province that they don’t proceed in the manner that the RCMP did?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It hasn’t been necessary to give any such instructions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: I have a brief supplementary, if I might. Is the Attorney General aware of whether the Bell Canada education of its servicemen is such that servicemen could reasonably be required not to divulge such wiretaps as they might discover, but that they have a clearly defined procedure by which to handle such matters?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t have any additional details with respect to the Bell Canada policy apart from what I have already indicated to members, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary? Well, I’ll allow a final supplementary to the member for Erie.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister: Will he guarantee that there will be some provisions made through his ministry to the federal government that there will be some protection given to the employees? Bell Canada, as I understand it, are supposed to inform the employee of such a wiretap. In this particular case the employee was never notified.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for the additional information with respect to any other circumstances that might be of assistance. Having once had the opportunity of reviewing that information, I think at that time I’ll determine whether some specific representation should be made to the RCMP.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to an application for a judicial inquiry under

section 3 of The Child Welfare Act received by him on April 6.

Given that the application brief for a public inquiry documents that a ward of the Peel Children’s Aid Society was charged with a criminal offence as a result of his protesting isolation in an unheated, unlit, rat-infested garage; and given that the same ward was, in the words of a family court judge, being railroaded into training school by the Peel Children’s Aid; and given, finally, that the application brief documents the destructive use of criminal justice procedures against Children’s Aid Society wards, in violation both of the best interests of the children and of their legal and civil rights, including denial of treatment and of counsel, will the minister order a public inquiry under

section 3 of the Act:

(1) To examine the particulars; (2) to determine whether they typify the administration of The Child Welfare Act; and (3) to render a set of recommendations on the best interests versus the legal and civil rights of children in the care of Children’s Aid Societies?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I confirm I have received such a request from a Mr. Wilson on April 6. immediately upon receipt of that I asked my staff to review the material and to consult with me, and I have been in regular consultation with them over the past two weeks on the matter of the subject of the request.

Further, on my instruction my associate deputy minister has been in contact with Mr. Wilson. I was advised this morning that as of a couple of days ago a meeting has been set up for tomorrow to explore the matter further with Mr. Wilson personally. I can assure the member that the concerns raised by Mr. Wilson are concerns that are shared by those of us who are involved in the delivery of service to children in this province. As soon as we have had an opportunity to consult directly with him, I will then be in a much better position to determine what the most appropriate course of action is pursuant to his request.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary, would the minister not agree that the ultimate responsibility for making Children’s Aid Societies responsible and accountable for the care of children in Ontario is vested with the minister under the Act? Because of this and because this issue raises the question of the child welfare equivalent of malpractice, therefore would the minister not agree he must order a judicial inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, not until I have had an opportunity to examine the matter as thoroughly as I possibly can on the basis of the information presently available to me, both from my staff and from Mr. Wilson.

SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS

Mr. Edighoffer: I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. Will the minister indicate to the House whether or not definite action has been taken by the ministry to extend current sales tax exemption to include underground utility cables?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I’ll report on this in a few days.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Edighoffer: By way of supplementary. I believe the minister wrote to the OMEA on March 8 suggesting that this exemption would take place. I had hoped that there would be a definite answer by now.

Mr. Speaker: So your question is?

Mr. Nixon: Why doesn’t she know about it?

Mr. Edighoffer: I would like an answer, yes.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In answer to your question, you would like an answer, “yes.”

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Peterson: I’m just wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the minister could have a standing response to all questions, “I have no idea, Mr. Speaker,” and not take up the time of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s not supplementary to this question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member has more charity in him than that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Community and Social Services has answers to a question or two -- I believe two answers. You may give them now. The hon. minister.

GROUP HOME REGULATIONS

Hon. Mr. Norton: First of all I have a response to the question raised on April 5 by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), at which time he asked a question related to the number of inspectors who were presently engaged in the inspection of children’s homes and Children’s Aid Societies in the province of Ontario.

I wish to advise him that there are at the present time 12 full-time inspectors and consultants to cover the institutions that he indicated in his question. In addition to this, there are other consultants used on a part-time basis who are concerned principally with financial matters and home economics relating to these homes.

The work of the provincial inspectors is heavily supplemented by Children’s Aid workers who regularly visit children placed in residential care by the 50 societies across the province. If these workers identify problems within any one home, they are instructed to contact the provincial inspector for that area, or their head office here at Queen’s Park.

Visits are made at least annually to children’s boarding homes to do a formal inspection related to the renewal of registration. Many other visits are made to assist with programme development or to investigate complaints. In general, this level of staffing is believed to be adequate for the protection of the children concerned and the maintenance of programme standards. Of course, accidents will occur in any system, but these cases have not been the result, to my knowledge, of problems in provincial staff coverage to this time.

In addition, I have a response to a question of the same day from the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) relating to another group of homes, those homes having fewer than five children. These homes are, of course, not subject to the requirements, at the present time, of The Children’s Boarding Homes Act and other provincial legislation and we therefore do not have all of the information that the hon. member requests.

Despite the fact that these homes fall outside the requirements of the legislation, they are by no means left uninspected. Many Children’s Aid Societies will not place children in an unregistered home and the exceptions are usually house parents whose work is well-known to the society and who have demonstrated their ability to care for children. They are visited regularly by Children’s Aid workers and encouraged to provide all reasonable safety measures.

Furthermore, The Child Welfare Act,

section 2, subsection 2(

d) provides for the inspection by the province of any place in which a child in the care of the Children’s Aid Society is placed. This means that even though the premises may not fall within the requirements of The Children’s Boarding Homes Act, it may be inspected. The directions given the inspectors, if children in the care of the Children’s Aid Societies are placed in these residences, are that they are to inspect.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: Could I ask the minister if he would clarify the date upon which the additional supervisors were engaged, since the information given to us by his ministry was that there were four and one-half such supervisors? We translated that to between four and five to make it more understandable to those reading the report.

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, I will. I don’t have that information. I was not aware that there had been any added very recently, but I will check to see when the number became 12.

WOMEN IN LABOUR FORCE

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask a question of the Treasurer. I wonder if he could provide a rationale for counting all women as part of the secondary labour force of Ontario?

Mr. Lewis: That famous budget paper of yours.

Mr. Deans: Remember, the other night?

Mr. Lewis: Remember that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can’t recall off the top of my head. I’ll get the answer for the member.

Mr. Lewis: You certainly should.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is there a supplementary? Yes.

Ms. Gigantes: When the Treasurer is looking into this question to provide a rationale, I wonder if he would take into account the fact that there are 25,000 unemployed women in the province of Ontario who are either: 1. Single, and, therefore, self-supporting; or, 2. Single heads of families, and, therefore, having to support families; and would he take this into consideration when perhaps he thinks of redefining what the primary labour force of Ontario is?

Mr. Speaker: I understand the answer is “yes.”

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Well, was the hon. member for Peterborough wishing to ask a supplementary? We’ll allow the member for Peterborough with her supplementary.

