Hansard Transcripts 1977-Nov-15 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of personal privilege regarding an article that appeared in the York-Durham section of the Toronto Star yesterday wherein a member of this Legislature misled the press.

The article contained remarks attributed to a member of this Legislature, and I spoke with the reporter yesterday who confirmed that the statement contained in the article was, in fact, made by the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong). I am sorry he is not in his seat today. He was notified by my office that I would be rising on this point of privilege.

The article reads in part: “Al Stong, MPP York Centre, who sits on the Justice committee, said in an interview that the private bill regarding Georgina is being sponsored by Bill Hodgson, MPP York North. Stong said that he is concerned about whether or not the bill should proceed when a court action is pending and said that the MPP for the area, Bill Newman, MPP Durham-York, should be called by the committee. Stong said ‘Newman is not presenting the bill because I suspect he wanted to stay away from it because it is so controversial. Although Newman is the Agriculture minister, he could still present a private member’s bill like any other MPP’, Stong said.”

Mr. Speaker, I further checked again with the Clerk’s office and, as members of this House know, as a cabinet minister I am not permitted to introduce a private bill. The member for York Centre, who is also a member of the bar and a member of the Justice committee, might have checked his facts before providing the reporter with misleading and incorrect information. Not only did he provide incorrect information, he took it upon himself to present what he thought was my position. In doing so, he has cast aspersions on my character.

Mr. Deans: Oh, sit down for heaven’s sake.

Mr. Martel: You will go up in the eyes of everyone, Bill.

Mr. Deans: This is an abuse of our time. Boy, are you getting thin-skinned in your old age.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have been inundated by calls from my constituents and the press requesting a clarification, and I have tried to set the record straight. Unfortunately, this article has already appeared and it would be virtually impossible to have it corrected before the private member’s bill is heard this Thursday, as the weekly papers have already gone to press.

I would ask that the member for York Centre produce an apology for saying what he said in the York-Durham section of the Toronto Star, which was incorrect.

Mr. Nixon: Are you supporting the bill or not? What is your position?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RECREATIONAL TRAILS

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, today I’m tabling the final report of the Ontario Trails Council. Earlier today I arranged for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) to receive copies shortly after the report was presented to me.

The Ontario Trails Council report is the result of an order in council two years ago which created a citizens’ advisory committee to look into the issues surrounding recreational trails and to make recommendations to my ministry for an Ontario trails program, including research requirements for the program, legislative changes required, a policy framework and an implementation program which would describe the roles of all levels of government, conservation authorities, trail clubs and other interested groups.

The report presents 90 recommendations which call for some form of government action. The public responded very well to the efforts of this council. Over 300 written briefs were presented by interested groups and individuals at the 13 public meetings of the Trails Council. I understand that more than 2,000 requests have been received for a copy of this report.

I want to compliment the members of the Ontario Trails Council and the council chairman, Mr. William Coates of Guelph, who is present in our gallery this afternoon, for a job well done. Their report has not only posed some interesting questions for the government, but provides a wealth of knowledge on the issues of trail use and trail users within the province.

My ministry will be reviewing the report and co-ordinating the government’s response.

ORAL QUESTIONS

REED PAPER

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm reports that the Reed Paper proposal is now a dead issue, that the Reed company has decided not to go ahead with the building of its proposed plant, irrespective of the findings of the Hartt inquiry? Can he, in commenting on this, tell us, if that is a fact, whether he has any proposal for some other plant, or whether he will make the timber available in that area for other existing plants? Exactly what are his proposals with regard to that 19,000 square miles or so of timber?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have not been told by the Reed corporation that it does not intend to proceed. I have read, as I’m sure others have, a copy of a statement made yesterday by its senior vice-president before the Hartt commission. I have no inside information. I have talked to the president of the company and I have not been told by the president of the company that it does not intend to go ahead.

Mr. Lewis: Which president?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. MacIver. I want to tell the member I am allowed, as anyone else here is allowed, to read a statement of that kind and come to my own conclusions. That statement said it did not think the project was economically viable today. I assume that means the company may not wish to proceed.

