31st Parliament, 1st Session

L039 - Thu 3 Nov 1977 / Jeu 3 nov 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.



Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I draw to your attention standing order 86 of the Legislature, which states as follows: “Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of public funds may not be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and may only be proposed by a minister of the Crown.”

This particular rule, of course, has been applied on the constitutional basis of the development of our whole system of government. I understand that yesterday the committee dealing with estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services had to adjourn because it was asked by the Chairman to consider a vote for the expenditure of public funds that had not been so supported by a message from Her Honour. I want you, sir, to look into the matter, and perhaps with the assistance of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) or the Premier (Mr. Davis) we can find what the circumstances involve.

I bring to your attention briefly a statement made by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) whose estimates were under consideration, in which he said, on June 30, in Hansard, on page 222: “At this time I would like to table information on the contents of an order in council which has been passed to create a new vote in the children’s services division to effect the transfer by July 1. Vote 2084” -- that may be a misprint, it should appear as 2804, but that’s another matter -- “for children’s services ...”

I simply draw your attention to his statement, because I question whether or not a new vote can be created that way; although an order in council has been put forward, it does not appear to have the support that would permit the chairman of the standing committee on social development to go forward with the debate, and finally the passage of the amount of money.

What deeply concerns me is that it appears these estimates are based on a budget arrived at even before the election. They are seriously out of date. The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), or any other member of the government, has not brought forward supplementary estimates which may regularize them. We have the distinct impression that the government is spending money which has not been approved by the House, nor has it even been put forward in our estimates.

For that reason, sir, I believe that it is a very serious matter indeed, and I would like your direction to see not just that we regularize it, but that the whole procedure for the expenditure of these moneys is put on a democratic basis for the debate and consideration of our House and its committees.

Mr. Speaker: I might ask the hon. member for St. George is this a related matter?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’m speaking to the same point. I must say that I regret to be critical of the new minister in this area, because I recognize that perhaps he has not had the experience of some of his colleagues; but I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, section 31 of the order passed by this House on June 27, 1977, which states: “Ministers should provide advanced briefing material to their opposition critics before consideration of their latest estimates in a form to be determined by each minister.”

With regard to the Community and Social Services estimates, members of the social development committee received such material from the ministry. Included as well were annotations which indicated supplementaries of $1,111,300 for ministry administration. Vote 2802 has also been altered by the children’s services transfer, $124 million-odd being transferred to that new division. As well, material contained in the briefing book indicates that the ministry received some $3,665,500 in additional funds.

I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, the authority for this. It has been pointed out, or reference has been made to the order in council. I have the order here. It does not do what it was purported to do, and in any event I question the propriety of proceeding by order in council to add additional funds to those contained in the earlier estimates.

In addition, there are major discrepancies between the estimates book and the Community and Social Services briefing book that are not explained by the children’s services transfer. I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, vote 2803, item 3, community programs capital. The briefing book gives one figure while the estimate book gives a different figure, a higher figure than that in the estimate book. Under the same vote and item, the briefing book gives a figure of $21,075,000 for operating expenditures while the estimate book shows a figure of $26,028,800, which represents a $4 million, nearly $5 million, difference.

Mr. Speaker, I view this matter seriously and I’m concerned, and not only in regard to this ministry, whether or not it has become the practice in this province to bring forward increased estimates without the use of supplementary procedures. If that happens, I think we’re in serious trouble, Mr. Speaker, in this House.

Mr. Sargent: What’s $4 million?

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. member for Bellwoods, I think on the basis of what I’ve heard there seems to be cause for the lodging of a grievance. I don’t think we have to get into a debate on it. If the hon. member for Bellwoods has something substantive to add to it before someone wishes to respond on the other side, I will hear him.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, I wish to comment on the issue before us. I was the one who moved the motion to adjourn the committee yesterday because of the impropriety of the presentation of the fourth vote.

Mrs. Campbell: I was the one who refused to go on.

Mr. McClellan: The issue is that some of the money is in other estimates of other ministries which are properly before other committees; and some of the money is new money, which is absolutely nowhere in terms of the proper procedures of this House. This issue is an incredible and largely inexplicable mishmash that needs to get sorted out, hopefully by Monday afternoon so that our committee may resume the very important business of looking at the estimates of children’s services provided by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Lewis: I like that, inexplicable mishmash. Boy, that captures the minister perfectly.

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of Management Board.

Mr. Lewis: I like that.

Mr. Davis: It’s going to be explicable right now.

Mr. Foulds: Not with him it isn’t, not with flannel mouth.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have become scrutable.

Mr. Nixon: I thought you were impregnable.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, it is correct there is a problem with the continuation of the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Lewis: I told you we should have Jim Taylor back. It didn’t happen when he was around.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As hon. members are aware, the new division of children’s services was put together from the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Correctional Services, parts of them, and the Ministry of Health. The amounts relating to those expenditures are still shown in the originally printed estimates in those ministries.

At the time this was done, there was an incorrect assumption made that the precedent in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications two or three years ago, when amounts were reduced by order in council rather than being added, and which was acceptable to the House, that the same procedure would fit for the addition in this instance, of an amount of roughly $4 million, as has been mentioned. It was brought to the attention of the committee and the ministry that that was improper. In the absence, at the moment, of the House leader of the government (Mr. Welch), the proposal which he was going to put forward to the House leaders is as follows.

There are three votes in the Ministry of Community and Social Services estimates. The fourth vote, the one reportedly established by order in council, is the one that is the problem. The government House leader is proposing to have the children’s services estimates debated as part of Community and Social Services expenditures, but have them voted on where they now exist in estimates of the Ministries of the Attorney General, Correctional Services and Health. The order in council then legally transfers the responsibility of the amounts in those groups and items to Community and Social Services to allow them to operate.

Mr. Lewis: I give up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is simple.

Hon. Mr. Auld: However, supplementaries will still be required for the approximately $4 million in extra funds which have now been authorized legally to Community and Social Services by an authorization for commitment; that amount would be voted in the supplementary estimates when we get the supplementary estimates after the original estimates are completed.

The procedure would be that the Ministries of the Attorney General, Correctional Services and Health would then state during their estimates debate that these amounts that were transferred have been approved by the standing committee when it dealt with the Ministry of Community and Social Services estimates.

Mr. Martel: Remember what happened to Bert Lance with stuff like that?

Mr. Sargent: Do you really understand that, Jimmy?

Mr. Makarchuk: If you do, you are the only one.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not really satisfactory.

Mr. Speaker: If I understand the remarks of the Chairman of Management Board correctly, there has been an undertaking that the government House leader will be negotiating with the other House leaders to arrive at an amicable, and what appears to be a realistic, solution to this problem. The remarks have been duly noted. If it seems that the Chair should assist in any way we’ll be happy to do so, but I think, with the undertaking given by the Chairman of Management Board, it is negotiable. They are aware of the problem and it seems that it can be resolved.


Mr. Nixon: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would put it to you, sir, that there’s nothing to be negotiated. There is a well-accepted procedure that must be fulfilled.

If I may say something further, the hon. minister, in an effort to clarify the matter, has done anything but that. As I understand him, and I would like your assistance with this, he indicated that it was agreed that the cabinet could reduce an estimate, and therefore he extrapolated that to consider that there was agreement that they could increase estimates, which of course could not be further from the truth.

Mr. Lewis: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask, sir, that you intrude yourself on the discussion because if I understand the Chairman of Management Board--I have been here 14 years and I never have before; but if on this occasion I understand him, what he is saying, I think, is that the moneys in individual estimates other than those of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, will come before the House and be passed on the understanding that they are applicable elsewhere, that is in the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

I don’t know how we can possibly get into that kind of procedure in this Legislature. It just won’t work. I urge you, sir, to take a look at it.

Mr. Speaker: Whatever negotiations are undertaken, they will be carried out having regard for past procedures and having regard for the standing order. I didn’t want to leave the impression that we would be making exceptions in this case. It will have to be done in accordance with past practice.



Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, salary adjustments for some 14,000 civil servants in management classes have been determined and will be effective on October 1, 1977, or January 1, 1978, or April 1, 1978, depending on the review date of the respective categories. The global increase for the management payroll has been held to six per cent. Within this overall amount, individual increases will range from 3.8 per cent at the highest salary levels to seven per cent at the lower-paid classes. These increases were determined, having due regard to the statements of the Hon. Jean Chretien that salary increases in the third year of the program should be held at six per cent and our announced determination to restrain all increases and expenditures.

Salary adjustments for bargaining unit employees are subject to collective bargaining. We are currently engaged in negotiation, and I expect arbitration, and I will be reporting the results as soon as the process is completed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have two statements to make, but I just want to say before I present them that I understood totally what the Chairman of Management Board was saying in his earlier observations.

Mr. MacDonald: The Premier likely discussed it with him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I just understood it. Unlike the leader of the member’s party, I have no trouble in understanding the Chairman of Management Board.

Mr. Lewis: That’s entirely true, that’s exactly right.

Mr. Foulds: They both speak the same language, it is called flannel mouth.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s been part of the NDP leader’s problem on other matters.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in tabling today the final report of the Destiny Canada Destinée Conference. As members will recall, the conference, held in Toronto in June, was hosted by York University with the support of the government of Ontario.

I think those of us in this House who participated in the conference would agree that it was worthwhile and an initial step in involving the people of Canada in the process of resolving the issues now facing Confederation.

It successfully brought together over 500 Canadians from all walks of life and from all regions of the country, representing the full divergence of views which exist across Canada on these issues. The conference provided a unique opportunity for the participants to consider and discuss both the strengths and strains of our federal system and to reflect on possible solutions.

I personally attended several of the sessions, as did the leaders of the parties opposite or their representatives. What I witnessed, Mr. Speaker, both in the plenary and workshop sessions was a frank, lively and, I believe, healthy debate. As a result, many of the participants reported that the experience significantly affected their attitudes and views. That in itself was an immensely satisfying first step to those of us who encouraged this experiment in having Canadians, and not just their governments, look seriously at what they want their country to be.

I will be sending copies of this report to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premiers of the other provinces, the members of the Task Force on Canadian Unity and all the conference delegates. At the same time, I will be urging them to support various initiatives arising from this conference. Already a number of delegates have expressed interest in helping to organize similar conferences in their region or province. That result, too, is highly encouraging and serves as a useful counter to those who say that Canadians are indifferent to this critical issue.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the president of York University and the chairman of our Advisory Committee on Confederation, Mr. H. I. Macdonald, for his efforts in organizing and chairing the conference. I would also like to thank the member of the advisory committee, the staff at York University, and the Ontario public servants who worked hard to make this conference the success that it was. Above all, I would like to thank the participants from our own province and from every part of Canada who gave freely of their time and energies and who made it the notable event it was. Mixing and talking with many delegates, as I did, gave me a very solid impression of the commitment to their country of many of the people we serve.

Mr. Speaker, the task is obviously just begun and many difficult situations lie ahead; but if the initiative taken at York, along with the more recent conference at the University of Toronto and such national endeavours as the Robarts-Pepin Task Force are any indication and serve as examples for the rest of the country, where this discussion must continue, then I think that at long last Canadians will start to give their elected representatives some directions, which I earnestly hope will lead to a great national reconciliation, which in the months ahead it will be the serious obligation of all of us to secure.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a further statement on the situation in the Sudbury basin.

On October 31, I and members of the government met with the Sudbury committee, as it is called, which included the following people: Doug Frith, chairman of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury; Jim Gordon, mayor of Sudbury; Elmer McVey, president of the Sudbury and District Labour Council; Jack Gignac, president of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers local; Dave Patterson, president of Local 6500, United Steelworkers of America; Brian Seville, president of Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce; and Michael Atkins, president, Laurentian Publishing Company. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the committee represents a wide cross-section of that community.

These people came together earlier this year as a result of concern about the development of their community and are united in their determination to stabilize and enhance its economic future. The committee very ably and forcefully outlined the gravity of the current layoffs facing Sudbury. It also made, in my opinion, a number of useful and informed suggestions which will require the most careful review and attention of this government and of the government of Canada.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, to avoid any possible misunderstanding or disappointment, that there appears to be no quick or easy solution in sight, although I am encouraged by the fact that the company and the union, I believe, are having constructive discussions at this time. At the same time, recognizing the seriousness of the situation facing Sudbury, I was tremendously impressed with the positive and practical approach of this group.

In recognition of the gravity and the complexity of the problems facing Sudbury and the other mining communities, the government will establish a cabinet committee on the economic future of mining communities to consider those short-term and long-term measures which may be appropriate for our government and other measures which may be recommended to the government of Canada.

The committee will be chaired by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller), and will have the following members: the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson). The secretary of the committee will be the Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs, Mr. Tom Campbell. Other members of cabinet will be involved when appropriate as the committee deals with various specialized areas.

The cabinet committee on the economic future of mining communities will have as its first order of business the detailed consideration of the presentation made to the government by the Sudbury committee. It will also assume responsibility on behalf of the government for ongoing discussions with Inco, Falconbridge and other employers in the Sudbury area, with the representatives of the workers in Sudbury and with the regional municipality and the city.

I am also pleased to announce that the government, through the Ministry of Northern Affairs, is prepared to provide financial assistance to the proposed Sudbury Economic Development Task Force, which is being organized locally to promote investment, diversification and expansion in the Sudbury region. Funds will be made available to the task force to carry out the necessary studies which will be required, and to actively promote industrial expansion and diversification. The cabinet committee will work with the task force and will provide fullest co-operation with this Sudbury initiative.

Mr. George Ormerod, the director of the new Ministry of Northern Affairs office in Sudbury, and Mr. Ron Christie, deputy regional director, Ministry of Natural Resources, will be available to provide local contact between the task force and the government.

The scope and attention of the cabinet committee on the economic future of mining communities will go well beyond the current difficult problems in the Sudbury area, although that will be, of course, the first item of business. It will be consulting with mining companies, unions, municipal leaders and other interested groups in order to develop government policies which will assist all of us in dealing with the problems and opportunities common to communities affected by international mining markets.

Mr. Cassidy: They will be doing what you should have done years ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As its work progresses the cabinet committee may have referred to it broader questions relating to problems common to all resource-based communities.

At this time I also wish to respond in a positive way to one proposal which the Sudbury committee emphasized. The government will proceed as soon as possible with the construction of its new Sudbury building. This will represent an investment in excess of $10 million and underlines in the clearest possible terms the continued confidence of the Ontario government in the future of that community.

In relation to the announced layoffs at Inco, the government House leader (Mr. Welch) will, after consultation with the other two House leaders -- and I understand there was some discussion at noon today -- introduce a motion to enable the standing committee on resources development to review this matter.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say there’s no question in my mind that the Sudbury area specifically, and the mining communities of northern Ontario in general, have an extremely important and continuing role to play in the economy of our province. Mining provides the base for jobs and prosperity for hundreds of thousands of our people, both in the north and in related enterprises throughout Ontario. Production from our mines accounts for well over $2.5 billion annually. Apart from the automotive industry, mining accounts for some 25 per cent of our remaining exports. This, of course, is important for the balance of payments and economic well being, not only of this province but for the country as a whole.

It is clear that we must do all in our power to preserve and expand this industry, because it is not just the people of the north who are affected but all of us are as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that if all of us can take an example from the determination and the dedication, and the positive contribution which the Sudbury committee has made to this discussion, then I am sure we can find answers which will ensure the economic future of the mining communities of this province.


Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, at the recent federal-provincial meeting of finance ministers, I proposed a measure to stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending. I suggested that the provinces should reduce their retail sales tax by two points, with the cost underwritten by the federal government.

The federal government reviewed the situation and chose to implement a personal income tax cut of $100 for low- and middle-income taxpayers. Although not quite as immediate or direct in impact as a sales tax cut, this measure will nonetheless have a positive stimulative impact. I was pleased to see that the Minister of Finance incorporated other features I suggested.

The tax cut is temporary and it gets the money into the consumer’s hands quickly, Mr. Speaker. After careful consideration, I have decided to eliminate Ontario’s income tax for persons with low incomes to provide a further boost to consumer spending and confidence in 1978. As a result, tax filers with up to $2,310 taxable income -- $132 Ontario tax payable -- will have their Ontario tax reduced to zero for 1978. This replaces the 1977 reduction of $88 and continues to ensure that for virtually all Ontario taxpayers no Ontario income tax will be payable where no federal income tax is payable.

This important initiative will cost the province $20 million in 1978 and will remove an additional 140,000 people from our tax rolls. This means that almost 700,000 people in Ontario who would otherwise have income tax liability are now free of tax under Ontario’s tax reduction program. As a result of this enriched program, a family of four having an income up to $8,360 will pay no Ontario income tax in 1978.

This significant move will help to strengthen the disposable incomes of those people most affected by rising prices, and I am confident it will encourage consumer spending.




Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier:

In view of the statement of the president of Anaconda Canada Limited that the Etobicoke mill faces being shut down partly because the United States parent is not allowing the Etobicoke plant to compete in US markets, and knowing this pattern to be a common one in Ontario, did the Premier, in his talks with Japanese officials, insist that exports, even in competition with the parent company, be included as a condition of any agreement allowing Japanese firms to locate in Ontario? If so, can he show us any statements he may have made in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I not only did not attach conditions when I had discussions with the business community in Japan, I made a point of avoiding them because one of the situations we run into from time to time when these matters are raised outside Canada is they suggest to us there are already a lot of conditions. I raised with the Japanese business community what I think is the very real potential of joint ventures, or the use of technology with Canadian capital, and the opportunity in terms of our producers here entering the Japanese marketplace; but, Mr. Speaker, I did not lay down a set of conditions to which I think at the outset the average businessman might say, “Fine, you are here seeking investment from us at the same time as you are setting down a lot of ground rules”; which may or may not make sense and which would be inhibiting I think, in their view, to any, shall we say positive type discussions.

While I recognize the Leader of the Opposition has had vast experience in these matters, my limited experience has been that if you are trying to interest somebody in something, if you are saying to them, “We think there is potential here for you, there is an opportunity for you to see some return on investment”; that you don’t create that interest at the same time as you lay out a lot of ground rules and throw up a lot of potentially misunderstood barriers in that process.