Ms. Sandeman: Yes, I was waiting for the answer, Mr. Speaker.

Further to the previous supplementary, would the Treasurer also take into account those women who do not appear on the unemployment rolls, but who were referred to by the previous Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor), those women currently receiving family benefits whom the minister wished to get back into the work force, by encouraging them with leaflets entitled It Pays To Work?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take into account the concerns of both Ms. on the other side.

Mr. Reid: Why not all three Ms.?

Mr. Lewis: That speaks to your definition in the budget paper and that’s all wrong.

Mr. S. Smith: They’re Ms.-able, that’s what they are.

Mr. Reid: Two Ms. and one miss.

Mr. Breithaupt: This last miss is as good as a mile.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the Treasurer is now becoming aware of his definition of women as being secondary in the labour force, can he also give us the target rate of unemployment for secondary members of the labour force, which is included in the budget paper study but not given in specific detail?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no target rate. We have made a forecast of what unemployment, we think, will be.

Ms. Gigantes: Can you define the high employment norm?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have not broken that target rate down into classes.

GRANTS TO CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Concerning the grant payments to conservation authorities, including supplementary sums, for the fiscal year 1975-1976, could the minister confirm these figures: Central region, $20,318,974 or 64.71 per cent; southwestern region, $5,013,352 or 15.97 per cent; eastern region, $4,504,546 or 14.35 per cent; and the northern region, $1,562,866 or 4,97 per cent; for a total of $31,399,738? Could the minister give the Legislature some assurance that the government will reassess future allotments so that eastern and northern regions of Ontario will receive a more equitable consideration in the allocation of funds?

Interjection.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m not sure of the second decimal place in each case, but I’ll be glad to check. The fact remains that I have met with the chairmen of the conservation authorities, all 38 of them, a week ago. I think if one looks at the requests from the various regions, each region always feels that it’s getting less than the others in terms of its own share. I believe that the proportions are reasonably fair. At the same time, I’m quite willing, as a new minister, to look at them and see if they are fair.

I think one has to realize that those conservation authorities are in different stages of development. Some, such as those along the Grand River, have had many years of experience and others are just beginning. I think one will find that mature conservation authorities have an altogether different type of programme and dollar demand than those that are just beginning, and therefore straight percentages never reflect the true picture.

Mr. Reid: They know how to get the money.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Secondly, the watersheds and their problems are not necessarily the same. Up in the Shield region, we don’t have the basic problems of flooding in most areas that one does in the lowlands of southwestern Ontario. I think one has to take those into consideration.

Mr. Reid: You didn’t give us any money for the Rainy River area.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It depends upon the area in general.

Interjections.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: Considering that there is this disparity between the 64 per cent approximately for the central region and 14 per cent to the eastern region, is this the only criterion the minister follows on some of these things he has just mentioned; or are there other criteria?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Is what the only criterion?

Mr. O’Neil: The things the minister has just mentioned, or are there others?

Hon. F. S. Miller: There may well be. I don’t pretend, after two months and 17 days, to be an expert yet.

Mr. Reid: You just found the office.

Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) knows a lot more about the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll have one final supplementary on this. The member for Port Arthur.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Was the member out last night?

Mr. Foulds: No, I’ve got a migraine.

Does the minister consider that conservation authorities in central and Metropolitan Toronto areas and southwestern Ontario have a different set of priorities and definition of functions than do the conservation authorities in eastern and northern Ontario? Does he consider that proper? For example, does he consider it proper for the conservation authority in Metropolitan Toronto to have bought a golf course for several million dollars about four years ago?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can’t look into the past, I can only look into the future.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I only know that conservation authorities’ grants and direction have been directed toward their primary function, that is flood control.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Labour has the answer to a question asked previously.

DRG GLOBE ENVELOPES LIMITED

Hon. B. Stephenson: At the end of last week, the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) asked me to reply to a question which he had asked in December. I noted at that time that I thought I had written the response. I had written the response but the hon. member feels that it should be responded to in the Legislature. Therefore, at his request, I am reading the response in the Legislature.

An hon. member: I hope it’s not too long.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s relatively brief. This matter was brought to our attention last fall with the result that the employment standards branch of this ministry conducted an audit of DRG Globe Envelopes Limited. I am advised that a petition was received from the employees of that company requesting a 15-minute break for an eating period, with the night shift to close down at 15 minutes prior to the regular shift close. As this petition was signed by almost 100 per cent of the employees in favour of the request, the director of employment standards approved the practice, according to

section 22 of the Act. I note that the eating break is approved -- and it is a 15-minute period and not a 10-minute eating break, as recorded in Hansard. This approval was granted on the condition that the employees involved are allowed sufficient time during each shift to attend to their personal hygiene requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief answer to another question asked by the leader of the third party last week.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

WOMEN CROWN EMPLOYEES

Hon. B. Stephenson: He asked how many of these members on the senior list in the government were women. The total number of individuals listed on the senior list, that is those at the level of executive director or higher, is 160, and of that total, five are women.

Mrs. Campbell: Great.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is.

Mr. Lewis: From zero to five, that’s quite a jump.

NIAGARA REGION OFFICIAL PLAN

Mr. Swart: I’d like to put a question to the Minister of Housing. As a result of the request by myself and several other individuals and organizations, will he confirm that he will refer the urban boundaries decision of the Niagara regional official plan to the Ontario Municipal Board for a ruling by it?

Mr. Riddell: The member didn’t get a very good write-up on that, as I recall.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As I think I have already communicated to the hon. member, for those persons who do in fact have legitimate referral requests on that particular official plan, including the urban boundaries, to the Ontario Municipal Board, they shall certainly be so referred, there is no question about that. I believe he would agree that I have asked him to make sure that all of the information be made available that was required by the ministry for such a referral.

Mr.

Swart: Supplementary: Given that the recent report of Peter Barnard Associates, which was commissioned by his ministry, shows a dramatic reduction in the estimated growth in the Peninsula, a requirement of only 8,000 acres for residential development compared to the 23,000 acres which are left in the plan; and given that the Niagara regional planners, in reports of March 23, confirmed these reduced requirements; will he, therefore, either on his own prior to referring to the Ontario Municipal Board, or in the request to the Municipal Board, assure that the growth boundaries in the fruit, grape and the prime food land area are further cut back so that they will have some meaning in preserving these lands?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, considering that the hon. member has indicated that there is, perhaps, only a need for 8,000 acres for growth in the particular area, then there is, of course, 15,000 acres that will not be used, and he shouldn’t be that concerned. The matter will be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board and we will allow it to peruse what has been done, both by the region and by the ministry -- that is anything which has not received the unanimous approval of those supporters of the hon. member.