Mr. Martel: Sounds like blackmail.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Since we had at least two or three years of hearings under the Hartt commission, we had the Environmental Assessment Act, if applicable, to consider, and most certainly we had environmental matters to consider, design and a whole series of things, I would say that even if that company were proceeding today with its intent, as it was originally supposed to do, it would be several years before anything would actually be started. Markets change dramatically. We are going to do our homework in this ministry as agreed.

Mr. Lewis: Good.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We will do the forest inventory. We will have the information available. Mr. Hartt will be proceeding with his study. When all those things terminate, if there is a willing person or company and the conditions are right, I certainly will be looking for a person to do it.

Mr. Lewis: Pity we didn’t start that way from the outset, isn’t it?

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: While the minister is looking at this proposal afresh, given these developments, will he be talking to the owners of existing mills and those who might be interested in smaller-sized, more manageable contracts, rather than one contract for the entire area of timber? Will he be able to report to the House at some point on the feasibility of developing that resource, but doing so with great care for proper management, as might be maximized in having smaller areas rather than the whole 19,000-square-mile site?

Mr. Lewis: That is what the Hartt commission is doing.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I spent a good part of this morning talking to the mill operators of this province. My immediate problem is to keep them in business with their existing mills. Let us not lose track of the fact that the world is overproducing pulp and paper at this present time. We have lumber mills in Ontario closing down in some places today simply because they can’t dispose of the chips that are being produced as pulp production is down. So we have an immediate short-term problem very similar to that in the metals business. In the long run, I can only tell the hon. member that it is unlikely any new pulp mill could survive on less than the product of the entire range.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Did it cross the minister’s mind in any way, shape or form, that the statement by Reed and the campaign that seems to be escalating in the newspapers with regard to the tough times the pulp and paper industry is facing is part of a pressure game to persuade the ministry to cut back on proper forest management?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, luckily I don’t have a Machiavellian mind like my colleague opposite. I honestly do believe the pulp and paper industries are in trouble today because of world oversupply.

Mr. S. Smith: Of course they are.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I honestly do realize that Reed Paper is losing $20 million this year.

Mr. Foulds: How much did they make in 1973?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It’s always “What did they make before?”

Mr. S. Smith: Socialist paranoia.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not believe that this is a negotiating move by the company to force our hand.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Energy, if I might: Can the minister explain how it was that Ontario Hydro authorized commencement of work for Bruce heavy water plant D on January 16, 1974, and work was carried on since January 1974. In view of the fact that the then Minister of Energy’s (Mr. McKeough) policy statement of July 1974, some six months after work began, stated, and I quote, “The government has deferred decisions regarding the Bruce heavy water plant D pending further recommendations of the Ontario Energy Board expected later this year,” and in view of a statement in the Legislature in April 1975 by the previous minister (Mr. Timbrell) stating that the government was “committing construction on the plant now” -- there was an announcement of construction at that time, how do things get started and how are they approved between Hydro and the Energy ministry?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked a series of questions. The chairman of Hydro has now responded to those questions in writing and they have been delivered to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, that’s a fact. It’s because of the fact that I have these that I’m asking a supplementary question: Since I am told by the chairman of Hydro very clearly that Bruce heavy water plant D was authorized for commencement of work on January 16, 1974, and yet the former Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) announced deferring of that decision five or six months later and then the previous minister (Mr. Timbrell) issued an announcement in 1975 of the beginning of that plant, how come all these announcements are being made afterwards when work started in January 1974?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I think that’s a matter that the Leader of the Opposition discussed with the chairman of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Nixon: You are supposed to be in charge of policy.

Mr. Kerrio: Why don’t you say you can’t answer the question?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: If there is further detail or explanation that he requires in addition to those conversations and in addition to the very lengthy response to the -- I believe it was 12 questions --

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you just say you don’t know?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- then I’m sure that he’d be happy to supply that. If the hon. member wishes me to pursue that or if the Leader of the Opposition wants higher profile in connection with this matter and wishes to take it up with the select committee, I’m sure he can do that as well.

Mr. Deans: But you should know.

Mr. Roy: It is obvious that you don’t want to answer.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Who has the senior political status in this province around matters dealing with energy? Is it the chairman of Hydro or is it the minister?