So I would have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, no, I didn’t.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the Premier not recognize, and this is something to which the Treasurer has alluded from time to time, that one of the grave problems we have in our manufacturing industry is its lack of export activity, and that one of the main reasons for that is that so many of our manufacturing enterprises are branch plants that are forbidden, as Anaconda was, to export in competition with the mother company? Why continue this same practice which has been so disastrous for us up until recent times?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not continuing any practice. I would think, with respect, that the most logical and intelligent way to go, and the route that these discussions should take -- whether it is Japan, West Germany, the United Kingdom or wherever -- is first to explain the potential that exists here to the possible investors, to give them as much encouragement as is possible, rather than to say, “Yes, we want your investment, but here are the rules.” They may be inhibiting, they may be somewhat different in our province from the other provinces of Canada.

It may be that if they locate in Ontario they will have more problems than if they locate in Quebec, Manitoba or Alberta. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition this is one of the problems of perception that exists outside this country. He understands and I understand the differences in provincial responsibility and federal jurisdiction, but I have news for the Leader of the Opposition, not everybody understands, shall we say the federated nature of this country. Among the things they find confusing are 10 different economic policies.

Mr. Warner: There are only nine, really.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say with respect that while I recognize fully the implications of branch plants in relationship to the question of exports, I also recognize, Mr. Speaker, that this province -- I won’t speak for the country, I’ll leave that to the member -- still needs investment from outside the borders of the province of Ontario.

If we want to continue to grow, and grow in a healthy way in the 1970s and 1980s, with respect there will have to be this kind of investment. I don’t think you attract it by saying, “Yes, we want you, but there are the rules”; which they may or may not totally understand. I think that would be the second or third step down the road.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I want to say that I am shocked by the Premier’s lack of concern when 875 jobs at Anaconda are going down the drain, largely because of the embargo on exports imposed by the American parent. Is the government concerned about the restrictions on exports which are put on branch plants in this country; and what concrete steps is it taking to get those embargoes on exports lifted?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, once again I don’t want to be provocative, but I say with reasonable respect for the hon. member that I did not in fact say I wasn’t concerned about the jobs at Anaconda.

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier did say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to him that if he were any sort of honourable person he might just apologize for suggesting this government did have a lack of concern.

Mr. Warner: What are you going to do?

Mr. Martel: Come on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was replying to a question of the Leader of the Opposition, who asked did I say to the potential Japanese investor, here are a whole set of ground rules, one in particular, at this stage of what will be, I think, long-term discussions. If the hon. member is asking me if I am concerned about Anaconda, the answer to that is yes.

I would say further, Mr. Speaker, that this government is making every effort to see if we can find a solution to the situation at Anaconda. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but because of our interventions in the past few days a further extension on determination of its future has been granted --

Mr. Warner: A snail moves faster.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- subject to the consideration of the union, which is meeting, I believe, this afternoon.

So if the member would update himself he might find out just how interested this government is in Anaconda and that we are making a very genuine effort to see that that company stays in business.

Mr. Makarchuk: Why do you wait until it closes down before you do anything?

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Does the Premier not agree that what he is basically suggesting for us is that we continue going down the road which we have followed these many years, of inviting foreign capital in to serve the domestic economy rather than to export; and does he not recognize that a change in this is absolutely essential? This has to be resolved before we consider such matters as going to free trade in Ontario, which under these circumstances would be absolutely disastrous for us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I may not be totally knowledgeable in matters of the constitution, but any recollection is that the principle or concept of free trade is really a matter that is determined by the government of Canada, and I am one of those who believes it still should be. That view is not shared universally, but I happen to believe it should be.

Mr. S. Smith: What about the speech the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) made about it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Read it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well read it; and read it carefully and read it in its entirety. No one is saying that the province of Ontario has decided to develop its own tariff policy, that we are going to embark upon free trade. I would say with respect that is a matter for the government of Canada. If the Leader of the Opposition is trying to say, in his own inimitable fashion, that our industry should he exporting more, please read more of the speeches that the Treasurer has made, that I have made, that the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) has made -- that’s the very point we have been making for the past year.

Mr. S. Smith: But not in Japan.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition hasn’t the foggiest idea of what was said in Japan.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes I have.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, he doesn’t.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier just told us; he put on no restrictions at all.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: As a matter of property and civil rights in the province, a contract, would the government give some consideration to bringing legislation before this House barring that export condition, which makes Anaconda Canada relatively -- and I think completely, totally -- unmarketable to other consortia forming in this country?

Hon. Mr Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would really have to seek some legal guidance.

Mr. Breaugh: He just gave it to you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I would say to the hon. member for Oshawa, the latest participant in the lists, and I wish him well --

Mr. Breaugh: Watch that kind of comment now.

Mr. Swart: You are hurting his chances.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I think he’s got a lot of ground to catch up.

Mr Lawlor: The member for Oshawa doesn’t have a question properly before the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would just say to the hon. member for Lakeshore --

Mr. Lawlor: The government is going to have to remove the export bar.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and he might just say to the member for Oshawa that I have known the member for Lakeshore a lot longer than he has and he has very excellent legal experience et cetera, and I think if he gave me a constitutional opinion he would probably, if he did it as he used to, say that that really would be, basically a responsibility of the government of Canada.

Mr. Lawlor: No, I am saying it’s the Premier’s.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not a legal opinion.

Mr. Lewis: The government won’t be able to arrange to have the company sold.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: In view of the embarrassment of the Premier’s Tokyo junket, I would ask him if he could tell the House what research he had done by a multi-million dollar corporation like this province on the feasibility of raising funds. In his future search for investment capital is the Premier going to do some more comprehensive study than he’s done at this point?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really didn’t know that that trip was referred to as the Tokyo junket. I find that very intriguing. I would also suggest that the purpose of the trip maybe didn’t come through in the interpretation given by some, although it did in some reports that I read. I really must say that as I read the various reports in the press I’m not sure that those who were with us were always at the same meetings; but that is just an observation.

Mr. Warner: You didn’t want them in on the meetings.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say we weren’t there seeking funds. As a matter of fact, I think if we were there seeking funds for the government or for Hydro, the fact of the matter is the Japanese investment community would be delighted to lend funds. They have great confidence in the future of this province.

Mr. Lewis: You weren’t there paying homage, not at all; you were there to give things away.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Souvenirs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t give a thing away. I will try to explain to the hon. member, in case he goes on any junkets to Mexico or anywhere else to sell his particular products. My advice to him is simply this: I was there to explore, along with a group of Canadian businessmen primarily from Ontario, the potential of their selling in the Japanese market. That was one of the basic purposes. And if he can consult --

Mr. S. Smith: Not nickel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, don’t take it from me, speak to those who were there, they were relatively optimistic at the success they achieved and the potential that exists for them.

Mr. S. Smith: But not nickel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect to the other aspect of the “junket,” yes, it was to say to the Japanese business community that we thought there was potential for joint ventures, in particular the use of some of their technology in this province. I have to tell the hon. member that some of this has already taken place. There’s no export restriction. I would invite the hon. member to come with me to a particular plant in the north part of Mississauga where they are now making ball bearings for just about every nation in the world, using Canadian employees --

Mr. Sargent: What time can you go?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- constituents of the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), I believe -- with Japanese technology. Both firms are receiving a reasonable return on investment, which I think is an ideal example of the kind of thing that can and will be developed.

The member might sell ball bearings in Mexico.

Mr. Sargent: How many Hong Kong suits did you buy? The Minister of Industry and Tourism got a couple.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One.


Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Treasurer: In anticipation of the GATT talks the next year, I understand the federal government has asked the provincial finance ministers to identify strong and weak sectors in their provinces, and to outline the type of help they would need in the event of reduced tariffs. Has Ontario provided the federal government with this information? If so, can we see it? If not, does the government intend to develop and make public a position on which sectors of the Ontario economy require protection and which do not?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, that’s a question that should be addressed to the Minister of Industry and Tourism who is our contact point on these matters.

Mr. Laughren: Contact point?

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll redirect that question, thank you.

Mr. Lewis: To the contact point.

Mr. S. Smith: To the contact, if he’s out of the barber’s chair.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The Leader of the Opposition obviously doesn’t recognize that if a person’s qualified and re-educates himself for a particular position, he then is willing to be accepted by our government.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Who did your hair?

Mr. S. Smith: You have done very well.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously the Leader of the Opposition hasn’t qualified for that yet.

Mr. Lewis: You do a great job with textiles, what about tennis?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In the matter of the GATT negotiations, which are the ones I believe the Leader of the Opposition is referring to --

Mr. Lewis: The Gatineau.


Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- we’ve had constant meetings with our federal representatives in Ottawa in discussing various sectors of the industrial community, and what can we as Canadians rather than just Ontarians -- because they are meeting with all the provinces -- what can we do to strengthen certain areas of our economy and our industrial community, and where are the others that we may very well have to trade off.

Mr. Speaker, I do not at this time intend to get into the full description, because most of the discussions are on a confidential basis, as I believe the members will appreciate. Disclosure at this time would show our hand to the other nations at the GATT negotiating table.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: An article appeared October 29 in The Financial Post, and I quote in part: “Ottawa asked provincial ministers during a recent meeting here to identify strong and weak sectors in their provinces and outline the type of help they would need. According to reports, few specifics were proffered.” Could the minister simply tell us, first of all, whether he has made such a list known to Ottawa? Secondly, does the government possess an industrial strategy for Ontario comparable to the national economic development strategy the Treasurer keeps urging on Ottawa?

Do we in this province have a strategy and would the minister care to share it with the House?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In relationship to the first question on the soft areas of the industrial community: yes, we have had discussions on specific sectors with Ottawa via the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, through the Minister of Finance who will carry Canada’s brief forward to the GATT negotiations. Those areas are still under discussion as they relate not only to Ontario, but as they relate to the province of Quebec and the other provinces in this country. Ontario is just part of the input, but I am sure the significance of the Ontario input will be taken into consideration when drawing the final position which Canada will likely take at those negotiations.

As far as the second portion of the hon. member’s question is concerned, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) asked a question the other night in estimates, regarding the sector analysis we have been making on the various industries in Ontario. It is the background information, and the further analyses being made by the industrial communities relating to the various sectors that is being used in our presentation and our conclusions in relationship to our discussions with Ottawa on the GATT negotiations.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What warning or advance notice does the Ontario government intend to give to those industries considered soft and which it is prepared to treat as the sacrificial victims on the altar of free trade in the GATT negotiations, so that they can begin to prepare now for the adjustment --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No leadership speeches, that’s not fair.

Mr. Cassidy: -- or for the movement into other industrial activities that is inevitably their lot under the government’s policies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just because of speeches like that, the member will never make it.

An hon. member: I am willing to bet money.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He is running fourth in a three-man race.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, of course it is not our policy. Very clearly, at this time we are involved in preliminary discussions in relationship to positions Canada might take. I have no understanding where we’ll eventually end up in the final GATT negotiations or whether we’ll be a signing partner in those negotiations. But I can say to the hon. member that the federal government and the government of this province, and the governments of the other provinces, indeed governments around the world, realize that if there are to be some adjustments in tariffs relating to specific portions of industries in various countries, there will have to be a very general period of adjustment. I think the member will remember that in our estimates this morning we were talking about the period of time and that it’s likely to take from the early 1980s until the early 1990s before that adjustment period comes to conclusion.

Mr. Horner from the federal government, and Mr. Chretien prior to him, said that the Canadian government will in time -- after complete discussion by the provinces -- bring forward policies for adjustments that will be made to those sectors that could be poorly affected by some of the downward trends in tariffs in the world.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you go visit some?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Why doesn’t the hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere resign?

Mr. S. Smith: As a final supplementary to the minister, does he share the rather sanguine point of view of the Treasurer that freer trade is inevitable, that it’s just a matter of adjusting to it; and does he share my concern that Ontario does not seem to have been raising its voice in favour of protecting Ontario’s labour-intensive industries against free trade? We’re in the hands of rather inveterate free traders negotiating on the part of the federal government; why has Ontario not stood up for protection of Ontario’s industries?

Mr. Lewis: Right, why don’t you?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the Leader of the Opposition has not been following the situation very closely. If I may go back to the fact that in 1974 it was this province that raised the first voice relating to the textile industries and the troubles they were in. That’s a labour-intensive industry to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Nixon: When you were importing grape juice.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It was this province that persuaded the federal government, along with our colleagues in Manitoba and Quebec, that we should put quotas on to protect that industry. Those quotas are now in place.

Mr. S. Smith: Why change now?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Horner and Mr. Chretien previously said that they would remain in place, that is at the 1975 level.

It could very well be that in the GATT negotiations textiles, on a world basis, will be excluded from that agreement. It has been clearly said at GATT that there would be areas of the economy or industrial sectors that will not come under it, and that each country will then be left to do its negotiating with whatever country is going to supply it on a quota basis or whatever it might be.

Mr. S. Smith: But are we pressing for that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have been pressing in that field, in the leather goods field and in several others. Ontario has been bringing the federal government along in designing some policies. I make no apologies for it. There are some in the member’s party who have raised the fact --

Mr. S. Smith: Did the Premier hear that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- that when we reduce the amount of imports what we’re doing in reality is raising the retail prices, because Canadian goods are higher in price.

Mr. S. Smith: You’ve had something to do with it then.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There are times when we have to suffer some of the consequences --

Mr. Nixon: Oh, the province has got something to do with it after all?

Mr. S. Smith: It is a federal matter, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- but if we’re to have employment we’re likely going to have to restrict some of the cheaper, or less expensive imports into this country. Frankly, we’ll continue to push to protect the labour-intensive industries.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is not the Treasurer’s view.

Mr. S. Smith: This is news to you is it, Darcy?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: May I conclude with the remark that the Treasurer -- if you read his remarks over the last period of time -- and I have an understanding and agreement.

Mr. Lewis: He is moderating, he is changing his views.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He’s absolutely correct that in this day and age in this world there is a strong movement towards freer trade --

Mr. Foulds: He is running for leadership; he and John Rhodes.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- and it’s a matter of how quickly some people would like us to get to the free trade position.

Mr. Speaker: We don’t need a speech; just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am answering the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We’ve spent 23 minutes on the first two questions.

Mr. Lewis: He is defending the Treasurer. Have a little pity, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’m not only defending the Treasurer but also defending the position of Ontario and Canada in the negotiations at GATT. We are as compassionate about the industries of this country and this province as any political group, including the member’s.

Mr. Lewis: It is Darcy’s shift to the people, it’s just like switching to radicalism. Darcy is in his dotage; and as the twilight years advance, Darcy moves with them.


Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Premier, if I may. Now, almost 15 years after he was first requested, the Premier has set up a cabinet committee on the future of the mining communities in northern Ontario. Would he be prepared to ask the committee, as one of its first undertakings, to implement the recommendations of his government’s Design for Development: Northeastern Ontario, which he has allowed to lie dormant for fully five years?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think in fairness, and the leader of that party always endeavours to be fair --

Mr. Lewis: To be fair? Of course, thank you.

Mr. Swart: He succeeds.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say he endeavours to be fair; some of his listeners say he endeavours to be fair. I would say to him that we have, in fact, made some moves with respect to the Design for Development: Northeastern Ontario. I fully acknowledge it’s one thing to develop a conceptual plan and to have a design, it is not as easy to bring about the completion or the practical application of that.

Mr. Conway: That’s what they said in Amherstburg.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is there some supplementary?

This government, I think, has demonstrated very conclusively, through the efforts we’ve been making in northeastern and in northern Ontario, that we intend to do everything we can to see to its economical and social development.

Mr. Martel: What is that?

Mr. Lewis: Tell us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say we have done a lot more and we haven’t been nearly as negative, we haven’t thrown up nearly as many fictitious roadblocks, as some members opposite when they talk about the north.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary. Does the Premier realize that his statement today was entirely bankrupt of any new initiative, save building on the pilings that are already there in Sudbury. This new building isn’t a new announcement. The statement is entirely bankrupt of any new initiative, and why doesn’t he implement some of the specific recommendations on secondary manufacturing and associated industries for the Sudbury basin which he’s had hanging around for years?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it’s really a question of having recommendations hanging around for years. It’s a question of having a fairly logical plan that needs a fair amount of understanding and a fair amount of assistance in its practical application.

Mr. Warner: You don’t intend to do anything --

Mr. Martel: After 34 years.

Mr. Lewis: -- while people are laid off.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, no one has talked more than I have -- including the Minister of Industry and Tourism, the Treasurer or anyone else -- about the need and the desirability for secondary industry in northeastern and northern Ontario.

Mr. Martel: Don’t talk, do something about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have developed policies that make it more practical, but I cannot say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that we as a government alone can succeed in this particular operation.

Mr. Foulds: Name one.

Mr. Lewis: You can do something -- anything.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If he wants to belittle -- and I say this to him very genuinely -- if he wants to belittle the commitment that I gave today with respect to the capital investment by this province in the future of Sudbury --

Mr. Lewis: No, I don’t belittle it. That’s not enough, I welcome it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I suggest he go to Sudbury this weekend and say, “We don’t think the government should build that building.” I challenge him to go up there and say that to them.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, nonsense I You have already committed yourself to do it; it’s an old project.

Mr. Foulds: It is a Band-Aid, and you know it.


Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River with a supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let the leader of the NDP go up and tell them that.

Mr. Martel: That doesn’t sell. Why doesn’t the Premier come with me?

An hon. member: Sit down, Elie.


Mr. Speaker: Order, order. It’s your question period and you are wasting it. We haven’t completed three questions yet and we have used 27 minutes of question period. Now if you want to fritter away the time, let it be on your heads, not mine.

The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: The Premier’s statement dealt pretty well exclusively with mining communities. Does the study, which is so late in coming, envisage dealing with one-resource-industry towns across northern Ontario as well, particularly including the communities that are based on timber extraction, pulp and paper?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I said in my statement, the priority obviously at this moment is the Sudbury basin. Quite obviously not just this committee, but the government -- and the hon. member is as aware of it, I hope, as anyone in this House -- has endeavoured on an ongoing basis to stimulate growth and development of other resources in the northern part of the province of Ontario.