MEDICAL SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Reid: I have a question for the Minister of Health, dealing with medical services in northern Ontario. Could the minister advise if he plans on changing his programme to provide doctors and dentists to isolated communities? Is he going to bat for these communities by getting the doctors and dentists, particularly those who come from overseas, extensions to the one-year contract on their visas to enable them to operate and live in northern Ontario so that those communities may have some continuity of service from these people?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: While my experience of that programme is limited to date, my understanding is that in all cases, whether they be physicians from overseas or people from Ontario or elsewhere in Canada, they are all on contract. It is an annual renewal.

Mr. Reid: They have to go back. They have to leave and come back.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not if they are on contract. I don’t believe so. If there is a renewal of the contract, it is a mutually satisfactory relationship. If the member has a particular case about which he is concerned, please let me know.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: Under the present system they are here under working-status visas and not under landed immigrant status; therefore they have to return to their country if they wish to settle in these communities.

In the same vein, if I may: Can the minister outline the dental car programme for northern Ontario? I understand we will be getting a few more dental cars to provide service to children, particularly where the greatest need is in northern Ontario -- in the elementary and pre-elementary grades.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On the first point, vis-à-vis doctors who are coming from overseas, certainly the decision as to whether they will be granted extensions under immigrant status -- and they are from time to time -- is that of the federal government, particularly if the immigrant is prepared to take

part in the programme for the isolated areas.

Now, on the second point, to be honest, I don’t remember the details of all that we have decided. Certainly, we are putting several more vans on the road to carry out the dental programme. But if I can take that as notice, perhaps I will send the member a letter that will outline all the details of what we are doing in that area.

Mr. Bain: Supplementary: Am I to understand that the minister is going to send the member for Rainy River a letter on it? If he is just going to report to him, I would appreciate it if he reported to the House, because there are a number of northern members also interested in the same subject.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It’s just that the member for Rainy River is the only northern member who has ever expressed an interest on this point.

Mr. Reid: On a short supplementary -- I might as well, while I am ahead.

Mr. Foulds: Read your correspondence.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: Join Jack Horner over here.

Mr. Martel: You sound like Bernier.

Mr. Reid: Would the minister also look into the drug benefit plan that now requires drug benefits for senior citizens to be purchased from an Ontario pharmacist? In northern Ontario many people have to go to Winnipeg or the United States and go to a hospital to purchase drugs. Would the minister look into that?

Mr. Speaker: That is not that closely related to the original question. We will hear an answer from the Minister of Correctional Services.

Mr. Bain: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate it if the minister would reconsider the statement he just made about northern members. I know that I have contacted --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is not a point of personal privilege. We are wasting the time of this question period. The hon. Minister of Correctional Services.

[3:15]

TRAINING SCHOOL TEACHERS

Hon. Mr. Meen: I guess I now have the floor, Mr. Speaker. I have the answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr Davidson) on Tuesday, April 19 last, relating to Champlain school at Alfred.

The recommendation last year for an increase in the teaching staff at Champlain school was related to a transfer of students from Cecil Facer school in Sudbury. This caused the count to rise to 90 students at Champlain. Now it is down to 60, and of that total only 47 are actually receiving classroom instruction in the school. The present count at Cecil Facer school is now some 40 below capacity and is unlikely to affect further the Champlain school count, which has continued itself to decline.

There will be no reduction in staff at all until September 1, 1977. All programmes instituted for this school year will continue to run and will be completed. Should school enrolment increase significantly for any reason in the future, the collective agreement contains a recall clause, and we will have the number of teachers in the classrooms necessary for the programmes to be taught.

The present enrolment provides a pupil-teacher ratio of five to one, not counting the principal. Tentatively, the pupil-teacher ratio next September would be seven to one, which is more than adequate, even for the school’s type of child. Remedial programmes are of high priority in our training schools and we have no intention of lowering that priority. Adequate organization of the timetable and homogeneous grouping of students in classes of fewer than eight pupils will continue to provide effective remedial assistance and individualized attention.

Of the three teachers declared redundant for the next school year, two are shop teachers and one is an elementary remedial teacher. In order to ensure continued programme adequacy, two of the shops are being combined. This redeployment of facilities and staff, when combined with the rearrangement of the present timetable, will leave sufficient teachers for us to continue to provide the full range of academic programmes as offered at present.

I can assure the hon. member for Cambridge that there is no intention whatever to discontinue any of the programmes.

Mr. Davidson: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that the principal at Champlain school has expressed very much concern regarding the elementary programme that exists? Can the minister assure me that the reduction of the number of teachers in that school will not eliminate the elementary programme that’s now in place?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that any of the programmes in place will continue. I am aware that there was some concern expressed by the teachers -- and that may have included the principal, I can’t say -- at the time of this readjustment. I believe this has been sorted out satisfactorily. What I have just said is, I can assure the hon. members that the programmes at present in place will continue.

Ms. Sandeman: Supplementary to the minister’s answer: In view of his stated dedication to the provision of remedial education in the training schools, could he explain why recently-announced layoffs -- for instance, at Brookside school -- have included layoffs of remedial teachers?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I haven’t any specific details on that, Mr. Speaker. I simply can say that the extent to which remedial teachers would be required is taken into account when the redundancies are determined.

GOVERNMENT COMPLEX IN TIMMINS

Mr. Ferrier: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. Is the minister able to tell us what the plans are for the government office complex in the Timmins area? Is it going to go ahead or where does it now stand?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is under review.

Mr. Ferrier: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the Treasurer in 1975 said this was a top priority item as far as creating employment is concerned, and that tenders were called during the election and then withdrawn after the election --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ferrier: -- I wonder if the minister can tell us how long this matter is going to be under review? Do we have to wait from now till eternity to get an answer?

Mr. Foulds: Or the next election?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the member will have to wait too long.

GASOLINE RETAIL PRICES

Mr. Spence: A question for the Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations. Would the minister inform us why there is such a wide differential in gasoline prices across the province of Ontario? In one area two weeks ago, around Paris, the price of gasoline at the pumps was 80.9 cents. In other towns and villages in the province of Ontario the price of gasoline was 89.9 cents. Is the minister going to take any action in regard to this wide differential in prices as it concerns many businessmen in our towns and villages across the province?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the reason there are differences in prices is because we still have the competitive system in Ontario. Some people sell their product at a lower price than others. I hope we will always have it that way.

Mr. Foulds: It’s called monopoly capitalism.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If it is suggested that we should have a single-price system for gasoline in Ontario, then I simply have to reject the suggestion. There must be competitive forces. That doesn’t mean that where exorbitant prices are being charged my ministry is not interested in them. We certainly would appreciate receiving any information to that effect.

Mr. Nixon: Just a little free enterprise, not too much.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions?

Order, please.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Swart: Point of order, pursuant to the order of the Legislative Assembly passed on December 16 in rule 28, I am dissatisfied with the answer of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) to my question today and would like to debate it tonight at 10:30.

REPORTS

Mrs. Campbell from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee has carefully examined the following application for a private Act and finds the notice, as published, sufficient:

Borough of North York.

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr2,

An Act respecting the Trustees of the Toronto General Burying Grounds.

Bill Pr4,

An Act respecting Canada Trustco Mortgage Company.

Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting Webwood Investments Limited.

Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting the Borough of East York.

Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting Lombardo Furniture and Appliances Limited.

Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting Kevalaine Corporation Limited.

Bill Pr16,

An Act respecting Fred Leblond Cement Products Limited.

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria, in Ontario, Canada.

Bill Pr24

An Act respecting Frank Postl Enterprises Limited.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria, in Ontario, Canada.

Mr. Gaunt from the standing general government committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr5,

An Act respecting the Borough of York.

Bill Pr120,

An Act respecting the Village of Erie Beach.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECLAMATION COMMISSION ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill 54, The Ontario Waste Disposal and Reclamation Commission Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish, as mentioned in the title, an Ontario waste disposal and reclamation commission to have the authority in matters concerning reclamation and recycling of liquid, solid and gaseous waste, with particular reference to possible development of energy from these sources.

PERFUME AND COSMETICS BARS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Peterson moved first reading of Bill Pr27,

An Act respecting The Perfume and Cosmetics Bars Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for London Centre; any explanation of the principle?

Mr. Peterson: No, no explanations, Mr. Speaker. It is a private bill; I’m very embarrassed. Please don’t try to embarrass me, Mr. Speaker.

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE ACT

Hon. Mrs. Birch, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Parrott, moved first reading of Bill 55,

An Act respecting Ryerson Polytechnical Institute.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The purpose of this bill is to establish a new governing structure for Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. The size of the board of governors is being increased from 13 to 23. An academic council to oversee educational policy at the institute is being established.

This bill is based upon a report received from the board of Ryerson and in addition consultation has taken place with all elements of the Ryerson community.

LEGISLATIVE

SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the orders of the day, as it is the custom now on Thursdays to indicate the order of business for the ensuing week may I take this opportunity to indicate that next week on Monday we’ll have the contribution in the budget debate of the member for Ottawa Centre.

An hon. member: Call that a contribution?

Mr. Moffatt: And Tuesday evening.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We do not sit, of course, on Monday evening. No doubt the member for Ottawa Centre will be completed before we rise on Monday.

An hon. member: We hope!

Mr. Cassidy: We are sitting in the evening I trust?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, not on Monday. Tuesday afternoon we then have the contribution to the budget debate of the member for London Centre.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want you to spend all weekend getting your contribution ready.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Following that short presentation on Tuesday afternoon --

Mr. Nixon: It is going to be the same as last year? Marvellous speech.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- for the balance of Tuesday afternoon and Tuesday evening we will proceed to carry on with --

Mr. Breithaupt: The member for London North (Mr. Shore) won’t have to be here because we are giving the same speech again.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- orders 13, 14 and 16. On Wednesday, of course, there is no House, but there is committee work. Thursday afternoon we’ll do private members’ business; Thursday evening, budget debate. Friday morning, budget debate.

Mr. Martel: Are we still going to be here by then?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS:

MOTION NO. 2

Mr. Singer moved private member’s motion No. 2:

Resolution: That in the opinion of this House: 1. The government should establish a register of all properties owned by the province of Ontario or by any of its boards or agencies, which register shall be set out the following: (

a) the date on which the land was acquired; (

b) the size of the parcel of land; (

c) the total acquisition price; (

d) the purpose for which it was acquired and the approximate date that it is anticipated that it will be used for such purpose; (

e) the present use of the land; (

f) the authority which allowed its acquisition; (

g) the amount of commissions paid to any persons or agents concerning the acquisition and to whom they were paid; (

h) the amount of legal fees paid in connection with such acquisition and to whom they were paid; (

i) that such register be open to inspection by any interested person.

[3:30]

2. The government should establish guidelines for all future acquisitions which will ensure the clarity of procedures and the fairness whenever land is acquired; and that such guidelines be approved by this House; that when any land not owned by the province of Ontario or any of its boards or agencies is acquired that within three months of the date of such acquisition full details concerning the acquisition are added to the register referred to above.

3. When any land owned by the province of Ontario or any of its boards or agencies has been disposed of, full details of such disposition be added to the register referred to above within three months of such disposition.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wilson Heights may proceed with his dissertation.

Mr. Singer: The purpose of this motion, Mr. Speaker, is to bring as forcefully as I can before this House one of the very serious denials of public information.

It’s a matter that has caused us trouble in this Legislature for many years -- certainly for all of the years that I have been here -- and that is our inability to find out what lands the government of Ontario owns, why it bought them, the prices that were paid for them, the manner in which the lands were acquired, whether or not information has been leaked, whether or not there is a standard procedure whereby lands are acquired and on whose authority the land was acquired.

From time to time, unfortunately, there has been the suspicion in the minds of many people that the procedures used and the lack of public availability and public information has tended to allow improper practices which have benefited only a few of the citizens of the province and not all of the people of Ontario.

With this in mind, I must point out that it is unfortunate that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) hasn’t seen fit to be present here, because he and his predecessors are the ministers of the Crown to whom the majority of our criticism has been directed over these many years.

When the new minister arrived in his portfolio not too long ago, some of us thought that perhaps a new breath of fresh air had come on to the scene and we were going to get some new and enlightened leadership from that minister, because during the course of consideration of his estimates a couple of years ago he did say that a method could be worked out, he thought, that would allow the examination of the minutes of Ontario Housing to be made public.

He promised subsequently to that, in answer to questions put to him, that he was going to ask for representatives of the three parties to get together and he would chair a meeting where the procedures could he determined upon. That sounded very brave, but nothing has happened since. I am told -- and again it is unfortunate that the minister isn’t here -- that when he took that proposition back to those people who populate the directors’ table at Ontario Housing Corporation, they talked him out of it. So much for enlightened information; so much for the public right to know what is going on.

You have been around here long enough as well, Mr. Speaker, to know that every time the breath of suspicion is raised about land acquisition or land disposition policies, almost a full and complete iron curtain descends in front of and around those ministers responsible for such acquisitions or those agencies that have been active in making this kind of expenditure of public money. This was particularly evident after the decision of the government in relation to the bill of the hon. member for Lakeshore (Mr.

Lawlor) asking for disclosure of public information, the one that was debated last week, when the government members, every one of them, stood in their place and said, “No, we don’t even want to vote on that, because there is a green paper or a white paper or something. We don’t want any disclosure of public information. But be patient, some years from now -- maybe another 10 or 15 years -- you are going to get some kind of a bill.”

The reason that my motion is here today is to take up one of the most objectionable, most improper, most obnoxious methods of government handling of its business and to debate on that, together with my colleagues and hopefully with the support of the other two parties, what I think should be a most important step in public policy.

I am going to deal, not too lengthily, with some of the land assemblies that we have questioned in recent days, or the media have questioned. My colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) will be addressing himself, I am certain, to what happened in South Cayuga. But there was never any answer given to the charge made in the Toronto morning newspaper that a Mr. White, who was quite prominent around here in other days and was responsible for acquiring pieces of land, went out and bought twice as much land in the name of the province as the province needed, merely to satisfy his own whim.

The South Cayuga land acquisition was a very fascinating one. It was never explained and I suppose the government thinks that because White is no longer here that it never need be explained again. What happened to the government money? Why was that money spent? Why was it in the public interest? Why is it necessary to spend some $2 million each and every year to maintain that property, which apparently the people of Ontario didn’t need to have in their ownership in the first place? These are things that hopefully this system that I have outlined might supply answers to.

There was the South Milton land assembly, Mr. Speaker, and you’ll remember that one. We spent some time in this House trying to find out how it was acquired, why different prices were paid to landowners who abutted each other. In some cases, some got a few hundred dollars an acre; others got several thousand dollars an acre.

Why was expropriation not used? Why were middlemen allowed to come in? And in one particular case -- and I am not going to rehash all of the sordid history of that land acquisition -- but in one case that I made full reference to -- and it’s there in Hansard and I am not going to repeat my 1974 speeches at great length, but there they are in November of 1974 -- why was one middleman allowed to come in and make a profit of at least $2 million without laying out a penny of his own money because the government had embarked on this obscure and needless land acquisition in the South Milton area?

When we asked the minister of the day why it was done, the best answer he could come forward with was “it’s in the public interest to land bank this land, which we might use in the year 2025 or some time thereafter, provided we want a pipeline from Lake Ontario all the way up there” -- what, 10 or 15 miles of pipeline to carry water up there? -- “then the land might be used.”

But the one particular gentleman -- and certain people associated with him -- managed, I suppose just because of his peculiar business sagacity, to find out that it was worth his while to get options to purchase this property just one step ahead of the government land agents who were coming along and they bought all that he had optioned. He made this profit and apparently put up no money of his own. Marvellous if you have this particular kind of sagacity, and marvellous if the government’s processes are so slip-shod, so sloppy, and so open to question -- and never have to be accounted for, that’s the point.

There is the whole Kitchener-Waterloo land assembly, and the story there is a fascinating one. In 1968, some 3,000 acres were purchased by Ontario Housing Corporation and they paid some $5,246,000 for them. My colleague, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk commented on that one in 1968. My colleague, the member for Kitchener, has commented on it. My colleague, the member for Waterloo (Mr. Good), has commented on it. But again, we draw nothing but blanks.

What is happening with those acres, Mr. Speaker? We have tried to find out something about it. Ontario Housing, as we have been told, is waiting for official plans from the Ministry of Housing before moving forward to develop it. Meanwhile, the land is being leased back to the farmers it was purchased from and there is talk now that maybe it’s going to be sold back to the farmers it was purchased from. On a leasehold basis, it’s not economical. The farmers who lease back land they originally owned are very reluctant to invest money in farm machinery and so on because they don’t know how long they’re going to be allowed to stay.

As I say, we tried to find out some of the things that are happening in regard to that land. We spoke to a Mr. John Guthrie who, I’m told, is the executive assistant to the Minister of Housing. As a result of conversations with Mr. Guthrie, it becomes apparent that some of the land in the 3,000-acre assembly is prime and actively used agriculture land.

To quote from the ministry: “In keeping with the government’s guidelines on agricultural land, if some of the land is not needed for housing, then perhaps it’s best to leave it for farming.” This is 1977 -- more than nine years after the land was acquired. “Therefore, if and when there is a decision made on all this land, the Ontario Housing Corporation, together with the municipality, if it’s determined that some of this parcel is surplus to development needs and will be surplus forever” -- whatever that may mean -- “then it will be offered to sale first to the original owners.”

I hope the original owners are blessed with longevity because by the time anyone makes up his mind as to what’s going to happen with this 3,000-acre assembly, if it proceeds at the pace at which it’s now proceeding, the original owners will long since have gone on to other places.

A problem was put in its perspective by Bill Thompson of the Kitchener-Waterloo regional office. He’s quoted as having said: “In the official plan for Kitchener-Waterloo, about two-thirds of the 3,000-acre assembly is not, according to the present development plan, necessary for housing. The region realizes the value of this land as farming and wishes it to remain in that use. The problem”

-- as they see it -- “is then will any farmer be able to buy back the land at the current market value from the Ontario Housing Corporation? If not, the land will fall to developers and will be lost forever as farm land.”

We have the official plan of the Kitchener-Waterloo area and I’d certainly be glad to acquaint any of the members with its contents if they are interested in it. I see the Minister of Housing is here and I’m very pleased about that. But let me go on about the Kitchener-Waterloo plan. “Nine years after the assembly of these acres, the government still has made no commitment on its fate. Reporters from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record asked Mr. Rhodes if this land would possibly be sold back to the original owners who were the farmers. Mr. Rhodes replied: ‘Possibly 1,000 acres might be returned to the farmers at agricultural prices rather than at development prices.’”

That’s fascinating. The Minister of Housing and his executive assistant don’t seem to be in accord with what the planners are talking about for that area. “The vice-chairman of Ontario Housing Corporation, Mr. Riggs” -- and he gets into the act every now and then -- “informed us that no decisions would be made by Ontario Housing Corporation without a review with the municipality concerned since the regional Kitchener-Waterloo official plan had been approved. The Ministry of Housing has made no official statement on the 3,000 acres.

The province simply disrupted the lifestyles of many farmers by pressuring them into selling their land, leased it back to them through leases, containing, in some cases, a six-month notice clause, and now may be selling part of the land back” -- but the final answer certainly has not been made known by the minister, by Ontario Housing, or by anybody else who has anything to do with government -- “much to the regret of some farmers who gave up farming amidst the uncertain climate of ownership of the land by the provincial government for the past nine years.” And there are all sorts of newspaper clippings in the local papers complaining about this situation.

Surely this kind of problem cries out for some kind of remedy. If the government is going to carry on public business and if it is going to waste public money, surely it should be accountable. Surely the government should be the first organization that should say: “This is what we are doing with the public money. This is why we have done it. This is why we laid out large sums of money. This is why the land is presently standing fallow.” And do we get any of that, Mr. Speaker? Not a bit.

[3:45]

Let me tell the House about the Edwardsburgh land assembly. That’s that great one down in eastern Ontario. It’s the great one that the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) prominently got on public record saying: “We don’t want any of that there here. Anybody would be crazy to put industry here.”

Mr. Bullbrook: He was merely paraphrasing.

Mr. Singer: Here’s the headline: “Kept in Dark on Land Assembly Planning, Bennett Derided for ‘Foolish Buyer’ Talk.” How many acres did we get down there? That piece of land has come under the aegis and control of something called the Ontario Land Corporation.

I talked to Mr. Omand, who is the general manager. Mr. Omand is a very honest and frank civil servant. He said: “Yes, we have control over all those acres down there, 10,000 acres at Edwardsburgh. We have control over them. I want to tell you, we didn’t buy them. The Ontario Land Corporation didn’t buy them. However, they were bought and now we have control of it. Unfortunately, nobody seems to be interested in using it for industry.”