On occasion some members of this House have appeared to be somewhat negative and almost inhibiting of the possibility and potential of some of those developments, if memory serves me correctly. Certainly we intend to consider these other aspects of the problem, including the pulp and paper industry, without any question.

Mr. Mackenzie: When? In 1985?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You should read some of the things you have said over the years.

Mr. Martel: That’s right. And if the Premier had followed them, we might be somewhere today. He has done nothing except sell out the north.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Sudbury East allow the member for Nickel Belt to put his question?

Mr. Martel: You might say the same thing to the Premier.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier aware that his response to the Sudbury committee will simply absorb some of the already high unemployment rate in the building trades in the Sudbury district and, further, does his announcement mean he now has accepted the inevitability of the layoff and he can do nothing to prevent it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought I made it very clear in my statement that I was bringing the members as up to date as I could with respect to the discussions we had with the Sudbury committee. As I told Mr. Frith I would, I endeavoured in my statement to provide our reaction to it as soon as I could.

I must remind the hon. member, in case he didn’t get the same sense in his own constituency, that one of the priorities they were looking to us for -- if that is grammatically correct -- was some decision on the particular building that I just mentioned. Maybe the hon. member doesn’t think it’s a priority --

Mr. Laughren: Of course. Don’t be stupid. Don’t be dense. No one is saying the building should not be built. We are asking why that is all you are doing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the hon. member, we are dealing with those matters that have been brought to us and we are reacting in a positive, constructive way.

Mr. Warner: Oh, yeah. You’re positive!

Hon Mr. Davis: Of course it doesn’t relate as to the layoff itself. I said that in the statement. I said that half a dozen times in this House.

Mr. Warner: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What we are looking for and will continue to look for is a way to look after the future of the economy of that area, to demonstrate the confidence of this government in that part of the province, and we think this is a very tangible expression of that confidence. This is what the Sudbury committee brought to us; it was first on their list of priorities.

Mr. Lewis: It was not, as a matter of fact.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am very disappointed that the hon. member doesn’t recognize this initiative from his own fellow workers, because the union was there and this was what they wanted as well; and we are saying today that we are doing it.


Hon. Mr. Davis: When he gets this information back home, he may find that the union leadership also supports this particular initiative.

Mr. Lewis: Well, of course. Quit playing games.

Mr. Speaker: We’ve had sufficient supplementaries. The hon. member for Scarborough West with a new question.

Mr. Martel: Just one supplementary question.

Mr. Kerrio: No, it’s not your turn.

Mr. Martel: What kind of game are you playing.


Mr. Lewis: A further question of the Premier, if I may: Within the last fortnight or so, have either the Premier or any of his cabinet colleagues discussed the future of Falconbridge with Falconbridge in the Sudbury basin?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t speak for any of my colleagues; I have not discussed Falconbridge in the last 10 days or two weeks. I have been really very busily pursuing Inco. I haven’t talked to Falconbridge.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier, phrasing it carefully, since there are a number of disquieting rumours now in the Sudbury area and elsewhere about Falconbridge’s intentions in the year 1978, would it be possible for him to satisfy himself and perhaps make a statement to the House and to the community as to what Falconbridge’s specific economic plans are in the immediate future?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, either I shall or the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) will endeavour to get as much information as we can that is available to us and we are more than prepared to share it with the members of the House.


Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing. Given the fact that the Ontario Home Renewal Plan has been successful in upgrading the housing stock in communities and has created employment for small businesses who do the work in repairing those homes, does the minister feel that the ministry’s decision not to give further allocation of funds under the plan during this fiscal year should be reversed, and that further allocations be given pursuant to the formula devised by his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the funding that was available for that particular program as approved in the estimates has been totally disbursed to the various communities. The success of the program is quite evident, and I agree with the hon. member. There just are no more funds, and far be it from me, sir, to spend any funds from my estimates that haven’t been approved by this House.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, supplementary: In view of the fact that the amount for the Ontario Home Renewal Program voted for in estimates on June 29, 1977, was $20 million, and in view of the fact that the amount advanced by the Housing ministry is $16,185,921.28 -- and those are the minister’s figures obtained from his ministry as of yesterday afternoon -- doesn’t he feel that he should at least allow the municipalities the full amount apportioned, pursuant to the estimate voted on, instead of short-changing them by $4 million? If not, where is the $4 million going?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should be aware of the fact that the figure he has is the amount of money that has already been disbursed to the various municipalities under the program, but that the $4 million he is talking about is money that will have to be disbursed before the end of the fiscal year. It is probably already committed to municipalities. We have advanced that amount of money, but the balance of the money has already been requested and will be allocated. The total $20 million will be spent. I can assure the hon. member we could have spent a lot more of it if we had had it in our estimates.

Mr. Makarchuk: A supplementary to the same minister: In view of the fact that the OHRP program is one of the most useful employment projects the government has in the province of Ontario at this time -- it is useful in terms of employment and it is useful in terms of assistance to small business -- would the minister consider going to the Treasury Board and trying to obtain added funds to continue the employment in the winter months?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, there will be various requests made by my ministry to the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) and the members of that board. I will have to await their decision.

I just wanted to point out to the hon. member that I appreciate his and other members’ comments on this program, because it has been very successful. It has done the two things that you suggested, but it has done one more. It has also upgraded the homes for people who otherwise could not have afforded it.

I would like to clarify one point to the hon. member for Nipissing. When I mentioned the expenditure of the $20 million, $2 million of that had been allocated under the Ontario Home Renewal Plan rental program. So it was $18 million to the residential program -- individual homes -- and $2 million allocated under the rental portion of that program.

Mr. Dukszta: A question to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Point of privilege.

Mr. Foulds: Make it after the question period.

Mr. Speaker: Point of privilege?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of privilege relating to a story that appeared in this morning’s Toronto Globe and Mail --

An hon. member: Get down on your knees and do it.

Mr. Lewis: Would you like us to set aside a special portion of every day for you to apologize?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I don’t see any particular emergency. That can be brought up immediately after question period.


Mr. Dukszta: A question to the Minister of Health: In light of the fact that all Ontario psychiatric hospitals are at present engaged in an exercise of cutting six per cent from their 1978-79 budgets, a cutback of millions of dollars, resulting in the further elimination of 60 positions from the Queen Street Mental Health Centre in addition to the 170 positions that have been eliminated since 1974, and the further elimination of 102 positions from the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital in addition to the 60 layoffs which occurred in 1976, would the minister please tell the House why he is further contributing to the province’s unemployment problem and reducing the level of health care in Ontario’s psychiatric hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member, unfortunately, through whatever source, is misinformed with his figures.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, can the minister then correct me on two counts: 1. whether my figures are incorrect; 2. whether he is proposing to introduce the cuts and reduce the staff positions in both hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in reviewing all aspects of the operation of the ministry, I’ve indicated to my staff and I think I have indicated to staff of the various institutions as I’ve gone around the province, that the one area in particular, let’s say two areas which have the highest priority for me are the psychiatric programs and ambulance services.

While, as the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) indicated in his statement in September, there will be a reduction in the over-all size of the civil service, the government service, it will be mainly through attrition. All I can tell you is that I’m looking at every program of my ministry between now and going into the next fiscal year, but those two areas have a very high, in fact, the highest priority.

Now let me say that the director of the branch has met with the administrators of all the hospitals on a number of occasions over the past few months as we’ve been working towards the next budget for the ministry. There have been a number of planning exercises -- sort of, if you will, “what if” exercises. Out of that may have come some of the figures which you’ve quoted today. They are inaccurate. They do not reflect any of my plans.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, is --

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary. The hon. member for --

Mr. Lewis: Hamilton West it is.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Could the minister, when he is checking these figures, check into the situation at Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital and tell us whether it is a fact that of 12 new psychiatric nursing assistants hired in August, five were given part-time contracts till March 1978 and six are being laid off at the end of November?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t think that’s a supplementary to the original question.

Mr. S. Smith: I’m sorry. I thought it was a matter of similar nature and he was speaking on Lakeshore as well.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be glad to look into that. That may well be and it depends what they were hired for, whether it was a particular program of a short duration or whatever. With respect to the first part of your question, I don’t have to check into the other figures; I know that they do not, as I said, reflect my plans.

Mr. Lewis: You are going to get the rules thrown at you now, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, under provisions of standing order number 42(b), I wish to raise a matter of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I have already asked you to refrain from raising it until after the question period. You could have done it before the question period had you chosen to do so.


Mr. Speaker: You can’t question it. You can challenge it if you want, but you can’t debate it.

Mr. Lewis: He is what you call an erudite masochist, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the last question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We’ve had enough supplementaries. We’ve only had five questions in 40 minutes of question period.


Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Lewis: Keith, ask him if he has a point of privilege.

Mr. Gregory: I might ask the minister the same thing.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, I have, and a legal opinion to back it up too.

Mr. Riddell: Get on with your question.

Mr. Swart: Is this collusion?

Mr. Gregory: In view of the announcement that was made several days ago by a Dr. Crowcroft who is the director of the West End Creche in Mississauga that this branch would be closed due to lack of funds, and in view of the statement by him that this branch has proved successful and is servicing 24 children and that the money saved from this project will be spent in expanding the Euclid Avenue offices of that organization, I would like to ask the minister if he would consider interceding in this matter to retain this very valuable branch in Mississauga.

Hon. Mr. Norton: One way or the other I was bound to get on my feet before the end of the question period.

Mr. Conway: The question is, can you stay on your feet.

Hon. Mr. Norton: According to the information I have at this time, and I can assure the member that I have been pursuing this matter, the organization in question first contacted my ministry some six months ago with a request for funds to expand its operation at the site in Mississauga. They were advised at that time that we did not have funds for expansion of their program. We heard nothing further from them until very recently when we heard the announcement that they intended to close.

I have asked my staff to contact Dr. Crowcroft, and I understand they have been in contact with him to discuss with him steps that might be taken in order to maintain the operation in Mississauga. I would also point out that there appears from some comments attributed to members of the staff to be some feeling on the part of the staff that even with present levels of funding the operation could continue in that location. I hope to have further information shortly.

Mr. Gregory: Supplementary: If all else fails, would the minister consider recommending funds be made available to continue this operation?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure that additional funds are required in this situation because the organization is at present being funded at more than one site. The indications I have, at least at this point, are that the decision to bring the Mississauga operation to an end is not entirely one based on the level of funding but rather related more to matters of the opinion of certain persons that it ought to be expanded or discontinued at that site.

If the Mississauga operation is terminated, certainly I would see what could be done in order perhaps to reallocate existing funds in order to maintain that operation.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: May I ask the minister if he would review the total operation of the agency? If there are needs that need to be met in other locations -- and I refer particularly to the office on Euclid which happens to be in the great riding of Bellwoods -- would he take into account the total needs of the operation and not solely the needs of the Mississauga facility?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think it is almost self- evident that to assess the situation at Mississauga, since it is a related operation, would require a look at the total operation.

Mr. Lewis: If you kept the creche open, they might not have to impose a curfew.


Hon. J. A. Taylor: In response to the Leader of the Opposition on Thursday, October 27, and again in answer to the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) on Monday, October 31, I said I would determine whether a contract between Ontario Hydro and Gulf Minerals Limited received approval by order in council. I also said I would pursue the matter of tabling that contract in this House.

Mr. McClellan: If there was a contract.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: That contract did not receive approval by order in council. However, I am pleased to table a copy of that contract in its entirety.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary on that, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Does the minister not regard the last paragraph of Mr. Taylor’s letter to him regarding the disclosure of this contract to be offensive and not in the public interest? Has he indicated to him that the government objects to that kind of gratuitous comment on what should and should not be a matter of public knowledge?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I received that letter today and I haven’t replied as yet to that letter.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, well, I hope the minister will table the reply.


Mr. S. Smith: I understood the minister to say that this contract did not have the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Can he explain therefore why the negotiated contract between Denison and Hydro is before cabinet for approval.

An hon. member: Is it?

Mr. S. Smith: If the present one needs approval, why didn’t this one require approval as well?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I didn’t remember saying that the present contracts were before cabinet for approval. The contract has not been finally negotiated. But if you are asking me whether I anticipate it will go to cabinet, the answer to that would be yes.

Mr. S. Smith: Why wasn’t this one?

An hon. member: That was the question.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, does the Leader of the Opposition have another question?

Mr. S. Smith: The question is: If you anticipate the present one will require cabinet approval, why didn’t this document have cabinet approval?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that Ontario Hydro has its own opinion that the order in council authorizing the construction of certain works and providing for the maintenance of those, plus the provisions of the Power Commission Act, gave it authority to execute that contract.

Mr. Conway: Is Hydro running the government?

Mr. S. Smith: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it follows directly with your indulgence --

Mr. Foulds: That’s five supplementaries.

Mr. S. Smith: Do you feel we shouldn’t ask this one? You really think we shouldn’t?

Mr. Foulds: You had 23 minutes at the beginning.

Mr. Nixon: We just presented it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If you have a very brief supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a very brief one. If in fact Hydro is of the opinion that this contract which you have given us did not require cabinet approval, has Hydro changed its opinion with regard to the one that is at present before cabinet or does cabinet simply recognize that it should have exercised its right to approve on the previous contract but failed to do so?


Mr. Lewis: They are an arrogant bunch, these people.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ignore the interjections. You are wasting time.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: May I say, Mr. Speaker, it is my determination that the current contract that has not been finalized yet go to cabinet.


Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Monday the member for Scarborough West asked me to confirm if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has increased its complement in Ontario recently and to inform the House what duties the additional officers are performing.

I have been advised that there are now 609 RCMP officers located in Toronto -- I think his question was Ontario; I have these figures for “located in Toronto” -- plus a support staff of 117. This brings the total to 726 people. In 1972, there were 426 RCMP officers plus a support staff of 71, for a total of 497. That is an increase of 229 since 1972.

These additional officers are required because of an increase in drug activities, commercial crime, customs and excise, immigration and passport abuses, and organized crime.

The member for Kitchener asked me to outline the changes in the force which have resulted from differing responsibilities in matters of immigration and drug control. As I have indicated, there has been an increase in the number of illegal immigrants entering Canada and in cases of misuse of passport and other documents. The RCMP, in its role as the enforcement arm of the Department of Immigration, has therefore assigned more officers to this area.

Of course, the need for drug enforcement has increased dramatically since the 1960s. In an effort to suppress the amount of drugs available in Canada, the major thrust of the RCMP is against those who import large quantities of drugs on a continuing basis.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the Solicitor General able to inform us as to which of those particular areas -- drugs, immigration, as well as the matters of commercial crime and customs -- have had the increases or were those figures breaking down the total increase not otherwise available?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t have the breakdown of where they allocated them. I imagine it varies from time to time and probably there is some overlapping in the duties of the various officers.

Mr. Speaker, I gave only one answer, but I’ll be pleased to hold the answer to the other question until tomorrow.


Mr. Epp: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. In view of the fact that her ministry has computerized data which gives a block-by-block impact of market value assessment on municipalities in Ontario, I wonder whether the minister could tell the House how long this data has been available to her ministry? If it was available prior to the Blair commission doing its studies across the province, why wasn’t this information made available to the municipalities so that they could have made more intelligent and more rational replies to the commission when it toured Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Assessment information is listed on our computing services. As to its availability in the matter in which the member questioned, we have from time to time made some of this information available. It is available through the assessment divisions to all municipalities for their general use. I’m not at all clear from his question how he would have this applied in this present situation.

Mr. Epp: Supplementary: I may just preface it to say that there are municipalities that have the information.

Mr. Speaker: Don’t preface it at all. Ask your question please.

Mr. Epp: In light of the fact that one municipality was told that it had to come down to Toronto or had to come into the ministry to copy it, without the ministry making it available or sending it out to them, would the ministry consent to send out this information to all the municipalities in Ontario so that some of them from far-reaching areas in Ontario wouldn’t have to come to Toronto to copy it out at the ministry and thereby treat all the municipalities equally in the province?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Conway: Centralized autocracy.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I am not aware of the individual negotiations between municipalities and members of my staff.

Mr. Warner: Why not?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: But I know we have made particular assessment information available to regions and to particular groups such as boards of education which have applied.

Mr. Wildman: You aren’t aware of your ministry.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I am not aware that they had to come to Toronto to do some kind of a hand-copying process. I’ll look into it for the member.


Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the urgency of the health problems of workers at the greater Red Lake area, the evidence of increased lung cancer as a result of arsenic exposure, will the minister tell this House why she has taken so long to respond to requests by the United Steelworkers Union for a meeting to discuss a matter of such importance? Further, would the minister indicate whether she would include the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) in such a meeting due to the evidence of widespread arsenic contamination in the community?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Since receiving the request from Mr. Stewart Cooke, we have been collating all of the information available through several ministries on investigation and testing which has been done in that area. We have also examined the available mortality statistics to determine whether the numbers which were suggested as large numbers of arsenic-related malignancy deaths were in fact valid. From my early perusal of this, I find there is very little to relate the existence of arsenic to the kinds of deaths which these individuals suffered.

However, I would be pleased to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House that I think the meeting with Mr. Cooke has been arranged for the beginning of next week. I would hope that by that time we shall have all the information for them so that we can discuss it freely with them.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the problem appears to be a serious one and that there is substantial evidence that contamination is widespread throughout the community -- and it’s very difficult to separate the work place from the community in this case because of the size of the community and how close the industrial operation is -- would the minister conduct an environmental assessment study which would include human beings as well as vegetation, soil and the work place, and include the Ministry of Health in any such study?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have certainly not in any way attempted to separate the invasion of the work place with arsenic or the invasion of the environment, and indeed it’s my understanding that representation from the Ministry of the Environment will be present at the time that we have the meeting with Mr. Cooke. The members of the occupational health branch will also be there, because they, in fact, do all of the testing and consulting for both the Ministry of the Environment, as well as for the Ministry of Labour; therefore their presence is automatic.


Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour: Could the minister inform us, in view of the concerns of the workers in Bendix London, whether she has been notified of any layoffs, the duration of them, and if there are indications of any further layoffs there?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the information which we have received from that company in London states that they did lay off approximately 87 of their slightly-more-than 410 workers on October 11, that a further 40, I think, were laid off on Monday or Tuesday of this week, and that the extent of the layoff is specifically for three months. There are no further layoffs contemplated.

Mr. Swart: They are in good shape, aren’t they?

Mr. Lewis: It never ends.


Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment: Since the minister indicated in today’s Globe and Mail that the presence of chloroform in drinking water in Ontario is a problem, how widespread and/or serious is the problem, and is the situation a present or potential human health hazard?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Drinking too much water, Murray.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the report in that article refers to a number of municipalities where there are high readings of chloroform. Chlorination is still the best possible treatment we know of today for drinking water. However, at the present time, or very shortly, we will undergo experiments at the Belleville plant using the ozone method -- a combination of ozone and chlorination.

As far as the future is concerned, as I say, we will continue our research. There are particular problems in some of the municipalities that were named in the article. Belleville is one of them and therefore it is logical that our research will start there and continue eventually into other types of treatment plants in the province.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the toxic chemicals are a result of organic material being deposited upstream by various residential areas or urban areas, is the minister prepared to improve those treatment centres upstream to ensure that organic material is not dumped into the rivers?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That’s part of our overall program as far as municipal effluent or industrial effluent is concerned -- to make sure that as little as possible of that goes into the streams which are a source of drinking water or drinking water supply.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Could the minister answer as to whether or not the current situation is a present or potential health hazard?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It’s not a health hazard, as the article says, Mr. Speaker. Our director of laboratory research has indicated that it is not now a health hazard. We will continue research into improving our method of treatment. I suppose it could be, if we ignored it.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: New question.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the hon. member for Quinte.

Mr. Foulds: Why four on that and only one on the previous question?

Mr. O’Neil: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for having met with both myself and --

Mr. Speaker: We have 30 seconds.

Mr. O’Neil: -- the members of the Belleville Public Utilities. Could he tell me when this pilot project is to begin in the city of Belleville?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It will be pretty well up to the city of Belleville. We have advised the city of funding that we’re prepared to give them.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer that the Minister of Health has given to my question. I request permission to debate this at 10:30 tonight.

Mr. Speaker: You may do so under standing order 28.



Hon. Mr. Norton: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, there is a report in this morning’s Globe and Mail, attributing to the hon. member for Bellwoods --

Mr. Reid: Have you read the article this time?

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- with support from the hon. member for St. George of allegations that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has been misappropriating federal funds.

This is of particular concern because section 290 and section 292 of the Criminal Code of Canada create --

Mr. Germa: Shame.

Mr. Swart: There is some truth in it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- the offence of the misappropriation of money.

Mr. Breaugh: Guilty or not guilty?

Mr. Foulds: Just plead no contest.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Although I understand, if this is correct the original allegation was made in a committee of this Legislature, I’m sure it was never the intention of the privileges of this House --

Mr. Swart: Ask the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) how he liked it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- to protect a member so that he or she might allege that a criminal offence had been committed either by another member of this House or by public servants of this province.

I explained to the hon. members at the time that this matter arose that there might well have been some disagreement about interpretation or priorities. There may have been some misunderstanding on the parts of the members opposite of the commitments that this government has to the mentally retarded in this province. But there is absolutely no grounds for making an allegation of the commission of a criminal offence.

Mr. Foulds: There is no commitment at all.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you take this under consideration. I feel that I and the members of the ministry are entitled either to a retraction or an apology.

Mr. Peterson: Sue.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I was asked if I supported the principle of the statements referring to the funding. I deliberately stated that I did not support the language that had been used but I did support the philosophy that the money should have been used for community development and not for the institutions.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Why?

Mrs. Campbell: To that extent, I certainly supported what was said, but not the language. Thank you.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what we were told at the time. That’s what they promised at the time.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the standing order 42(b) says that whenever a matter of privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration immediately. I point out to you that we had an extensive debate on this issue yesterday afternoon in estimates and no suggestion of privilege was raised at that time. I will say that I had no intention of imputing criminal behaviour to this most delicate flower of a minister.

Mr. Foulds: You should have.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You phoney.

Mr. Martel: Don’t be so sanctimonious.

Mr. McClellan: I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to read the record of the standing estimates committee of yesterday before you make your ruling and your ruling shall prevail.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to remind the hon. members, including the hon. minister who raised the point of privilege, that it’s not incumbent upon the Chair to take any action at all. The purpose of rising for a point of privilege is to alert the House to something that a member feels or finds offensive. There are provisions in standing orders, if the member who feels offended wants to pursue it further. It’s not the responsibility of the Chair to do anything further than to listen to the point of privilege.

Mr. Stong: What is the minister going to do?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It’s not only me, but people who haven’t a chance to speak in the House have been included in this allegation.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s absolutely terrible.



Mr. Gaunt from the standing general government committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs he granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs

Ministry administration program ....... $4,303,000

Finance program ........................... 373,940,000

Economic policy program ................... 4,778,000

Intergovernmental affairs program ..... 1,141,000

Local government affairs program .... 34,390,000

Central statistical services program ..... 1,812,000


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

Your committee recommends that it agrees in principle to the recommendations of the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature regarding the legislative library, and that while it recognizes the restraint program in effect at this time, it is the unanimous recommendation of the committee that Mr. Speaker should proceed forthwith to appoint an administrative librarian to the legislative library in accordance with the recommendations of the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature as the initial step in phasing in the recommendations.



Hon. Mr. Welch moved that notwithstanding the previous order, this House will sit on Wednesday next the usual afternoon hours of 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and on Thursday, November 10, will meet at 10 a.m. and adjourn at 2 p.m., when it will stand adjourned until Monday, November 14.

Motion agreed to.



Hon. Mrs. Scrivener moved first reading of Bill 91, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: The purpose of this bill is to defer for one year the change of assessed values as at present contained in the assessment rolls of the municipalities. This will accommodate the study of the recommendations of the Blair commission with respect to municipal tax reform. It will also allow time to review completely the impact of the commission’s recommendations on the tax base of each municipality and to monitor the effect of market value assessment and tax reforms on each class of property owner. I am sure the hon. members are well aware of the far-reaching implications of the reform proposed by Mr. Blair. It is necessary, therefore, to review carefully all the submissions made to the commission and those made directly to myself or the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in order to ensure that the new tax measures are fair, equitable and do not impose a hardship on any particular group or property owner.


Mr. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 92, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to make it a requirement that a motor vehicle registered in Ontario be insured under a motor vehicle liability policy. The bill requires that every owner provide proof of insurance protection at the time a motor vehicle permit is issued or validated.


Mr. O’Neil moved first reading of Bill 93, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to increase the time for notice to be terminated where the employer plans to terminate the employment of 50 or more employees within a short period of time.

The bill also requires the employer, when requested, to confer with the minister and any trade unions that represent the employees to discuss alternative methods of reducing the number of terminations.




Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker: I am delighted that the luck of the draw, so to speak, has entitled me to present before this House a resolution dealing with --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will you move the resolution standing in your name, please?

Mr. S. Smith moved private member’s motion No. 7:

Resolution: That, in addition to the authority granted to the standing procedural affairs committee for this parliament by resolution of the assembly dated June 28, 1977, the committee have authority to review the operation of any board, agency or commission to which the government of Ontario appoints all or some of the members with a view to eliminating redundancy and overlapping. And that the committee may recommend upon completion of a review that a board, agency or commission be terminated where, (a) the costs of operating the board, agency or commission no longer justify the service being provided to the public; (b) the amalgamation of the board, agency or commission with one or more existing boards, agencies or commissions would increase administrative effectiveness; (c) the work of the board, agency or commission could be better performed by another government organization; (d) the board, agency or commission no longer serves the public interest. And that the committee shall establish a review schedule whereby the operations of every board, agency or commission would be examined at least once in the next four years. But that the fact that a board, agency or commission is scheduled for review shall not prevent the committee from reviewing it at any time and the committee considers appropriate. And that the committee shall be empowered to send for persons, papers and things pursuant to section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for correcting the procedure. As I say, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present before this House a resolution which in my opinion will at least begin the long process of trimming the excessive amount of government procedure and regulation which we as Ontarians and, frankly, as Canadians -- or anybody in the western world, for that matter -- have been subjected to over the years.

My remarks this afternoon will be relatively brief. I believe the motion we are now debating is clear in purpose and self-explanatory in terms of implementation.

I recognize that the idea embodied in the motion is not a new one, but it is definitely one whose time has come. Let me assure hon. members that I am more than willing to consider additions to this resolution as long as we end up with an effective mechanism which not only can monitor all boards, agencies and commissions but can also recommend to the Legislature the abolition of those that are no longer serving a useful purpose.


I believe that members might find it helpful if I provided some background to the concept of a “sunset” law. Essentially, it comes from recent American experience. The purpose of a sunset law is to establish a mechanism whereby government agencies and/or programs come under periodic review.

The statute establishing a particular agency or program usually includes a clause which automatically terminates the agency after a set period of time unless through a specific review process the agency or program continues to be justified. In effect, this type of law forces the burden of proof for the continuation of an agency or program onto the supporters of that particular program.

Such legislation was first enacted in the state of Colorado in 1976 and has since been at least considered by every state in the United States and has been enacted in some 24 states.

In Colorado the legislation is being applied to all of the state’s regulatory bodies and agencies -- 43 in total. Ontario, on the other hand, has some 360 boards, agencies and commissions to which this provincial government appoints all or some of the members. Of that total, about 300 receive funds either directly or indirectly from the consolidated revenue fund. Nineteen of these bodies have audited financial statements appearing in volume 2 of the public accounts. Many others can be found in the spending estimates for a particular ministry, but generally with only a dollar amount attached to them.

Obtaining a breakdown of a grant for any agency is not an easy task. Still other bodies do not appear either in the spending estimates or the public accounts. Their expenses are usually part of an administrative cost of a branch of a ministry.

Let me cite as an example, the artificial insemination of livestock advisory committee. It was set up by the Artificial Insemination of Livestock Act, RSO 1970, chapter 30, section 3. The Act states that the members of the committee “shall receive such allowances and expenses as the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines.” Payments are based on certain guidelines set up by Management Board of Cabinet This committee generally meets about twice a year with remuneration of $95 per day for its chairman, and $75 per day for its members. But such payments are part of the administrative budget of the livestock branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and therefore quite invisible.

I do not cite this advisory committee as one which should necessarily be terminated, but rather to illustrate how one particular government body was set up and where its budget is found. I do not have a predetermined list of those bodies which should be scrapped. My purpose in bringing forward this resolution is to underline the fact that we have no effective mechanism either to determine what the various boards, agencies or commissions are doing or to decide which ones, if any, should be eliminated.

In this context, however, it is interesting to note that the Provincial Auditor for the past three years has reported on three agencies which are inactive. These agencies are the Ontario Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Sheridan Park Corporation and the Ontario Telephone Development Corporation. They are still inactive and will, in all likelihood, be appearing once again in this year’s report. These are agencies which have simply not met and as they have not submitted financial statements the Auditor has had to name them in his report.

His responsibility ends there. What about those bodies that are still active? How are they to be properly reviewed?

In Ontario we have three specific budgetary or financial review procedures: The spending estimates debates; the Provincial Auditor’s annual report; and the work of the public accounts committee. Even with these formal and detailed mechanisms it has been increasingly clear to many of us that little or no time was being allotted to a meaningful review of the role and purpose of the various government boards, agencies, and commissions.

At the present time only the minister responsible or the Premier may recommend abolishing any board, agency or commission, and this is seldom done. One of the primary reasons is, I suspect, that cabinet ministers simply do not have the time constantly to oversee operations of all of the bodies in their respective ministries.

It seems to me that while the regular estimates debate procedure does provide the means for a detailed review of government programs, something else is needed for the boards, agencies and commissions. I have, therefore, tried to adapt our existing procedures in the Ontario Legislature to include a more thorough and specific review of those bodies.

Shortly before the last election, the Legislature established new terms of reference for a procedural affairs committee. The role of this committee is to “review and report to the House its observations and opinions on the operation of the standing and provisional orders of the House, and such additional matters as may be referred to it by the House or by Mr. Speaker from time to time. And that the committee also have power to review the operation of particular boards, agencies and commissions for which annual reports have been tabled in the House and referred to it, and the committee may review the operation of these bodies as it selects, with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping.”

I am proposing that we go one step further and insist that the committee examine every board, agency and commission and recommend to this Legislature the termination of those boards, agencies and commissions which it believes, after careful review, no longer serve the public and have outlived their usefulness.

I believe that my motion today will make the committee’s function much more clear cut and specific. Its primary job will be to review the various boards, agencies and commissions and provide specific recommendations to the Legislature regarding their future existence.

In my view, one of the committee’s first tasks would be to establish the exact number of boards, agencies and commissions that it should review. One list which can be used as a guide is that prepared by the Premier’s office, entitled Boards, Agencies and Commissions, listing those to which the provincial government appoints all or some of the members. I present for the consideration of members a copy of that list. It is very extensive indeed.

Other lists also exist. In fact, I have a list prepared from the Premier’s list, I believe, by the hon. member for London South (Mr. Walker) who was kind enough to send me a categorization, for which I thank him. And there are a number of other lists in existence.

Surely, we must determine how many boards, agencies and commissions actually exist.

I have set out in my motion a time-frame of four years in which the committee should review all these bodies. I selected that period as it corresponds to a normal legislative period. If the committee believes that it would need more time, particularly for the first comprehensive review, I am sure that the Legislature would follow its recommendation to amend the terms of reference in this regard.

I may say, parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that in Colorado it was found to be a rather lengthy and time-consuming process to do a proper review, and it is entirely possible that with the large burden that the committee may find itself faced with, as it begins this historic review, it may want to come back to the Legislature and ask for some change in the terms of reference. I am sure that that would be a simple enough matter which could easily be accommodated at that time.

I do believe, personally, that four years is a realistic period. I would also think that if the procedural affairs committee wanted to have another of the standing committees look at a particular agency it could also make a recommendation to that effect. In other words, the committee might find itself burdened with a great deal of work and may decide to take a dozen agencies that, perhaps, properly fall within the realm of one of the other standing committees of the House, and request that the House might specifically ask one of the other standing committees to examine the agencies in question.

In addition, the committee might decide to restrict its review only to regulatory bodies. And the definition of regulatory -- should it decide that -- would, of course, be something that the committee would have to decide in consultation with the best counsel available, and that, I think, is something which I am sure the committee could do.

There may be some who feel that my motion does not go far enough. Certainly it would be preferable if the government were to introduce legislation with termination dates set out for the various agencies and programs they establish unless they are re-mandated. I think, in fairness, the sunset concept has generally speaking been that. In the state of Colorado, for instance, if an agency is not able to prove a need for it to be re-mandated it is automatically terminated. In this way the onus of proof of the need for continued existence is placed on the agency.

Frankly, I would prefer that. The difficulty is that in private members’ debating time and under the business of private members, we are advised by legislative counsel it is not possible to include an automatic termination of this kind. It is possible to have an automatic review and a recommendation for termination, but it is not possible to have an automatic termination. That requires a government bill brought forward by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The problem is that if we simply wait for the government to proceed in that manner, there is really no reason to believe that it would do so.

Although it would be preferable to have that type of sunset provision, the resolution I am presenting is at least within the terms of reference permitted. Some may think that the government cannot be trusted to bring in such legislation, and that it will merely use as an excuse the existence of this resolution that I am presenting regarding the procedural affairs committee. In other words, the government may say because of my resolution there is no need for another sunset resolution which actually puts automatic termination on agencies. This, if the House passes it, would have the procedural affairs committee undertaking the various examinations and recommendations that I have recommended.

Under those circumstances, there are some who feel the government would use that as an excuse to get out of this responsibility -- to actually go in to the sunset provisions of the kind that the state of Colorado has at the moment.

I don’t believe that the government cannot be trusted. I trust that the government will not use this as such an excuse. What I would urge all members to consider today is that we have here a means of taking a major step forward in the area of controlling government spending and government involvement in our lives. I would hope that we do not reject this opportunity to take positive action simply because this motion does not cover all government spending.

I think it would be a very healthy thing for the standing procedural affairs committee to look at each existing board, agency or commission, recognizing that there will be a schedule of looking at them and that they would have the power to recommend mergers or abolition or changes as they deem suitable.

By taking this step today I believe we can create a ripple effect on all government programs. The committee, as you know, already has the power to look at these matters but they have not done so. And it has not been obligatory for them to do so.

The application of the sunset process in the state of Colorado has had an encouraging side effect. The behaviour of all state agencies has improved in that they have added more lay people to their boards, and the promulgation of their rules and jurisdictional responsibilities has been clarified in preparation for their own sunset review. In other words, they have cleaned up their act so to speak in anticipation of how they could be changed to better serve the public.

The sunset review process will open up the policy options available to the government. A large portion of our budget is predetermined. We all want new programs or agencies but we do not want to raise more tax dollars to finance them.

The only alternative therefore is to eliminate outmoded programs or agencies of the government and replace them with others more appropriate to today’s problems.

It is my opinion that this concept of controlling government spending will filter through to all spending programs. The application of this resolution to the province’s boards, agencies and commissions is based on the notion that we have to start somewhere. And I hope it will signal a new approach to limiting government spending on all accounts.

Therefore, I take pleasure in presenting for the consideration of this House the resolution standing in my name.


Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it’s a pleasure to rise today. There’s so much debate going on with respect to the sunset law and it’s a pleasure to see that. I feel the Leader of the Opposition introduced a very well-meaning resolution which is heading in the right direction, because it cannot be emphasized too much, how important the review process is to good government.

The review process is vitally important, particularly as it relates to regulations and regulatory government within the province. Indeed, at all levels of government, the bureaucracy, the regulation, the red tape and the plain-and-simple heavy hand of government far too often felt, seems all-pervasive to every individual in the province. Well-meaning regulations have a habit of continuing ad infinitum, forever interfering with our way of life. There appears to be no proper government mechanism in any level of government in Canada to remove regulations which have reached the point of redundancy.

Let me divert for a moment and offer these classic examples to illustrate my point. I’m told in 1960, the Boer War Commission operated in Ottawa. At that particular moment in time, there were more members of the Boer War Commission than veterans of the Boar War.

Mr. Peterson: Jimmy Auld fought in that, didn’t he?

Mr. Walker: Another example -- and this time it’s of a regulation which might have been rescinded in England to save taxpayer money. Just after the first war, the Royal Horse Artillery completely converted to vehicular means of transporting their artillery. All their horses were retired to pasture, or wherever they go and years later when the Royal Horse Artillery was on parade -- it was still called the Royal Horse Artillery -- some citizen had the audacity to ask the commanding officer, what that one soldier did, standing over there by himself with his hands clasped in front of him, appearing to have no purpose at all. The commanding officer retorted, “Madam, it’s that soldier’s function to hold the horses.” Someone had forgotten to rescind the regulation some 20 years later.

As I indicated, the Leader of the Opposition is indeed on the right track when he attempts to encourage review, and I commend him for that. Regrettably, I feel his resolution falls far short of what is necessary here today.

Mr. Reed: Here is the but.

Mr. Kerrio: But.

Mr. Walker: It lacks the essential ingredient of the sunset law -- the automatic death rate, the date on which the legislation or the agency automatically terminates. Indeed the very word “sunset” means the sun shall set. And for our own examples we might apply to the Ontario Highway Transport Board to suggest if it had an opportunity to set in the sun, perhaps it would be December 31 of 1978 or even sooner.

Mr. Wildman: He is talking about twilight.

Mr. Kerrio: Put Gray Coach out of business.

Mr. Walker: The resolution goes so far as to create review which is, of course, important in sunset legislation. But in fact it offers no sunset date whatsoever and is therefore not a sunset bill or a sunset resolution. But it has to be sunset in order to work.

Indeed, if the member had brought simply the endorsement of sunset before the House today I would have been the first to support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Reed: Why don’t you amend it? Let’s have an amendment.

Mr. Walker: Because as you know Mr. Speaker, I have on the order paper at this particular time, a resolution to that effect.

Mr. Kerrio: Put an amendment in it.

Mr. Walker: I might ask why half a loaf of bread might be better than no loaf at all. I have to say to you in this case, half a loaf is worse than no loaf at all.

Mr. Peterson: Walker, you are half-baked.

Mr. Walker: In this particular case it would become far too easy a hitching post for bureaucratic people to say now that we have review, we really do not have to have sunset; that is the self-destruct machinery.

Mr. Wildman: Use a hitching post.

Mr. Walker: That would destroy the real value of the review. As the resolution was originally framed it would require a review of 347 agencies, boards and commissions by the procedural affairs committee spanning a period of some four years. To review 347 in four years would be about as easy as boarding a 747 in full flight. Review would become a mockery buried beneath tons of paper and consumed by the inertia of government itself.

Mr. Peterson: That’s catchy.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Good, eh?

Mr. Wildman: You have an inert government.

Mr. Walker: If we take a look at the state of Colorado to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, their experience in 1977 was the legislative committee could do a proper job to only about 13 of their boards and agencies. The benefit of the sunset law is that it already solves some of the inherent problems created by a simple review mechanism. Firstly, it terminates automatically unless the review committee and the Legislature should choose to do otherwise. Secondly, it turns the inertia of government bureaucracy against itself, such that if the bureaucracy cannot justify its continuance --

Mr. Reed: That would be worth while.

Mr. Walker: -- it would bring about new legislation by the government; the onus of proof being on the bureaucracy itself, then it automatically terminates.

Normally bureaucratic inertia works the other way around and because time is, for it, simply dragging its heels, it becomes forgotten and overlooked. With sunset the burden of proof shifts to the accused. The agency is presumed to be guilty unless proven innocent and reprieved. Under simple review, the bureaucracy game is to hide as much as possible, as the onus is on the government in that case to make a case for eliminating the agency or program. Under sunset, the onus is on the bureaucracy to prove its case.

The sunset law has a built-in self-destruct mechanism that the inertia of government cannot consume and it therefore has to be reckoned with or else it has a date with the executioner. This triggering mechanism is truly the essence of proper review. This approach is vitally important, because a review without a built-in self-destruct mechanism is not a great deal better --

Mr. Reed: Why don’t you have it?

Mr. Walker: -- than our present system, made so perfect today by the sheer weight of bureaucracy itself. Too often the Legislature concerns itself with the rhetoric of legislation, leaving the hard work of oversight and overview to be carried out in a hit or miss fashion, rather than with the steady diligence which should be our fundamental responsibility.

Sunset does not allow us to avoid or sidestep difficult decisions we may have preferred to avoid in the past. Each of us would have to bite the bullet even with our favourite programs, and, hopefully, if it’s extended into government programs and boards as well.

In Alabama, the state attempted a half-baked approach to a review mechanism. That was really not a proper sunset law, and today it is as if they had no law at all with respect to review. The reason is the lack of this fail-safe, self-destruct mechanism.

I’m optimistic that the sunset law is an idea whose time has come. But it has to be done right, and that is by Act of the Legislature. I am also optimistic that a true sunset law will come into this province in the next several months. The Leader of the Opposition and I discussed my reasons for my reluctance to support his interim measure, and that is not because I oppose the direction in which he is intending to head, but rather I oppose the machinery by which the review would be brought about. With his review mechanism in place, it would be all too easy for people to say, “Now that we have review, we do not need to have sunset.”

Mr. S. Smith: It’s your government, Gord.

Mr. Walker: That may be the case, but that may be the way. That would be no more useful than our present estimates approach today. And as every member here knows, estimates is nothing more than a shotgun approach to agencies and programs which, frankly, serve little or no use.

Mr. Wildman: What?

Mr. McClellan: What allegations.

Mr. Walker: A proper sunset law will restore to this House the kind of review so blatantly absent today.

Mr. MacDonald: I rise to express the support of the New Democratic Party for this resolution. I’ve only one reservation, and it’s a reservation which is expressed in an amendment standing on the order paper today. I would like to move that now so that I can speak to both of them.

Mr. MacDonald moved that Mr. S. Smith’s resolution be amended by the addition of the following words: “And that the committee shall have the authority to engage such counsel and other personnel as the committee deems appropriate.”

Mr. Rotenberg: Just to spend more money.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s a good idea.

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member for Wilson Heights likes to engage in idle pursuits without the capacity to do anything effective. That’s the import of his interjection. As was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition in introducing his motion, the resolution which was introduced by the government House leader last June 28, in establishing the standing procedural affairs committee, clearly spells out that that committee has “the power to review the operation of particular boards, agencies and commissions for which annual reports have been tabled in the House and referred to it, and the committee may review the operation of these bodies as it selects with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping.”

There is a list of those agencies, boards and commissions which produce annual reports and, therefore, will fall within the jurisdiction and the purview of the standing procedural affairs committee. I’ve heard it variously estimated as 103 or 107. There are approximately 100 of them. The reason why we support this resolution is that it extends the role of the standing procedural affairs committee to encompass all ABCs -- agencies, boards and commissions -- to which the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes appointment. That list is contained in a volume, the up-to-date version of which I have been able to get from the cabinet office. There are some 363 such bodies.

Some of them are redundant. Some of them should have been eliminated years ago. That comes to the point that the hon. member for London South was speaking about as to how one achieves a mechanism for eliminating one that is redundant. I remind the House that two years ago, in the interim report that was presented to this House from the standing committee on public accounts, it recommended that the Ontario Canteen Fund affairs be wound up and the committee further recommended “in view of the costs of dispensing assistance that the Soldiers’ Aid Commission be phased out and the administration of the program be assumed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.”

Mr. S. Smith: That will go down in history.

Mr. MacDonald: What happened? The usual thing happened; nothing. A recommendation is brought in through a committee and is placed on the table. The report is accepted -- in most instances it is adopted. Yet the government just blandly ignores it. So those two redundant organizations or inefficient organizations, whose purpose has got lost with the passage of time, still exist when it’s been suggested they should go out of existence.

Let me move to some background considerations of this whole situation. Ontario has moved significantly in recent years to the establishment of what is referred to as a professional civil service, that is, one to which appointments are normally made of people who have the educational qualifications, the personal qualifications and the experience. They are not subject to firing because of the political whims of a government that has just come in and wants to get rid of all the appointees of the government that has just gone out.

The last time we had that kind of mass firing was in 1934 when the Liberals came in and cleaned out all of the Tories who had been appointed by the Ferguson and Henry administrations.

Mr. Peterson: We’re going to do it again.

Mr. Foulds: You are?

Mr. MacDonald: When George Drew came in in 1943 no such mass slaughter took place.

Mr. Peterson: That’s because they didn’t deserve it.

Mr. MacDonald: It didn’t partly, I suggest, because there was a shortage of manpower available to fill posts at that time.

Mr. Wildman: They were all over fighting the war.

Mr. MacDonald: Secondly, it may be that there was a growing recognition of the validity of a professional civil service rather than a partisan civil service. But I suspect the most critical reason of all was that it was a minority government and, being a minority government, one doesn’t throw one’s weight around in that sort of a fashion.


In other words, we have moved from the old partisan civil service to a professional civil service or at least in that direction. But the point I want to make and draw to the attention of the House is that the government has moved to the establishment of a new patronage system. There are in government agencies, boards, and commissions, I am told -- I haven’t had the time and I don’t know anybody who has tabulated it totally -- some 5,000 appointees by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

May I put into the record a rather balanced comment by Professor Desmond Morton, an historian of some repute and recognition with regard to this kind of situation.

Mr. Wildman: Wonderful man.

Mr. B. Newman: Never heard of him

Mr. MacDonald: He says, for example, and I quote: “In time, Drew and his successors found a satisfying and generally acceptable way of rewarding the network of local notables on which Progressive Conservative power rests. The expansion of the Ontario government has largely taken the form of a proliferation of agencies, boards and commissions and Crown corporations, and later virtually all of them provide opportunities for government jobs as directors, councillors and advisers.”

Mr. McClellan: Shame.

Mr. MacDonald: “Outside the sprawling realm of government, there are a host of other positions to fill as government-nominated directors of marketing boards, as governors of universities and as regents of community colleges.

“Since the nominations purport to give the people of Ontario a voice in controlling some of their vital institutions, party allegiance is far from being the only or even the primary factor in filling vacancies. Most of the familiar categories have to be kept in mind. If business is represented, there must at least be a token trade unionist. Religion, ethnicity and youth must normally be served, and someone will almost certainly remind the government that 50 per cent of the population is female. Somehow, though, the ranks of the Progressive Conservative Party seem better stocked with the appropriate worthies than either the plebeian New Democrats or the upwardly-mobile Liberals.”

Now I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that’s rather an accurate description of the new patronage appointed and financed out of the public purse, civil service out in ABCs -- agencies, boards and commissions. I don’t think this is generally known, I draw it particularly to your attention and to that of anybody else who might want to listen.

I ask you: How do these people get appointed? Who makes the choice?

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t ask.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, I was rather intrigued to discover that there’s a committee, a committee known as the committee of appointments -- for appointments or of appointments. Who sits on this committee?

An hon. member: Tell us.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, it is chaired by a prestigious individual, Dr. Stewart, who is deputy minister in the Premier’s office. It has on its membership such illustrious figures as the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), a parliamentary assistant; a Mr. DeGeer, who was a Tory party organizer and now fulfills those functions within the framework of the Premier’s office; Mr. Cronyn, who is a well known Tory and head of the whole COGP investigation; Mr. Westcott, who is well known as the trouble-shooter for the Premier and the government; Mr. Goodman, who is equally well known for his capacities; and finally, just to complete this highly non-political group, Mr. Kelly, the bagman for the Tory party.

Mr. S. Smith: Good to know where the people’s interest is.

Mr. MacDonald: I remember years ago discovering that there was in each of the Tory riding associations what they call the employment committee, which makes all the appointments to the civil service that can be slipped through with influence from the ministry. In fact I remember an instance when the employment committee of the Tory association in that little pocket borough known as Lanark once had a meeting in the month of October and announced that two or three people -- and they named them -- were going to be appointed to vacancies in the liquor stores in the area. They did it so openly, as the Tories in Lanark do, that they sent a report to all the local papers and it was published. So I rose in the House and asked the minister responsible: “Are there vacancies in the liquor stores?” And he said: “No.” “Well, will there be vacancies?” And he said, “Yes, on January 1.”

How remarkable, Mr. Speaker! The local employment committee had been told three months ahead and then made the choice as to who was going to get the appointments. There we are -- one of the agencies, boards and commissions. So you have a patronage committee at the top in Queen’s Park, and you have local patronage committees to appoint these 5,000 people all across the province of Ontario.

Mr. McClellan: Throw the rascals out.

Mr. MacDonald: I would like to have spoken on the sunset laws, but we will have to get that some time later. I think this does the job in terms of review and, if the House is willing to co-operate in terms of recommendations that come from that procedural affairs committee, then we also will be able to implement its recommendations to eliminate redundancy.

But my amendment can be briefly spoken to in a few seconds. That sort of committee cannot be effective if it hasn’t got staff. It absolutely cannot do its job. A few years ago a committee in the House that had that kind of a job made a motion asking that they have the right to appoint staff. And what happened? The usual. The government ignored it, or vetoed it behind the scenes.

If this committee is going to review agencies, boards and commissions, their operations, their original purpose, then, they must have the staff to do some of the work to assist the members. With the amendment, we in the New Democratic Party, will gladly support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Peterson: I want to tell the member for York South how very much I enjoyed his speech. I hope some time we have an opportunity to debate the matters he was addressing in his speech today. If he ever needs help one day, maybe we can help him out with the Post Office.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Is it still operating?

Mr. Foulds: Let the record show.

Mr. Peterson: Apart from that, I want to say on behalf of our party, we think his amendment is a constructive one, a good one, and we thank him for introducing it. Clearly, we will support it and we thank him for his support of our resolution.

Mr. Wildman: Joe Davidson will love you.

Mr. Peterson: I must say I am quite perplexed by the rationalization of my old friend and colleague from London South on this particular bill. I gather in the course of his reasoning, he has come to the conclusion he cannot trust the government if we introduce my leader’s resolution in this particular case, because the government will use it as an excuse for inactivity.

We are cast in a very different position on this one. We tend to trust the government will do it if so instructed by way of resolution by the House. The member for London South doesn’t trust the government. Maybe he has more cause. Maybe he knows them a little better than we do. But I want to dissociate my self from his particular impression on this matter.

Mr. McClellan: He wasn’t on the employment committee.

Mr. Peterson: One of his objections was the “automatic death.” We have consulted with the legislative counsel and the legislative counsel said it is just not practical, it is not realistic, it’s impossible. The way to approach it is to go and look at the enabling legislation for all 344, whatever the number is, boards, agencies and commissions and introduce an amendment in each particular one. You cannot overrule by way of resolution what’s ensconced in legislation and in many other places.

I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that my friend from London South’s only real objection is that his name is not on it. Because this is accomplishing, in a real sense and meaningful sense, what I think he has intimated should be done. Let me tell you one or two of the advantages. My leader’s resolution allows for study, review, consolidation and amalgamation -- studying the whole thing, not just automatic death. In addition to the ones that are inefficient and should be put away and given a decent, respectable burial, others can be consolidated, reorganized -- we can reorganize the government course of business. We think that’s sufficient. An automatic death provision is only a superficial one. The resolution presented by my leader more sincerely and correctly addresses the real problems.

Mr. Walker: That is not what your leader said.

Mr. Peterson: We, in the Liberal Party, have believed in this kind of resolution, this kind of legislation, for a long, long time. As the member will recall, this was brought up in the campaign. I want to refer him back to the budget debate when we talked about this.

Mr. Nixon: Read us some of that budget speech.

Mr. Peterson: Thank you very much. Did the record get that?

Mr. Nixon: Read us some of that budget speech.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to read just a small fraction of it -- I won’t bore the members with the whole thing.

Mr. Eaton: Finest speech ever read in this House.

Mr. Peterson: Here’s what we said then and what we still believe. There are several aspects to this whole matter. One aspect, and I quote:

“We recommend a program of deregulation. This would function on two levels. At the first level, we would look at all committees, boards, agencies and groups of every type under the aegis of the government of Ontario, to attempt to streamline, to attempt to demystify, to attempt to bring some efficiency to it. This, in our judgement, can be done by a committee of the Legislature on a non-partisan basis; and, again, we support this constructive proposal for staff and for assistance, because it is a big job. We think it could do a great service to the people of this province.

“But there is another aspect. The other aspect is of a deregulation committee, or a deregulation approach to government which would look at all the various regulation statutes but more disturbing are the multiplicity of regulations that are attendant thereto. We think that, again, with proper staff and proper counselling we could go through these regulations. Granted, it’s going to take a long time. Granted, it’s not easy. But it has to be done to get a handle on that aspect of the whole matter.”

You see, Mr. Speaker, this is part of the Liberal Party’s program to try to bring more efficiency into government. This is just one aspect of it. The other aspect that we talked about then, and we will continue to talk about, is the zero-based budgeting which brings a lot of these things back under fresh view every year. We think it should be subjected to that kind of scrutiny from a strictly economic point of view. We think that is constructive and we will continue to talk about that; we will continue to suggest it.

In addition to that, we’ve talked about introducing economic analyses for all regulations or all laws -- i.e., before any law or bill is brought to this House, the government should provide an economic analysis of it, of what the effect is on the economy. As we have argued before and will continue to argue, if you bring in one particular measure it frequently has a ripple effect, it has profound ramifications for the rest of the economy. We should be able to look at any law or regulation in the broad economic context rather than as an isolated case. Because, frequently, laws are brought into being without our fully understanding all the consequences; then we have to back up and change our minds substantially.