One wonders when government can act in this unusual way, even against the advice of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. They keep him in the dark. He told them in this House that they were crazy. He told them in speeches that they were crazy. One wonders how the government conducts its business and what kind of sense this possibly makes.

Mr. Eakins: Do you agree with him today, Jim?

Mr. Singer: There’s the Saltfleet land assembly. Ontario Housing has 1,670 acres, bought between January 2 and February 6, 1968, for $6.5 million from Jonenco.

John Deans apparently is the principal of Jonenco. The land was assembled by Jonenco from May to December, 1967, at a cost to him of $3.3 million. So Mr. Deans paid $3.3 million in 1967 and, a year later, the happy government, the beneficent government gave Mr. Deans’ company $6.5 million. It’s interesting.

Mr. Eakins: Interesting.

Mr. Singer: At least, if there was a public purpose for this it could be understood, but there is no public purpose that’s announced.

Until recently, OHC was projecting a population for this area of some 70,000. “Actual development has been slow due to the lack of demand, the lack of adequate access. Redhill pre-growth proposed to allow a second means of access.” It was proposed but it was never, in fact, built. Ontario Housing Corporation has now built approximately 800 units. Ten years later, $6.5 million later, we provided land for 600 units of housing. That’s rather expensive housing, and rather hard to understand.

“Planning for 100 acres was carried out for Ontario Housing by a British firm which recommended stacked townhouses at 40 units to the acre.” Notwithstanding the recommendations,” -- quite logically -- “the government came to the conclusion this was uneconomical and undesirable in this community.”

I could go on at great length -- I’m catching your signal, Mr. Speaker, that I’ve just about run out of time -- but these are only a few of the tragic horror stories that are obvious and available to us after much research. Surely it would make sense if there was a public record of government land acquisition, if the procedures were regularized and explained, and every time land was being disposed of the members of the Legislature and the people of Ontario could understand why and how it was done? I would hope all the members of the Legislature will support this eminently sensible resolution.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Having carefully looked at and studied the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Wilson Heights, I find that, while there is much that is laudable in that resolution, to put into reality such a central register would be impractical and extremely expensive.

Mr. Singer: More expensive than clearing the land?

Hon. J. R. Smith: In examining the ramifications of such a proposal, I asked my staff to look into the man-hours necessary to set up such a register and to estimate the cost of such a project, both on a one time set-up basis and on an annual cost basis. Our findings are that the cost of such a programme would be prohibitive, particularly in this time of financial restraint.

Mr. Singer: That’s a great defence. Yes sir.

Mr. Nixon: What a joker!

Hon. J. R. Smith: Let me give you some idea, Mr. Speaker, of the enormity of the task and the cost which would be involved if a central register were to be established. Firstly, in reading the resolution presented to us, I see the hon. member asks for the establishment of a register of all properties owned by the province of Ontario or by any of its boards or agencies. Notice that it says all property owned.” I assume that means all easements, all rights of way and so on. I wonder if the hon. members have any idea of the number of properties that would involve?

Mr. Singer: It’s nobody’s business except the public’s.

Hon. J. R. Smith: I might add in passing that I asked my staff, in preparing this data, to be conservative in their estimates. At times I believe they might even have been a trifle too conservative. Including easements, rights of way and other properties, we estimate that the province now owns in excess of 450,000 separate pieces of property. Ontario Hydro alone has more than 250,000 easements, for example.

To prepare the necessary data on each property, the data required in the resolution plus other information that would be necessary -- such as vendor’s name; location of property, including lot, concession and township; whether there have been any improvements on the property; whether there have been any liens on the property in question and so on -- would, by conservative estimate, take four man-hours. I am sure the hon. members realise that in many instances, particularly in properties purchased 15, 20 or 50 years ago, the research necessary to provide such data would take far more than that estimate of four man-hours per property.

Nevertheless, to get all the information required without beginning the process of recording it, would take 1.8 million man-hours. I leave it to the hon. members to estimate the number of man-years. At the average clerk four category salary --

Mr. Bullbrook: Wait; 1.8 million man-hours?

Hon. J. R. Smith: That’s right -- they can see that the cost of preparing such a register alone, we say could be nearly $11 million, or $10.8 million to be exact.

Mr. Singer: That’s a man-hour per square foot of land that you own. That’s very good.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Add to that all of the necessary start-up costs, such as developing a computer system to handle it -- to set up and operate such a register manually would, of course, be logically out of the question --

Mr. Eakins: Who wrote this?

Mr. Singer: It’s awful. It really is terrible.

Hon. J. R. Smith: -- to input data into that system, to provide for overhead such as accommodation et cetera. In all, we estimate the cost of establishing such a central register would be approximately $12 million. Are we really prepared to spend that sum without tangible benefits, benefits we are not now receiving?

I also asked my staff to prepare estimates of the cost of operating such a system once all the available data were in and the man-hours needed would only be for input of approximately 8,000 property transactions the province engages in annually. There, we estimate an annual budget of around $300,000. But the purpose of having such a registry would only be the retrieval of data.

If we were to prepare a report showing data of the province’s property ownership, the cost of providing such a print-out would run to $10,000 each and the result, my friends, hon. members, would be a stack of paper that could be 50 feet high. In other words, we could provide an awful lot of bedtime reading for those hon. members --

Mr. Singer: It could be. It might be 100 feet high.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s what you are hiding behind now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let’s have some order, please.

Hon. J. R. Smith: The question we have to ask ourselves is, would the cost, mostly in terms of initial start-up, be worth it? Would we get information that we can’t get now?

Mr. Eakins: We can’t get it, because we’ve been asking for it.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Again, the idea contained in the hon. member’s resolution is laudable, but practicality suggests that such a registry would actually give us little we cannot get now. Each ministry and board handling property transactions currently maintains its own registry of property, which includes information needed on an almost daily basis by the ministry involved and modified to the ministry’s particular needs. These needs would still have to be met if a central register were set up. In other words, there would be a great deal of duplication of information involved if we had a central register.

I believe that it is much more practical to allow each concerned ministry and agency to continue maintaining its own individual record system but modified as necessary to include certain common information, open to retrieval by interested parties. Existing systems also would be modified to ensure that an accurate and adequate record of current and future transactions would be maintained.

Mr. Singer: As Al Lawrence said, “You have no right to know. You have no right to know.”

Hon. Mr. J. R. Smith: I will be pursuing this idea in further discussions with my staff and cabinet colleagues. Since I have pointed out the majority of the costs involved in setting up a central register would be for initial research on past property transactions, it might seem reasonable on the surface to suggest that we start up the register as of, say, January 1, 1978, and forego the costly research. How can we have an accurate record of “all properties owned by the province or any of its boards or agencies” if we do not do such research?

Would it make much sense to record the sale of a property on that central register when the register has no record of the province owning such a piece of land?

The resolution also sets out a number of questions regarding each property transaction which should be provided by such a register.

Mr. Singer: One wouldn’t believe that the minister could make that speech.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Most of that information is already available from each ministry involved.

Mr. Singer: Already available?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Some of the research I was speaking of earlier would take a little time to provide, but it could be provided. For example, in item (c), the total acquisition price might take some time to find out if we were dealing with a property purchased a sizable number of years ago. Similarly, finding out the size of fees and commissions paid, and to whom, would also involve much time and effort for those transactions, if they were, say, 50 years ago.

Mr. Eakins: You are telling the public they have no right to know.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Nevertheless, as I have stated, this information can, in general, be obtained using the current system.

Mr. Singer: Obtained by whom?

Hon. J. R. Smith: It leads me, therefore, to ask again what information and what benefits would be acquired from establishing such a register? What would justify the enormous expense in time and effort involved?

My response has to be that there is no benefit that would lead us to tell the people of this province that we’re going to spend some $12 million of their money to give us information we already have.

Mr. Reid: You have got to be kidding -- $12 million! You people need new speech writers.

Mr. Singer: If you spend $12 million, you’re going to have paper that high.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Wilson Heights was allowed to proceed without interruption. Extend the same courtesy to the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. Singer: It’s very hard because it is such drivel, Mr. Speaker. I’ll try.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Please try.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We listened to the member’s drivel.

Hon. J. R. Smith: In my view, to suggest that the register can be open to any interested person infringes upon the confidentiality of such a transaction and could, if misused, lead to abuses by land speculators. I suggest this aspect might be something better looked at by the commission on freedom of information.

Lastly, point 2 of the resolution asks that guidelines for acquisition be set up. Such guidelines are already set up.

Mr. Singer: Where?

Hon. J. R. Smith: My ministry has them and I know that other ministries and agencies have them. The guidelines are tailored for the particular job each ministry does and the particular land assembly needs that it has. These guidelines are in force and adhered to.

While on the surface there seems to be much to commend the resolution, I’m afraid that in the cold light of the reality of setting up the register with the resulting few, if any, benefits, I would recommend that it should be turned down.

Mr. Lawlor: The arguments we have just heard, Mr. Speaker, are not impressive in this particular case.

Mr. Singer: Right.

Mr. Lawlor: The raising of the bugaboo of all these horrendous costs that are being laid out in front of us, and the statement that that information is readily available in a dispersed form at every registry office and, as the minister himself said, internally to each ministry, and that it needs simply to bring it together and collate it and set up a register for the perusal of the public in this particular regard -- these cannot be an overwhelming or supervening consideration in the particular context.

Mr. Singer: Right.

Mr. Lawlor: That doesn’t mean I’m going to vote for your bloody resolution.

Mr. Bullbrook: You have been very obstinate lately.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Hang in there, Pat.

Mr. Lawlor: Property is acquired in four ways. First, by direct purchase: a government agency acting as a government agent approaches individuals and buys in the normal way by way of an offer to purchase. The second way is expropriation. The third way is by way of option agreement. The option agreement is broken into two parts: There may be either full disclosure on one side, or an anonymous buyer coming in to purchase under the option. For various reasons, this is the way that speculators largely operate. Then there is the fourth way, whereby an anonymous buyer directly approaches without the option concept operating.

In this legislation there is more than meets the eye, just beneath the surface. Do we approve of the anonymous operator? Do we approve of the government, in certain circumstances albeit however narrow, approaching individuals under a pseudonym with the use of real estate agents and others to purchase property, largely, of course, in terms of land assembly? Do the members think that’s a legitimate practice? No one questions that it is very often subject to abuse, as we’ve had many instances of -- Pickering, among others.

Under the member for Wilson Heights’ resolution, that, in my opinion, would be ruled out in the future. There would have to be full, fair and timely disclosure, and that’s it.

[4:00]

Mr. Bullbrook: After the fact.

Mr. Singer: After the fact -- after the fact. Read it again.

Mr. Lawlor: After the fact.

Mr. Singer: Right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Read what you are saying.

Mr. Lawlor: The only real objection one can have to the legislation is the time limitation written in. The three months. Land assemblies can take two years, possibly three if they are fairly massive. And therefore the three-month acquisition would let the cat out of the bag with respect to the proposals of the government touching a certain geographical area. That could act detrimentally on the government.

In other words, there could be a loss of revenue. The property might very easily have been bought somewhat cheaper. The resolution can’t be amended -- it has to stand holus bolus as it appears before this House. It says three months -- three months it must be. Therefore we have to make up our minds as to the detrimental effect of that over against the withholding of information which is vital to the public.

In line with the freedom of information statute of a week or two ago, or last week, the full disclosure principle commends itself -- certainly to me, and I trust to my party -- in the largest way. Therefore you have to come down on the side that whatever the private sector may do with respect to withholding information -- hiding behind pseudonyms or whatever they do -- the government must act fairly, openly, and with respect to its own citizens, and take the risks of that.

What is being said in this resolution, therefore, is that really only one way is available -- well, two. The open approach to the individual vendor, or the expropriation route. There really isn’t anything very wrong with that. While the Expropriation Act does not contain guidelines, court decisions down through the years and various recommendations coming out of the Ombudsman and other reports touching Pickering and other places, begin to give the nascent form of the norms whereby honest dealings will be guided and the government --

Certainly, by the time we’re through with Pickering, that information can be fully extrapolated and available to anyone. The motion of the member for Wilson Heights forwards that particular cause and therefore it is in line with the current thinking on this matter. Having presented, as I see it, the various arguments on both sides touching this issue, I think on the whole, in all fairness, the government has to weight it in favour of the public, in favour of disclosure, in favour of open-handed and even dealing with the general public, even if some loss occurs to the public Treasury in this regard.

It is far better to have a government with integrity and honesty in its dealings, rather than the weaselling around in the backyards of the nation, seeking to extract small favours and traducing its own people.

Mr. Nixon: I believe it’s obvious that even if we exclude the Crown lands of northern Ontario, the government of Ontario is by far the largest landowner -- land holder and owner -- in this province. Probably it is true to say that the government stands to be called the greatest profiteer in the business of buying and selling land.

If they proceed with the patchwork policy that the Minister of Housing, didn’t announce but more or less referred to obliquely a few weeks ago -- as he finds himself the holder, the minister responsible for these large acreages, which now seem to be redundant as far as any kind of useful programme or co-ordinated policy is concerned -- he announces that he is going to sell these off, sometimes to the original holder of the property. But if those people are unavailable or don’t want the land, then presumably they will be sold, in most instances, to the highest bidder.

It’s interesting to look at the names chiselled in the marble of the halls of this building and learn that from the earliest times, even when Canada had only five or six members, there was always a commissioner of Crown lands. The problems were different in those days, of course, since much of the arable farm land was then held by the Crown. But as we see the acquisitions in recent years, it’s obvious that once again the government of the province is going into the business of holding land and developing it in a bigger and bigger way.