The third and fourth areas we’ve talked about concern more disciplining in the expenditures by ministry. The figures are on the record many times -- about how the various ministries fudge and spend 20 or 30 per cent of their total year’s appropriation in the last month in order to meet the budgetary guidelines, so that they don’t get cut off in the next year. And their record, the public accounts will show, was pretty bad last year. Agriculture, Environment, Industry and Tourism -- all spent a disproportionate amount of money in the last month. It’s an old trick. Any ministry which wants to inflate its programs or inflate its budget has used it many times before.

It’s happening in such excess in this government that we think the fourth part of a management program has to be brought into place in this government. We have argued, and will continue to argue and continue to press for move discipline and more management skills, more management orientation throughout all levels of the civil service.

That’s why I’m so very happy that my leader has introduced this particular resolution. There is some discrepancy in the numbers of how many boards, agencies and commissions there are. I know in one report filed by the government House leader, as I recall, there are something like 344. I heard different numbers today. It doesn’t really matter. There’s a hell of a lot, too many.

Mr. Foulds: What are 25 boards, agencies or commissions?

Mr. Peterson: That’s just it.

The other thing, I want to say is that some 274 of those are headquartered in Toronto. It is part of our philosophy that those could be decentralized. It could be part of decentralization, a regional economic strategy, to deploy those boards, agencies and commissions into other areas of this province. That’s one of the things that we would do in our kind of government.

The other thing that’s so very scary to me -- and I just want to put it on the record -- is that once these boards and commissions are set up they tend to function on their own, through non-budgetary-statutory appropriations. They just function on their own and they gather momentum on their own.

Last year these non-budgetary items totalled some $1.7 billion which is not really subjected to the same kind of scrutiny given to our current estimates. That concerns us, and we think that this is one of the needed mechanisms -- to look into that kind of matter.

As I recall, the non-budgetary deficit for this type of thing was something like $236 million last year, roughly a third of the predicted deficit at that particular time. It has grown very substantially since those particular numbers came along. It’s not nearly as great a percentage, but it is still critical as a matter that is not subjected to legislative scrutiny.

We think that the government, with the assistance of the opposition parties, should set about very quickly -- with competent staff, as the member for York South has pointed out -- to plough through this on an organized basis. It may take years, but as my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has said on many occasions, “It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.”


Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has one minute.

Mr. Peterson: I’ll finish up in one minute. I just want to say again how terribly disappointed I am in the member for London South, when he has a wonderful opportunity -- I assume, if he is not going to support it, the government is starting to be very frightened of this kind of thing. But we do have an opportunity. I am very disappointed with the member for London South for not coming forward on this thing. I don’t find any merit in any of his reasoning whatsoever.

We have more faith in the government to proceed once the course of action is initiated and we would ask for all thoughtful members of the House to support this particular resolution.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As the member for London South pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition really spent more time talking about something that was not in his resolution than the substance of the resolution. But I would like to speak to his resolution.

The current mandate of the standing procedural affairs committee includes a review of the operations of those agencies for which annual reports have been tabled in the House and referred to it. At this time there are 75 agencies whose reports are tabled in the House. A list of these agencies is available; it includes such important agencies as the Education Relations Commission, Ontario Highway Transport Board, Ontario Hydro and the Workmen’s Compensation Board, to name a few.

The government is prepared to ensure that all annual reports tabled in this Legislature are referred to that committee.

As of October 1, 1977, there are approximately 300 boards, agencies and commissions, counting each of a number of groups such as the conservation authorities as one, to which the government appoints all or some of the members. Of these, approximately 250, or about 80 per cent, are funded either fully or partially. If each agency in the groups is counted individually, there are approximately 660 bodies, of which about 520 -- again about 80 per cent -- are funded.

The effect of the proposed mandate of the committee, therefore, would be to increase its potential coverage to agencies such as hospital boards, the Royal Botanical Gardens, boards of commissioners of police -- of which there are 70 -- and district welfare administration boards, to name a few.

The majority of unfunded agencies have been given authority to regulate professional activities with little government involvement other than the appointment of some members: for instance, the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Governing Board of Denture Therapists. The resolution is probably not aimed at these agencies. I don’t know; perhaps it is. But there are, however, several unfunded agencies of a commercial nature, like the Liquor Control Board and the Ontario Lottery Corporation, which would be of interest to the committee. However, as I pointed out, the committee currently has the mandate to review these commercial agencies.

In the case of those agencies which are funded by the province, all expenditures of government funds are subject to the normal budgeting and control procedures applied during and after the estimates process, including estimates debates and review by the public accounts committee. The ministries and the appropriate cabinet committees also review the operation of agencies as a regular part of their policy and planning activities to ensure that each agency continues to serve the public interest.

In addition to this general review, Management Board maintains close control over the payment of per diems and expenses to board members. Such expenses are the major or, in some cases, the only costs associated with the majority of agencies which are funded by the province. Guidelines are available which stipulate a range of per diems which can be paid to members, depending on such factors as the complexity of the work performed. Specific Management Board approval is then required for the actual level of per diems for each agency.

For some time now Management Board, with the assistance of ministries, has been developing a policy which delineates the extent to which the administrative policies of government will apply to each agency. This policy is in the final stage of refinement and should be promulgated in the government’s manual of administration early in the New Year.

Mr. Foulds: It just happened to happen. What a coincidence!

Hon. Mr. Auld: All agencies have been allocated to one of three schedules. The effect of the allocation is as follows:

The largest schedule includes more than 200 agencies, most of which are regulatory or advisory in nature. These agencies are subject to all the administrative controls, practices and procedures of the Ontario government. Examples include the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ontario Council on University Affairs.

The next largest schedule comprises those agencies or groups of agencies -- approximately 40 -- which, while funded by the province, are essentially concerned with the delivery of community or social service programs or are intergovernmental in nature. Examples include the universities, the Royal Ontario Museum and the conservation authorities. In each of these eases, the parent ministry has established financial planning and reporting processes which are appropriate to the particular circumstances.

The third group comprises a small number of agencies which are basically self-financing and commercial in nature. Again, I mention the LCBO and the Lottery Corporation and the Ontario Stockyards Board. To ensure that relevant review and control procedures are maintained in the case of these agencies, a program is under way to develop a memorandum of understanding to clarify such things as objectives, performance expectations and operating relationships.

Mr. Foulds: Sounds like the Reed proposal -- memorandum of understanding.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would now like to turn to three areas we are currently developing to enhance the processes I have just described; these are managing by results, or MBR for short, zero-base budgeting, and sunset legislation. The MBR program of the government has been mentioned both by myself and the Treasurer several times during the last year. Management Board requires that all government programs, including those that fund agencies, define the specific output they will achieve in the coming fiscal year with the resources allocated. In other words, each ministry makes a specific commitment to achieve certain results with its resources.

Mr. MacDonald: It should apply to your conservation program.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It’s the government’s intention to have all major programs on MBR by the end of this fiscal year.

The second area that Management Board is reviewing in order to improve the processes of allocation and control of public funds is one that has been mentioned by myself during the Throne Speech debate and by the Treasurer in his last budget. I’m speaking of zero-based budgets.

Zero-based budgeting makes particular sense in Ontario since it is a logical extension of managing by results. We have three ministries doing pilot projects at the present time. All ministries have been exposed to zero-based budgeting and in conjunction with Management Board are refining the technique with a view to introducing it as the basis for the preparation of the 1979-80 estimates. This will help to ensure that all expenditures of government by agencies are reviewed more effectively.

The enactment of a sunset law which has been introduced in several states in the USA is another approach that the government is exploring. As the name implies, a sunset law is applied to agencies and it requires that the sun will set on that agency unless it can clearly justify that it should be continued.

Currently, programs continue unless specifically terminated by the government. Under a sunset law, the process is reversed. At first glance this type of technique has appeal. However, there are a considerable number of problems with its implementation and my colleagues and I are now reviewing the sunset approach.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize to all members that the government will continue to ensure through the processes I have just described that public funds are allocated in an efficient and effective way.

Furthermore, the government will do everything possible to carry out the recommendations of the Camp commission and those of the Morrow committee to ensure that the Legislature is able to adequately review and analyse the operations of government including its agencies, boards and commissions.

Mr. Breaugh: I feel in part responsible for this because it was in June of this year that I brought to the committee’s attention that we had some work to do that we hadn’t embarked upon yet. Those were recommendations put before the House some time ago by the Camp commission and restated again by the Morrow committee. That was to review boards, commissions, agencies that made annual reports to the House. We reinforced that somewhat and clarified some of the language and had that passed in the form of a resolution in the House in June of this year.

It seems to have become a popular sport, however, to seize upon this idea and certainly the concept has been expanded far beyond the original suggestions of the Camp commission and the Morrow committee.

I support the concept. I would like to attempt to put a small measure of realism into it. This committee, procedural affairs, happens to be one that I chair. It’s allowed to sit, under the current agreement with the House, one afternoon a week after the question period. I wish that the members of the Liberal caucus had as much fervour for standing committee meetings as the leader of that particular party has for putting this kind of motion, because last Monday we spent half the committee’s time frying to find a Liberal to sit on the committee so that we would have a quorum. It would certainly be nice if we saw a little back-bench support for front-bench concepts.

Mr. Nixon: It might be that you got there first.

Mr. Breaugh: The second part of the time problem is the number of days that this House is in session, which is rather on the short side. Given that we’re only allowed to participate in this exercise one afternoon a week, usually for about two hours, if we continue to have the kind of short sittings that this House has had for some time now, it’s going to take to about the year 2000 to make the first run through this list. There are some practical problems that should be looked at in there.

I want to address myself to what I think is a rather atrocious piece of terminology; that is, the “sunset” terminology. It really nauseates me no end that something as serious as this has such a catchy little title as “The Sun Sets on Some Agency Over There.” It doesn’t address itself to what board or commission might be involved or what it did or the human beings who are there. It’s a very nice kind of Middle American concept that the sun will set on something and no one will ever be harmed by what happens, and that we’ll all save money and good things will ensue. That is not necessarily true and I reject the title that is used, perhaps even more than the concept that’s there.

Mr. Walker: You are right about that.

Mr. Breaugh: There’s a tremendous amount of work there, and I must say the concept that we would have a Tory hunt is more fun than I personally can resist. I support that one wholeheartedly. I have been around long enough, though, to know that usually when you go hunting Tories what you wind up with is that a couple of people who have nothing to do with the decision-making process get shot, and the Tory you were chasing in the first instance, who sits on the board and knows nothing about it, survives.

I have some reservations should the Tories ever regain a majority, God forbid --

Mr. Reed: Don’t worry, they won’t.

Mr. Breaugh: Whatever recommendations this committee might make to this House, I don’t have any delusions about what would happen to those recommendations. So I have some cautions there.

I was interested in the Leader of the Opposition’s concept and the many remarks that he focused on Colorado’s beautiful “sunset” law. It’s my information that there are a number of boards, agencies and commissions down there surviving rather nicely, redundant as all get out, but they have caught on to the idea that every four years the sun will set and you want to be careful that you’re not overstaffed; so you cut down on people who provide a service to anybody. Anything that conceivably might be useful to the society around it is cut out.

What you go for is really sharp staff who know how to deal with government committees. They spend their four years making sure they have lobbied well enough that there’s sufficient support for their board or agency; that they’ve made a case. Then, of course, the government has its staff people devoting all their time to finding out who these people are and taking apart that argument. In fact, you really don’t look at the service provided but you engage in that wonderful governmental procedure that we see all too often.

Mr. Nixon: How could one member be so cynical having only been here a few months? Send him back to Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: I support the concept behind this, because the mechanisms that we use in this House to examine what actually happens in the bureaucracies of Ontario is really quite full of holes; and so much of what we despise and dislike and what we all recognize as being inefficient, we never get around to because there isn’t time.

I’m concerned that this is taken to be a realistic and a serious proposal. I am concerned that it becomes an effective instrument for this House to use to rid us of useless things. But I am coming back to the initial point, that the House itself must accept that this work is important. It must therefore support the amendment so that at least we will have some tools with which to carry out our task. Finally, and certainly not the least important thing, it would be really nice if members of the Liberal caucus would show up to a committee meeting.

Mr. Speaker: The time for this ballot item has expired.

Mr. Nixon: Just when I was ready.

Mr. MacDonald: And one of your best speeches.

Mr. Foulds: An excellent speech.

Mr. Kerrio: It was better than the previous one.



Mr. MacDonald moved private member’s motion No. 5.

Resolution: That in the opinion of this House public hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act on the proposed Darlington generation station should proceed forthwith.

Mr. Speaker: You have the floor for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. MacDonald: As the motion says, and it’s very straightforward, we should proceed forthwith with public hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act in reference to the proposed Darlington generation station.

Let’s look at the arguments which have been advanced against this. From the government, it is argued that it would be costly if it were to proceed with an environmental assessment. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, what in heaven’s name did this government pass the Environmental Assessment Act in 1975 for, if it didn’t believe that it was valid and, therefore, that the cost attached to it was a legitimate cost? Why suddenly now, with the largest project that Ontario might have in the foreseeable future, does it trot out an argument that there’s going to be money spent on this and, therefore, we shouldn’t proceed with an environmental assessment? Surely that argument is so shallow and feeble that it need not be dealt with any more.

Secondly -- and this has to be dealt with rather more carefully -- is the argument that in 1985 we might have a power shortage and that the province might be faced with brown- outs and/or blackouts, therefore, we must proceed immediately without any further delay to the building of the Darlington station. I don’t know whether or not we need to proceed immediately with Darlington because I haven’t got the facts. I would remind this House that the select committee that looked into Hydro, which I had the honour of chairing, made a report which was endorsed by all members of the committee, including government members.

In it was one recommendation which can be found in the third section of the report on page 33. It draws attention to the fact that the deficiency in power reserves that might exist in the province of Ontario in 1985 could be changed into a surplus, if four things were done.

First, the government would have a reduction in the forecast needs in 1985 by Hydro. Hydro’s own forecast between 1975 and 1976 was significantly down to indicate that that was a valid approach. Secondly, the government should set and should achieve conservation targets, instead of the unending rhetoric that we have now and not so much achievement. Thirdly, there should be various load management proposals entertained and implemented to shave the peaks and fill the valleys in the generation of Ontario Hydro. Finally, we should quantify the value that Ontario Hydro gets from being part of an international or continental grid so that if there’s any emergency shortage of power in Ontario the power to cope with that shortage will immediately flow across the borders from neighbouring states and indeed neighbouring provinces.

In the select committee which the government has agreed to set up again, when we get an opportunity to monitor the recommendations of that earlier select committee, we will then be able to come to a conclusion as to whether or not those proposals that were made in the first report have been implemented by Hydro and whether or not changing circumstances now suggest that in 1985 that power deficiency can be transformed into a power surplus. Therefore, we might at least postpone moving on the building of the Darlington plant at this present stage.

If we can perchance postpone moving on the Darlington station, I suggest that we should seriously consider doing it. It’s not news to anybody in this House that there is a great and a growing concern with regard to nuclear power all across the world. We are having mass protests in France, in Germany, in Japan and, indeed, in every country in the world, people of scientific authority are drawing attention to the fact that we should go slow rather than rush into this, because we haven’t solved some of the problems, particularly in coping with radioactive waste. And these are problems which pose some pretty dangerous threats to the future of the world and, indeed, to this planet.

We have men like Sir Brian Flowers, chairman of the commission which looked into nuclear power in Britain, who says that we should go slow. We have men like Dean Robert Uffen who is a vice-chairman of Hydro and Dean of Applied Science at Queen’s University. He has, in the current issue of Science Forum, an article entitled: “Let’s Go Slowly on the Nuclear Power Program Until We’ve Solved Waste Problems.”

I want to be accurate, and I want to be totally fair. As part of the information which, under some pressure, was finally delivered to me this morning from Hydro, I have a copy of a letter which the Minister of Energy sought from Dr. Uffen. In that letter, he states that he still thinks we should proceed with the construction of Darlington as fast as possible; and he’s definitely not advocating a moratorium on the construction of nuclear reactors in Ontario at the present time. His argument is that we should avoid getting into a commitment of a program that is too large, and his definition of a program that is not too large is a program that would contain Darlington.

The point I’m making is that there’s a lot of confusion.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Include Darlington?

Mr. MacDonald: Sorry? That would include Darlington. Did I say that it would not include Darlington?

Ms. Gigantes: No, he said it right.

Mr. Foulds: He said it right, you heard it wrong, George.

Mr. MacDonald: What I said was his definition of a commitment to nuclear power that wasn’t too large would include Darlington. Therefore, he is not arguing that we should go slow on Darlington at this present time. He doesn’t really speak to the brown-out, black-out threat that was being used by Hydro and the government although, presumably, it’s implicit in his comments.

Let me move from comments on the government’s reasons why we should proceed immediately with Darlington to take a look at some of Hydro’s reasons. I should not really separate them because they’re Hydro’s reasons which the government has also endorsed and taken as part of its whole approach to it.

The basic contention in Hydro is that Darlington was planned for prior to the passage of the Environmental Assessment Act. Therefore, Hydro -- at least in reference to Darlington -- isn’t obligated to fulfill the requirements and the obligations of that Act.

It is true that the Darlington station was approved in principle in 1971. It is true that Ontario Hydro acquired the land for the Darlington generating plant between 1972 and 1975. It is true that Hydro completed its own assessment before the Environmental Assessment Act went into effect, and a copy of that assessment is contained in a volume which is readily available to those who are intensely interested. I draw attention to the fact that it is dated April, 1975. It is already now some 30 months old. Therefore, I suggest to you that the argument that we shouldn’t proceed with an assessment, particularly when Hydro didn’t move to fulfill the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act throughout the last two years, is not only a shallow argument, it’s not only a phoney argument, it’s an argument that I’m surprised Hydro is putting forward. Hydro could have moved two years ago.

I want to go one step further. I’m not blaming Hydro so much as this government. This government should have insisted that Hydro move two years ago with an environmental assessment through the necessary public hearings. If they had done so, they would have had the result of that hearing now. They could have incorporated it in the revisions in their plans as they now move on to the site. So, as far as I’m concerned, the blame rests more on the government than it does on Hydro. I’ve got to be careful here and I can’t name any names, but I am aware that two years ago there were voices high in the Ministry of the Environment urging that under no circumstances should Darlington be exempted from public hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act. Yet other people in the cabinet level, at the ministerial level, at the Hydro level, were willing and able to in effect veto that.

Mr. Warner: Shameful behaviour.

Mr. MacDonald: Even if Hydro is determined and even if the government is willing to accept that we proceed now with the Darlington plant and get into the initial stages of clearing the ground and proceeding with its erection; even if we are going to provide jobs and the minister can’t use the argument that we are denying an opportunity for employment in an area where there’s a significant measure of unemployment; even if all that is the case, there is still validity in my basic proposition at this stage that we should move towards public hearings for an environmental assessment. It may take a year or 15 months if it is proceeded with, with vigour and dispatch. At least 15 months from now we would have recommendations, and those could be considered in terms of any revision in the plans or the engineering, or the whole construction of the plant.

If the government did it now, it might have problems. If it doesn’t have an environmental assessment and it doesn’t anticipate some of those difficulties and they emerge after the plant is finished in 1983 and 1984 and 1985 and it gets into the generation of power, it’s going to be not only more difficult, it may be almost impossible to do something about the implementation of it.

I simply can’t understand why either Hydro or the government -- particularly Hydro -- isn’t at the head of a list of people who are saying, “We must have an environmental assessment.”

Surely after all the grief that we in Ontario had to deal with in the mining of uranium in Elliot Lake because of unanticipated problems for which there wasn’t adequate research in advance; surely after all of the grief that we had to deal with in the refining of uranium in Port Hope because there wasn’t sufficient knowledge and anticipation of the problems and now we are trying to grapple with it after the event; surely with all of the grief that Hydro has had with court cases and citizens’ protests and public meetings and delays in bringing the power down from Bruce county into the golden horseshoe; surely after all of that, the organization that should be at the head of the list saying we must have an environmental assessment to make certain that every conceivable problem that might arise will be anticipated and dealt with in advance is Hydro. But Hydro is mindlessly opposed to it.

One has to be fair and, as chairman of the committee, say that Hydro has had to be subjected to an endless succession of public inquiries and recognition of public needs from the task force in the early years of this decade to the annual approach now to the Ontario Energy Board for review of their proposed rates for the next year, to the select committee and now to the Porter commission, to the prospect of another select committee, I just can’t understand why in Hydro, they want as a sort of a last triumph to say that “in Darlington we don’t need to live up to a law, even if it is the law in the province of Ontario.”

They are the people who are going to suffer the consequences more than anybody else. Do you need to be very bright to anticipate after what has happened in all of the public protests with regard to the transmission lines, that for the next 10 years you are going to have an endless succession of citizens’ groups equipped with lawyers who are going to fight this thing in court after court after court?

I am not saying that an environmental assessment would eliminate that totally but an environmental assessment would at least give an opportunity to look into it carefully, it would allow all citizens to get what satisfaction they can in terms of the information related to this respective development, at least it would reduce, minimize, conceivably even eliminate it.


I find the case for exempting the Darlington plant from an environmental assessment so preposterous, and I find the case for proceeding forthwith for a public hearing so conclusive, that I am going to let my case rest.

I am curious to know what arguments the other side will bring up. If perchance there is any time left at the end of the debate, which will be available to me when we have done our circuit around from party to party, I would be glad to avail myself of it. But I would like to hear some measure of reasoned argument as to why the government shouldn’t proceed with the public hearings immediately.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: My colleague, the Minister of Energy, will review the factors which were considered by the government leading up to the decision to exempt the Darlington station from the Environmental Assessment Act. I intend to elaborate briefly this afternoon on the environmental safeguards provided the Darlington project, review the time-frame in which our planning decisions were made, and explain why we are convinced that we have adopted the proper course of action.

The Environmental Assessment Act is intended to apply in the conceptual and planning stages of a major proposal; and, by its terms, all that it measures must be presented as part of the assessment procedure. I must emphasize that the principal objective of the Environmental Assessment Act is to provide a comprehensive planning process which takes into account the social, economic, cultural, and natural environmental factors of major undertakings at the conceptual stage, at a time when alternatives, including the alternative of not proceeding, are still open to decision-makers.

In the case of the Darlington station, the government and Ontario Hydro had made significant decisions in the concept and planning for this station, in terms of the need for future electrical energy, the mode of generation to supply this need and the location of the station, well before the adoption of the Act by this House in July 1975, and the subsequent adoption of regulations in October 1976.

I am informed that the inclusion of the Darlington station under the Act would mean a delay of at least two years. This would mean a complete stop to the work involved in constructing the station. Preliminary work, such as site clearing, could not proceed while the assessment was in process, and as the member for York South suggested, since such a procedure would be totally at odds with the legal requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. Foulds: We would let you clear the site.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: In his news release of September 26, the member for York South recognizes the logic of the decision -- I think he mentioned it again today -- of the Porter commission to exclude Darlington from its consideration, since the commission’s report will deal with the years beyond 1983.

While Darlington will not come on stream until about 1985, the commission has recognized that it requires years to plan and build such a station, and for that reason it has excluded the Darlington station from its review.

Mr. MacDonald: Did they exclude it, or did you step in and exclude it? The government excluded it, don’t blame them.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Surely the same reasoning applies to the decision we have taken to exclude Darlington from the Environmental Assessment Act.

A recent letter which the hon. member for York South has mentioned, to the Ontario Hydro chairman from Dr. Robert Uffen, who is dean of science at Queen’s University, makes it clear that it is essential that the Darlington station proceed as quickly as possible. In fact, Dr. Uffen states that Darlington and two more similar installations could be built before, in his opinion, Ontario Hydro would be committed to a large program of nuclear power.

While Dr. Uffen has expressed his concern about the need to develop adequate long-term waste disposal methods, he expresses the opinion that delay or moratorium now would solve nothing and might produce greater problems than the ones needing solution. However, while we have exempted Darlington from formal review under the Act, hon. members may be assured that the construction and operation of this power plant will be most carefully supervised under the application of the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act. The project will also be covered by the federal Fisheries Act and by the regulations set down by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The whole purpose of these Acts and regulations is to guarantee the protection of the natural environment.

Let me review the planning process followed in the development of the Darlington proposal. As the hon. member for York South mentioned, in 1971 the Ontario cabinet approved the purchase by Hydro of the Darlington site. Two years later Ontario Hydro’s long-range plan, of which Darlington was a part, was approved in principle by the cabinet and referred to the Ontario Energy Board for its review.

In January, 1974, the government approved and made public Ontario Hydro’s public participation procedures for the siting of major generation and transmission facilities. These procedures were prefaced by an explicit statement in the front of this document to the effect that when the environmental assessment legislation eventually came into force, the procedure would be revised in accordance with the legislation.

Later that same year, in 1974, the Ontario Energy Board completed its review of Hydro’s long-range plan and recommended to the government that the choice of fuel to be used at the Darlington station would be thoroughly reviewed by Hydro. This was completed by February, 1975, when Hydro notified the Minister of Energy of the conclusions of that review, with the choice being a nuclear fuel station.

The Minister of Energy at that time was satisfied with Hydro’s analysis and conclusions. Hydro then proceeded with its public participation for a nuclear station in accordance with the procedures made public by the government a year and a half earlier.

Hydro had substantially completed its land acquisition by May, 1974. As the hon. members know, in July, 1975, the Act was approved by the Legislature. It took, however, another 15 months for the Act really to have any application.

The Ministry of the Environment, under a committee chaired by Dr. Chant of the University of Toronto, spent that period reviewing all activities of Ontario government ministries and agencies, including Hydro, in order to determine which activities should be subject to the procedures of the Act. At the conclusion of this major analysis, regulations and orders were passed by cabinet bringing the Act into force on October 20, 1976.

In my announcement at that time I explained why no decision was being made on the Darlington generating station. Let me read from that statement of October, 1976:

“Although Ontario Hydro’s planning for the proposed Darlington nuclear generating station is well advanced, the government is not exempting this project from the provisions of the Act at this time. In November, 1976, Ontario Hydro is expected to submit a report on its environmental studies involving the Darlington project. Early in the new year a community-impact study will also be submitted. These studies will review potential impacts on the natural environment from the proposed development, and possible social and economic effects in local communities.

“The Ministry of Energy will release these reports to various interest groups, and the general public, and invite public comment on these impact studies. After the public has an opportunity to comment on this report the government will decide whether a formal public hearing should be ordered or whether the project should be exempted from the provisions of the Act.”

As a result of this process, 13 letters were received from seven individuals and four associations -- no, that’s only 11 letters -- over the three-month period of December 10, 1976, to March 30, 1977. Four individuals requested a formal public hearing; two others expressed concern for nuclear safety and one proposed harbour facilities to be added to the project.

Both the town of Newcastle and the region of Durham, the communities most affected, had originally requested that the proposal be placed under the Act. In March and June of this year, respectively, both municipalities by resolution of council withdrew their requests for an environmental assessment.

The Ministry of Energy advised me of the results of the public participation process and the decisions of the municipality. On the basis of his evaluation of the public’s response and bearing in mind the need for, and timing of, additional generating capacity for the province, he recommended the Darlington generating station be exempt from the requirements of the Act.

I took the recommendation of the minister to cabinet, as required under section 30 of the Act, and a decision was made to exempt Darlington.

I have touched on these reasons briefly, and they have included the timing of the project, the environmental safeguards provided under existing legislation, and Ontario Hydro’s program of public participation in environmental assessment.

With respect to nuclear safeguards, these are the exclusive responsibility of the federal Atomic Energy Control Board, and the Darlington project will have to meet all the rigid specifications of that board.

On irradiated fuel, the federal government is studying a report by Dr. Kenneth Hare on alternate methods to dispose of radioactive waste. International investigations are also actively under way with Canada’s participation to find methods to ensure the safe containment of such waste. It is our understanding that storage of irradiated fuel at Darlington will be identical to that used at the two other stations, at Douglas and Pickering. That is, storage under large pools of water, which have proven a safe method, until long-term waste storage facilities are found.

In conclusion, I would like to make it clear to the hon. members that it is our intention that any future nuclear generating stations to be built by Ontario Hydro will meet the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act. I am convinced that we have made a decision that will both protect the natural environment and --

Ms. Gigantes: We’ve heard that before.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am convinced that we have made a decision which will both protect the natural environment and serve well the long-term interest of the people of this province.

Mr. Reed: We have heard a chronology of events from the Minister of the Environment, but the one thing he has failed to do is restate the very reasons why he decided to exempt this project from the terms of the Environmental Assessment Act, which he said to the press was the urgency of going ahead with this project.

I would like to deal for the few minutes I have this afternoon with this case for urgency. Periodically, editorials in the press and statements from various areas of the province speak of the case for urgency, and there is a word being used generally around the province we should talk about here today -- it is the word brown-out. I really don’t understand what the word means; whether we think everything is going as my leader once said, into sepia tone leaving no colours or what?

We should first of all understand what is meant by this word brown-out, which seems to throw fear into people. We know Hydro has engaged in deliberate brown-outs this past year in order to extend their facility and make it go further. They did one brown-out trial this summer. We know the effects of the brown-out. For those computers not equipped with voltage equalizing devices, it can throw them temporarily out of whack. That is the sum total of what a brown-out does. I think the people of Ontario should know that.

And with urgency being debated so continuously, I wonder if the people of Ontario know that up near Blind River this summer another small hydraulic power plant was destroyed at the behest of the Ministry of Natural Resources; taken out of service and simply wiped off the face of the earth. Granted, it produced a total of a half a megawatt of non-polluting renewable energy. So while you are talking urgency on the left band, the right hand knoweth not what the other is doing.

Mr. Conway: Tory methodology.

Mr. Reed: And it is a grand example of Tory management.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s idiotic, Julian. You know better than that.

Mr. Reed: I’d like to go into the urgency case a little more deeply. I checked with Ontario Hydro this afternoon to find out what the growth rate had been this year, what the expansion of the system had been thus far; the projection is four per cent. That should go on the record.

The point is, what about the alternatives and the business of urgency that comes up with the delay of the completion of this plant? Let me point out an amount of energy equivalent to a Darlington could be saved by an insulation program in Ontario at half the cost of the capitalization of the Darlington plant.

Mr. Conway: Broken promises. Broken promises.

Mr. Reed: And the figures to substantiate that I submit to the Minister of Energy are contained in his own publication called Turn on the Sun.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Great, eh? What do you think of that publication?

Mr. Reed: And if he will look at the efficiency of saving a megawatt of electricity, he will find that a megawatt can be saved for roughly half the cost of capitalizing the plant to make it.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Do you like that publication?

Ms. Gigantes: You shouldn’t let them do you in, you know. You are on the right track.

Mr. Reed: Over 50 per cent of the energy produced by Ontario Hydro is used for the production of low grade heat. That is for temperatures of under 100 degrees Celsius. It is very interesting that in this particular area, the opportunity to provide alternatives is greatest. My friend in the NDP who made this resolution in the first place has spoken of the recommendations made by the select committee -- the load management, all of the things that can be done.


If we take a mean average of consumption of electricity in the year, we find that we are really only using 50 per cent of Hydro’s system at the present. That is why the select committee made the recommendations it did about load management, co-generation and all of the things designed to raise the efficiency, and hence the cost effectiveness, of Ontario Hydro.

We hope to have a select committee reconvened this fall to find out what Hydro has done. I submit that perhaps one of the institutional barriers to raising the efficiency of Hydro is the fact that it considers its mandate simply to meet the demand, but does not consider that in itself has the means of control of its own production, without affecting by one iota the standard of living of the people of the province of Ontario. The control is there through load management, through pricing incentives and all of the various things that the select committee discussed. So it can be done.

The option, then, because of the case of urgency, to exempt the Darlington plant from this legislation in my mind is utter nonsense. It doesn’t add up. The only criterion the government seems to be using is simply recognizing a continuance of the old mandate to meet the original seven per cent per annum, reduced to six per cent through the efforts of the Treasurer of Ontario -- and something concurred with by the select committee, incidentally.

But where is the effort being made for the alternatives? There are none. Nothing has been done to this date, with the exception of some token experimental work with solar panels by Ontario Hydro. Their criterion for experimenting with solar energy was not with a view to getting it on line, but to study the impact it would have on their own systems.

Ms. Gigantes: Don’t forget the windmill.

Mr. Reed: Yes, we have a windmill too, don’t we?

I should point out, too, the program inaugurated by US utilities, which are privately owned, privately funded which have to pay a dividend to their stockholders and pay taxes -- things which Ontario Hydro never does. These utilities are lending money to their customers to insulate. And the reason why they are doing it is because it is darn good business. It’s because they know that they can make a better return on the loan for that insulation --

Hon. B. Stephenson: At $119 a month they can afford to.

Mr. Reed: -- they can make a better return on that loan for insulation --

Hon. B. Stephenson: At their hydro rates, you mean.

Mr. Reed: -- than they can for capitalizing new machinery.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Just ask what their hydro rates are for a month.

Mr. Conway: Will the minister be a little less noisy?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Because I have an imagination, I suppose.

Mr. Reed: I would also like to point out that I consider this kind of exemption on a project of this magnitude to be a dangerous precedent.

If we use the case for urgency as the criterion for exempting -- it’s all right, I’ll finish with the minister in a minute -- projects of this nature, I wonder what will be next. The minister should listen to this. Garbage dumps have a degree of urgency from time to time as well.

Mr. Foulds: Don’t look at the Minister of Labour like that when you use those terms.

Mr. Reed: What are you going to exempt next?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Not garbage dumps.

Mr. Reed: Are you going to exempt garbage dumps?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No.

Mr. Reed: You’re not going to exempt garbage dumps. That’s good because we’ve got one out in Milton that we don’t want exempted.

Mr. Reed: It’s a dangerous precedent and it’s one that must be stopped here and now.

Ms. Bryden: In rising to support this very important resolution I would like to point out that this is more than a simple request for a public hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act. It is a resolution which bears on the very important question of how Ontario’s energy needs are to be met in the next 10 or 20 years. This is because it relates to the largest nuclear development in Ontario and to one which will be the largest in the world. It is incredible that a project of this size and importance should not be subject to environmental assessment under the Act.

It is also a resolution which focuses on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the whole environmental assessment program of this government. Since the Environmental Assessment Act was proclaimed in October, 1976, at least 67 exemptions have been granted under section 30.

Ms. Gigantes: They have undermined their own legislation.

Ms. Bryden: Many are of very broad application, such as most of the activities of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. Ontario Hydro alone has received the largest number of exemptions, larger than any other ministry or agency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please, there are a number of private conversations which I believe are unnecessary.

Ms. Gigantes: It’s all those Liberals, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Bryden: Seventeen exemptions for Ontario Hydro up to the end of July. The exemptions have been coming so thick and fast that the Act resembles a fish net rather than a shield. Their proliferation brings into questions the credibility of the government’s avowed commitment to protection of the environment. It makes one wonder at the Minister of the Environment’s statement when he was describing the objectives of the Act and said: “The public will receive full information on these projects and programs and will have the opportunity to participate in the planning process.”

An hon. member: Hollow words.

Ms. Bryden: Certainly if the recent decision to exempt the Darlington nuclear project from the Act is not reversed one can only conclude that the Act is simply window-dressing.

It is interesting to note that the Darlington project was not included in the original list of Hydro projects exempted at the time the Act was proclaimed a year ago. The government gave as its reason the fact that Hydro was conducting its own environmental impact studies and community impact studies; that it would await these studies and would invite public comment on them before declining on whether to have a full public hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act.

I do not think that we can accept the principle that any studies conducted by an interested party, however well planned or executed, can substitute for an independent environmental assessment with public hearings, as provided for under the Act. The mere fact that some public input or comment was invited on the Hydro assessment does not validate that assessment as equivalent to public hearings conducted under the Act.