My colleague, whose motion we’re debating, referred to the Ontario Land Corporation, which, I understand, holds just four parcels. The South Cayuga land, I submit to you, will never be put to any significant use by the government of the province. I don’t know what they’re going to do with it. They may resell it. They may just make it into a park and call it a John White memorial -- I don’t know. But that particular land in the former county of Haldimand is not going to be of significant governmental use, I would say, for the next half century.

Right close to it, as you’re aware, Mr. Speaker, is another property also purchased by the government at about the same time, which the minister is trying to elevate into the status of a new city. I don’t know what’s going to happen in that regard, but at least there is some validity for the continuation of the holding of that land for some period of time.

But it concerns me very deeply that the policy of the government has been to allow the acquisition of these large properties without reference to any local planning authority; without reference to any official plan -- even without reference to the other members of the cabinet over these years. The record of the purchase of these city sites that I’ve referred to -- even the purchase of the Pickering property, which has been so much a matter of controversy in the last 18 months -- is an indication that the government does need the constraints of the knowledge that they must report clearly and publicly on all of these acquisitions, the prices paid, and the purpose of the land.

We can, of course, talk about the fourth property that is owned by the Ontario Land Corporation down in Edwardsburgh. This, I would say, is more or less part of the inheritance that John White left us as taxpayers, when, it seems to me, those purchasers were made on his own judgement exclusively. He might have conferred with the Premier, but as Treasurer he then had the power to go forward without even the consent of his cabinet colleagues.

It has already been pointed out that as for being are area for industrial expansion and development, Edwardsburgh was simply a joke, and it still is. And yet the government still continues to hold these properties.

The Ministry of Housing holds properties dotted all across the province, and no doubt they have some kind of registry of those lands, although the Ministry of Housing and the Ontario Housing Corporation have been notoriously secretive as far as information pertaining to the lands is concerned. I know of 1,000 acres that was bought in Brantford township, five years ago now, I guess, for which there has been no known programme of development -- no consultation with local planning authorities. It sits there as a beautiful green rolling piece of property, and the ministry has given no indication of what they wanted to do.

The 3,000 acres near Kitchener was bought under very strange circumstances by one of the minister’s predecessors going back about 10 years, and at the time it was, certainly questioned seriously in this House, but there was never any legitimate answer given to the representatives of the people as to the reasons for purchase or the details of the purchase.

The Minister for Government Services indicated that Hydro is one of the larger land holders. That’s true. It just bought a strip of property through my farm, for example, for a second high-tension power line. But I can’t see any problem in listing those lands. The minister indicates that it would take a stack of information 20 feet high, or something like that, in order to list the location of the properties and all of the details asked.

Well, I would suggest that it’s incredible that the government is objecting, on the basis of the cost involved, to having a registry which would tell them what properties they do own. How can we ever have any coordinated approach by the government to the development of the province, if they don’t even know what lands they hold? And they hold these lands in every township in every part of the province. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications is another example. They probably buy and sell more parcels, if not a large acreage, than any other agency of government.

I believe it would be essential for any citizen simply to go to see what properties are held, what their values were, and what the purpose was in the first instance.

To go on with the list, the Ministry of Natural Resources holds title to a great area of parkland. The Treasurer himself, in one of his franker moments a few months ago, felt that we had committed too much of our moneys, our budget, to the purchase of these lands and indicated that there would have to be some more orderly approach as far as that was concerned.

I feel that the registry that is proposed under the motion before us would at least give some indication to the various ministers who have these responsibilities that they do not act independently, that they do have to justify the purchase and all of the ancillary information associated with the purchase in a public document. In that way I believe that it would be a salutary pressure in the reduction of the kind of bad judgement which the taxpayers have had to pay for in recent years.

When I say bad judgement I say it advisedly, because there is no doubt that the 10,000 acres in Edwardsburgh is simply a waste of money. Very few miles from there the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Irvine), when he was mayor of Prescott, undertook to develop an excellent industrial park associated with Prescott, right on the shores of the St. Lawrence River. And yet his cabinet colleagues come along and buy 10,000 acres for industrial purposes which cannot ever really be put into any significant use.

Surely we can cut down on the results of this bad judgement if the responsible minister knows that his judgement is going to he brought forward for public scrutiny in this way.

I do believe as well that it would reduce the injustice to land owners. Surely if the whole approach to the purchase of the property in Pickering had been on the basis of revealing the facts and figures as required under this resolution, we would not now have the confrontation between the Minister of Housing and the Ombudsman, which made it necessary to appoint a royal commission. The royal commission is there, but they don’t seem to be doing anything.

Mr. Gaunt: There’s some doubt whether they can.

Mr. Nixon: I see that the Ombudsman is very much concerned indeed at the lack of governmental action in this matter. We may find that that controversy which has brought into question the responsibilities vis-à-vis the Minister of Housing and the Ombudsman is going to flare up again.

This would have been unnecessary if there had been some indication of clear policy direction in the government when they decided to get into the Pickering business which has proven to be such a mess, such an expensive albatross hanging around the necks of the government and therefore a cost on the taxpayer.

A waste of money? The hon. member who indicated that the government can’t support this resolution has indicated they don’t want to waste money by simply having a registry which would indicate to the government and others what these lands holdings are.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would do away with the kinds of waste of money that must embarrass the ministry when they think about what has happened in the past. I surely hope that there is a commitment among the individuals in the ministry not to allow that kind of super arrogance to lead them into the sorts of purchase without adequate planning that has gone on in the past.

The government says information about specific pieces of land is always available if you ask for it. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware that opposition spokesmen have asked for the details of the purchase of properties associated with Browndale. For many months, in fact years, the information has been promised, but it has never been forthcoming. The purchases are made with public funds and the information has not been adequately made available to those in the House who are concerned with this matter.

I would hope that such a registry would form one of the basic pieces of information which would lead the government to promulgate a plan for the province of Ontario. This too was associated with John White and I have been very critical of his lack of judgement in the acquisition of properties heretofore. But I do believe that the concept of a plan for Ontario, which is and has been Liberal policy for many years, is something that must be associated with this concept of the registry of land.

[4:15]

It was very interesting to me on the night of the budget, Tuesday night, when the Treasurer introduced former Treasurers in the gallery, when he introduced in the same breath, the Hon. James Allan and the Hon. John White. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, when there was some controversy over the acquisition of the South Cayuga property, reporters had phoned Jim Allan who indicated it was that bad judgement that had resulted in his defeat in the constituency of Haldimand-Norfolk. It might have been part of it but, of course, I am prepared to say that his defeat was as a result not only of the policies of the Liberal Party, but the --

Mr. Shore: But a good candidate.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: -- excellence of the candidate who was representing our party at that time. When this was reported to the former Treasurer, John White, he said: “Well, of course you can’t expect anything else because isn’t Jim Allan 81 years old?” or some gratuitous comment --

Mr. Bullbrook: About as low a blow as he could make.

Mr. Nixon: -- su