We must bear in mind that the province has already taken two big steps into the field of nuclear generation without public hearings or environmental assessment, because they were started before the Environmental Assessment Act was passed. It is quite conceivable that there are many things which can be learned from the experience of these two projects. This experience could be brought out at public hearings on the third project, now under contemplation, especially when the third project is going to be several times as large as the initial ones.

I question the minister’s statement that work on the site could not proceed while the environment assessment is under way. We are not asking for a complete freeze on the project, or a complete deferral of work which will provide much-needed employment this winter and next summer. I do not see why the site work could not be exempted under section 30 while environment assessment hearings were held on the construction plans, so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past and end up with a much more costly project, and also face the possibility of having to stop work in midstream with tremendous layoffs, similar perhaps to what happened in Sudbury, if we discover things in the future which could have been anticipated by proper hearings at the present time.

The government’s arguments for the exemption have already been scotched by my colleague the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald).

Hon. B. Stephenson: Really?

Ms. Bryden: The argument that it might cost more if there is any delay --

Ms. Gigantes: MacDonald knows how to scotch.

Ms. Bryden: --can be made against any activity in an inflationary period.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Scotched? I thought they had been ginned-up by it.

Mr. MacDonald: Corn, corn, corn.

Ms. Bryden: But the costs of rushing ahead into mistakes can be much greater.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, they were pretty rummy anyway.

Ms. Bryden: The real culprit, Mr. Speaker, for any costs of delay, is the government, which has already had a year to get the environmental assessment under way.

The crucial issue in this resolution is the future of the Environmental Assessment Act and the confidence of the people in that Act. Only by reversing its decision to bypass the Act can the government restore any faith in its commitment to protecting the health and safety of the people of Ontario, and the preservation of our environment.

Ms. Gigantes: The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) isn’t even here.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, surely the issue in this regard is whether to proceed now with the construction of that plant or whether to delay that construction.

Mr. MacDonald: That isn’t the issue.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: You have been ambivalent over there. As a matter of fact there is not one member in this House who had the intestinal fortitude to get up and say: “We will halt construction now.”

Ms. Gigantes: Halt construction now.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: How hypocritical can you be to suggest that you take that position, and then to proceed with an environmental assessment?

Mr. Foulds: Halt construction now.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Can you imagine that? What those hon. members are saying --

Ms. Gigantes: You are going to be sorry.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- is to proceed with the construction of that plant and at the same time, concurrently with that construction, to have an environmental assessment.

Mr. MacDonald: Right, right.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: That makes a mockery, surely, of the whole procedure.

Mr. MacDonald: What does?

Ms. Gigantes: Have you seen the latest forecast?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It makes a mockery of the whole procedure.

Mr. Warner: Resign, do us all a favour.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Surely the argument for proceeding with the construction now is to ensure the reliability of a secure supply of electrical energy in this province.

Mr MacDonald: Sure.

Mr. Foulds: Dispense.

Mr. Reed: We told you how to do it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Only with you.

Mr. Reed: We have given you the alternatives.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It’s important in view of the time of construction that the project commence immediately, which it has.

Mr. Breaugh: Leave out the big ones.

Ms. Gigantes: What about Madoc?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: If the delay is for one year --

Mr. Breaugh: Did Ontario Hydro write this speech for you?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: What about Madoc?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- and you carry forward your completion date for the first reactor to 1986, that what you are doing is letting your reserve margin fall to 15 per cent, and the 15 per cent reserve margin is critical in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: What about getting your coal plants moving?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Anything less than that would certainly bring about --

Ms. Gigantes: Get your boiler straps together.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- brown-outs or black-outs, as has been mentioned today.

If that construction is delayed for two years, and you carry forward the completion date of the first reactor from 1986 to 1987, then you reduce that margin of reserve further to eight per cent.

Ms. Gigantes: Have you seen the new forecasts?

Mr. Warner: Somebody help him turn the page.

Mr. Breaugh: What’s the matter? Did your crayon break?


Hon. J. A. Taylor: The member for York South has indicated a number of reasons why he thought this should proceed. I would like to inform the House --

Mr. Breaugh: That would be a first.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- that Ontario Hydro has been assessing all potential means for reducing load growth, including increased load management, intensified conservation, assigning a value for interconnections --

Mr. Foulds: Turn off the radiators in the lobbies.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- and negotiating more interruptible consumer power contracts.

Ms. Gigantes: Because they were ordered to.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: As a matter of fact, I would expect that within a month or so a report in regard to those items will be tabled in this House.

Mr. Foulds: Bob Colby didn’t write this speech, Robert Taylor did.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Notwithstanding that, it’s important to proceed immediately.

Mr. Foulds: Which Taylor is giving this speech?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Nothing at all will be added in proceeding under the Environmental Assessment Act, and the members across the House do not understand that the Environmental Assessment Act is a process. It adds nothing to the standards or the criteria --

Mr. Mancini: What did you pass it for?

Mr. MacDonald: Why did you pass it then?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- that are taken into consideration in the construction of a project in this province. They don’t seem to understand that.

Ms. Gigantes: Why does it exist?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It establishes no new standards. The standards are already enshrined in our legislation.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you take your skateboard and head for Lake Ontario?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Oh, that’s very intelligent, very clever.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Right, it’s just about your speed. Resign, David, resign. You’re a disaster, David; resign.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: May I point out to the members across the House that the Atomic Energy Control Act and the Atomic Energy Control Board are involved in the construction of a nuclear plant right from the very beginning, that is in terms of the site itself. The members across the floor don’t seem to understand that.

Mr. Foulds: How come you rely on that Liberal agency?

Ms. Gigantes: You had two years to do it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The Act wasn’t there two years ago.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: That site, that very site, has to be analysed by the board. In conjunction with that site, every piece of work that goes on on that site is under the strict scrutiny of the Atomic Energy Control Board and its regulations. You don’t seem to understand that these criteria have been established.

It’s more stringent that any criteria you could ever dream up and has resulted, in this province, in the development of nuclear power stations that are second to none in terms of reliability and safety; as a matter of fact they lead the world. I’m particularly proud of that fact in this province, even though you may ridicule that fact.

Mr. Lupusella: He is becoming an expert on nuclear power.

Ms. Gigantes: They’re the same people who gave us Port Hope.

Mr. Warner: It was better when you suggested tabling your report.

Mr. Foulds: Dump all the waste in northern Ontario. How much waste will there be?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Furthermore, we have all the provincial legislation which the Minister of the Environment has mentioned that applies to this.

Ms. Gigantes: He has just exempted it.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: You still can’t get through your thick heads across there the difference between form and substance. The Environmental Assessment Act is a form, the substance lies in other pieces of legislation which the Minister of the Environment has mentioned here today.

Mr. Foulds: Oh it’s just a form. Is that a government policy?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Furthermore, look at the local municipal requirements. You don’t seem to understand that the regional municipalities are involved very thoroughly in the planning process in terms of land-use planning, compatibility of development, the infrastructure of municipalities.

Ms. Gigantes: Hydro bought them off.

Mr. MacDonald: Why did you pass the Act?

Mr. Foulds: Hydro tries to snow the municipalities too, by waiting so long to give them information.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the member for Carleton East remain silent?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Don’t be so arrogant in assuming that you have superior wisdom to the people who are elected locally, who have some say in connection with what development takes place within their municipality.

Mr. Foulds: It is not arrogant to assume that one is more intelligent than you.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Both the regional municipalities of Durham and the town of Newcastle have reviewed, studied and analysed this very thoroughly. You may not have any faith at all in local self-government, but I can tell you --

Mr. Breaugh: They bought them off.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- that they have looked at this in conjunction with their official plans, their zoning, their infrastructure in terms of services -- whether it’s water, sewer or roads -- and they have given their sanction. They’ve endorsed this very project.

Ms. Gigantes: Shame on you.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: You want to eliminate all that; shame on you.

The timing of this project is important. It’s not only important from a point of view of ensuring a secure supply of electric power, but it’s also important in terms of ensuring the orderly employment of Hydro forces and other work forces in this province from one project to another.

Ms. Gigantes: You started two years ago.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: You don’t seem to understand there’s financial and economic planning involved in a work force such as Hydro employs in Ontario. You don’t seem to understand Hydro is spending something like $1.5 billion a year in construction in this province of Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Quit looking at your own member when you say that

Hon. J. A. Taylor: You would prompt a delay of that type of construction in order to satisfy a procedure which is not applicable in this case because of the history of the case starting in 1971.

Ms. Gigantes: What about Madoc?

Mr. Conway: Adam Beck couldn’t have said it better.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: We have the Pickering B plant where workmen must come off and gradually come into the Darlington area. The Wesleyville station, of course, is proceeding.

Mr. Sargent: You are going to hell on roller skates.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The Darlington station must proceed as well. It’s important to keep that kind of skilled work force together, and it’s important to the local community.

This project, Mr. Speaker, will cost in the neighbourhood of $3.9 billion when the work is completed early in 1988.

Mr. Makarchuk: By the time you are through, it will be twice that.

Mr. Breaugh: Eight by the time you are through.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Darlington now has 120 workers, which will increase steadily to 3,700 workers by 1984.

Mr. Conway: Enough to beat the member for Durham East the next time around.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: On-site wages and salaries in connection with this project will amount to $750 million; $145 million will accrue to local businessmen in the community.

Mr. MacDonald: You are setting up a strawman.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The spending within Ontario will amount to $2.5 billion.

Mr. Conway: You are a hollow reed.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: And the member for York South should know, if anybody knows, if you spend that kind of money, you have a rule of thumb that for every industrial job created you will create another five jobs. That could mean a probable expansion to 18,000 jobs in connection with this type of project.

Mr. MacDonald: We are not arguing against that.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: What members opposite are suggesting is that we delay this particular work.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister’s time has expired; the hon. member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Kerrio: Where the water goes over.

Mr. Warner: Try the Welland Canal.

Mr. Sargent: Now you will hear the truth.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the hon. member the mover reserved four minutes and 19 seconds for a reply.

Mr. Kerrio: How much time is there then, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: About two minutes.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I am pleased to support the resolution by the member for York South.

I think it’s a very good resolution. I would like to suggest to the Minister of Energy that if there is a panic situation existing, it’s one of his own making. I have stood here many times and I have listened to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and I have listened to the Minister of Energy suggest we run the greatest power development in the world, and we do.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Do you want to delay it or don’t you want to delay it?

Mr. Kerrio: But let me tell you something: In the province of Ontario, with the potential that exists here, if you didn’t run the best and the most efficient power plants in the whole wide world, you should all hang your heads in shame.

Mr. Eaton: We do, we do.

Mr. Kerrio: And now I would like to suggest, to follow up the suggestion that is of your own making, that Ontario Hydro has created demands on this province out of all proportion to need, leading us to waste power to the degree we do. You insisted for many years, “Hydro is yours; use it,” to the point you are still encouraging people in North Bay to heat with electric heat. The minister knows, sitting in his place there, that’s not the way to go in this time of restraint, a time when we should be much more efficient than we are.

Mr. Reed: He’s speaking the truth.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has one minute.

Mr. Kerrio: Electric heat is not the way to go, but as long as we have it to the degree we do, we should insist that we put in force one of the very platforms of that government on the other side, very efficient insulation. Insulation is still one of the most significant things we can do.

I would like to suggest to the minister right now that Hydro is not a sacred cow. If you want to put legislation across this floor to deal with everyone else in the province, you should submit yourself to the same kind of scrutiny, it shouldn’t be any different.

Only a very few days ago, on this very floor, we suggested to you province-wide bargaining and you wanted to exclude Hydro. We have suggested in many other instances that we should never exclude any of the forces that work for the people of this province from any kind of legislation which everyone else in this province is subject to.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired. The balance of the time is for the use of the member for York South.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in drawing this debate to a close, I just want to make two or three points. The argument has been advanced on the other side of the House we are trying to delay proceeding with this matter. There are two or three arguments that are contradictory. So let me take this one.

We are attempting to delay proceeding with this plant; that’s going to deny jobs, that’s going to deny all the multiplier effects throughout the community and the benefits to the community. Mr. Speaker, the point I made in a substantive conclusion of my initial comments was that even if you proceed with the building of your plant at the present time, there is no reason why you cannot go ahead with the environmental assessment.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: For what purpose, when you have your plan already laid out and approved?

Mr. MacDonald: Well just a minute. The Minister of the Environment shakes his head and says you can’t do it. Why can’t you do it? Is there anything in the Act that says that you can’t do it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Say the assessment board recommends against it?

Mr. MacDonald: Who did? The assessment board recommended against it?

Look, you are getting assists all over the lot. For two years you sat idly and didn’t do anything about the assessment. You now tell us that you are having Dr. Chant or somebody else, try to find out over what area the Environmental Assessment Act should apply. You could have said, with the largest project that was going to come into the province of Ontario, that it would apply there. While he went ahead with his other study of the application of the Act you could have proceeded. Starting in 1975, you were guilty of the procrastination, you were guilty of the collusion to exempt this. To argue now that the assessment board says you can’t go ahead with an assessment --

Hon. J. A. Taylor: You don’t even know what it would accomplish.

Mr. MacDonald: -- while the initial construction is going on, I suggest to you is just not a strong argument at all.

The minister also got up and challenged us, saying nobody here had the guts to get up and say, “Stop building it.” We have suggested to you that until we get the facts we are not persuaded. We haven’t been given the facts, in the light of the recommendations of the initial commission, that you really need that power for delivery in 1985.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Will you take it on your head to stop it?

Mr. MacDonald: As a matter of fact, when you take the information that was given to the House by the hon. member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed), our growth in the last year has only been four per cent --

Hon. J. A. Taylor: And you know it, Donald.

Mr. MacDonald: I know what?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: You know what the first few months were, you have to look at the average.

Mr. MacDonald: There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the implementation of the recommendations of the select committee would have reduced the need for power in 1985; plus the further fact, which has been put in this House, that it costs twice as much to capitalize the production of a new megawatt as it does to save an existing megawatt through conservation plans, and things of that nature. All of that could have been done to reduce the requirement for rushing into it at the present time without an environmental assessment.

But I come back to my basic point; you could have had your environmental assessment, you are just making excuses. For the minister to get up over there and say that henceforth we are not going to exempt any new plants; what does that do to your whole argument that you have done everything to consult the local municipalities?


Ms. Gigantes: They’ve bought them off.

Mr. MacDonald: You consulted with them and you bought them off --

Mr. Warner: You have been bought off.

Mr. MacDonald: -- to justify your going ahead.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: If you can’t distinguish between the procedure and the substance --

Mr. MacDonald: I think the case is still conclusive, even though the noise may have befogged it, the case is still conclusive that we should proceed with public hearings immediately.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: You don’t have the guts to say stop it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There are a number of questions before us and I would ask the attention of members as I place these matters before them.

I propose first to determine if the two matters be put to the House for a vote.

Sufficient members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Motion No. 7.

Sufficient members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Motion No. 8.

Mr. Conway: Well the turkeys are all in one bin.

Mr. S. Smith: Well Darcy, you can explain this the next time you are talking to the CMA. I’d like to hear you get your way out of this one.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The government House leader has some information for members.

Hon. Mr. Welch: At this time it’s usual that we indicate the order of business for next week before the supper break.

I would like to mention that tomorrow morning, in view of a very important national event taking place in Quebec City starting tonight, which will get this country back in the right direction --

Mr. Peterson: Dump Joe.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We started with Manitoba.

Mr. Conway: Bob Coates is just what the country needs. Who is going to move his nomination?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Remember B.C.?

Hon. Mr. Welch: He is a short guy too, but let me tell you, he’s a powerful man. Don’t underestimate Joe Clark.

An hon. member: So was Napoleon.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. House leader kindly indicate what we might expect next week?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, because of that, I thought I should indicate to the House that there will be a number of cabinet ministers absent tomorrow.

Mr. S. Smith: Who would notice?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We felt in fairness, in order to avoid confusion tomorrow and to provide guidance for the preparation of questions, that we should indicate that to both opposition parties and provide them with a list of members of the executive council who will be here tomorrow for the question period.

Mr. Warner: Can’t we choose?

Mr. Kerrio: Who is going to sit with Lorne?

Hon. Mr. Welch: So there will be some 14 or 15 members of the cabinet here tomorrow for the question period, and the opposition parties have been provided with a list of names of those members of the cabinet who will in fact be here tomorrow.

Mr. Conway: We want Frank.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Going to next week and the usual committee structure as it’s now understood, I might simply indicate that on Tuesday, being legislation day, we serve notice that the following bills, time permitting, will be called: Bills 40, 77, 81, 72, 73, 25, 84, 85, 88, and 91.

An hon. member: In that order?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, hopefully. We have agreed we are going to meet only in the afternoon on Wednesday, and on that afternoon we would do estimates in the House. By that time we should be ready to carry on with the estimates of the Attorney General.

Thursday’s business will be in the morning, and we will do the two private members’ bills standing in the names of the members for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and Essex South (Mr. Mancini), with the bell at 1:45 p.m.

Mr. Warner: Are you going to have a free vote on it?

Mr. Cassidy: Are you going to block the vote again?

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is no House on Friday.

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to respond to any questions there might be, but that would be the order of business for next week.

Mr. Foulds: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like you to take it under consideration as to whether, when the new provisional order 36(f) about 20 members standing in their place is in effect, the old standing order 81 also applies; that is, if five members request a recorded vote, such a recorded vote requested by those objectors should take place? I would like you to take that under advisement.

Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding of the rule that you don’t take a recorded vote unless there is a division; and there was no division. It wasn’t even allowed to be put to the House. It wasn’t even being put to the House.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There would have to be a division first.

Mrs. Campbell: They stifled the vote.


Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Yorkview want to use the time up until 6 o’clock; or is it the wish of the House that I call it 6 o’clock?

Mr. Young: Call it 6 o’clock, Mr. Speaker.

The House recessed at 5.53 p.m.