[2:15]

Mr. Warner: Hydro runs the show.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker I think that the leader of the third party should not confuse energy matters with --

Mr. Lewis: With Hydro, I know that.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- a specific corporation dealing only with the area --

Mr. Sargent: Answer the question.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- of electrical energy which has its powers and its duties --

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you do us all a favour? You don’t know what you’re doing -- you should resign.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- explicitly expressed in an Act of this Legislature.

Mr. Lewis: To whom does the chairman of Hydro report?

Mr. Foulds: The minister doesn’t seem to know.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The member should know that. Of course he reports to the Minister of Energy in this House as always, absolutely.

Mr. Lewis: He reports to the minister?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The supplementary has been asked and answered.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary: Does the minister not feel that the people of Ontario deserve an answer? That’s why this question was asked in this House.

Mr. Warner: The chairman of Hydro isn’t here.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: If the member is suggesting that his curiosity manifests the curiosity of the people of Ontario then --

Mr. Reed: If you don’t know, then say you don’t know.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: What do you mean?

Mr. Speaker: Does the member want an answer to the question?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I wish the member would get together with his leader. If he got together with his leader and reviewed all of that material, including the two contracts and the answers to the questions, he wouldn’t be asking these questions today in the Legislature. He has all of that information.

Mr. Lewis: I have a question related to this. Does the minister not realize that in the succession of questions and answers, what is emerging is not so much what happened at site B or at site D but who has the final authority to determine energy policy in this province? Does he not realize that by his answers he seems to be surrendering to the chairman of Hydro an authority which vests in the Legislature and in the minister himself?

Mr. Warner: Right on, he runs the show.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party is obviously confusing the overall energy policy of this province --

Mr. Lewis: No, I’m not.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- with the matter of two contracts at Bruce.

Mr. Makarchuk: Are you taking mind-diminishing drugs?

Mr. Warner: We are going to buy the minister an electric chair.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: There’s no question about that. It’s not a question of surrendering energy policy and the member knows it.

Mr. S. Smith: I have a final supplementary. Regarding this contract for heavy water plant D, can the minister explain why it took until November 3 of this year to sign that contract, when in point of fact it differs in almost no way -- only in the fee and the schedule -- from the actual contract signed over two years ago for B? Why the delay? What has been the resistance in getting this contract signed? Why has it taken over a year and a half to actually get this contract for D signed when, in fact, it differs in no detail at all from B?

Mr. Deans: Bette, you’d better start helping him again. He is getting in trouble.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, I doubt that.

Mr. Lewis: You weren’t told.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Again, Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the question that the Leader of the Opposition asked the chairman of Hydro.

Mr. Deans: You don’t know.

Mrs. Campbell: Why don’t you get the chairman of Hydro in and ask him?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: He explained the process. As a matter of fact, he explained the history --

Mr. S. Smith: I asked that question of the chairman.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- the commercial practice in terms of going from A, which the same company built, to B, which is precisely the same type of plant, and then on to D.

Mr. S. Smith: I know the answer to that.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: If the member is looking for publicity and high profile why doesn’t he --

Mrs. Campbell: Don’t you start.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This line of questioning is getting us nowhere.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s for sure.

Mr. Deans: The line of answering is getting us nowhere.

OHIP OFFICE CLOSURE

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the Minister of Health? In view of the quite remarkable response within the Windsor community of disappointment, frustration and anger to the precipitate closing of the OHIP office, will he reconsider his decision?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it is not a total closing and, no, I’m afraid I will not reconsider.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: How can he possibly, in the name of saving dollars, close down that Windsor OHIP office and shift the claims processing to London when in the year 1976-77 the Windsor office processed 40,000 claims per employee and the London office processed only 27,000 claims per employee, and particularly inasmuch as the field services for both Lambton and Kent were done out of the Windsor office in addition?

Mr. Peterson: Stop picking on London, right now.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could set the record straight: In 1976-77 the Windsor office processed two million claims with a staff of 51. The London office processed 4,800,000 claims with a staff of 128. That does not work out to be a difference of 27,000 to 40,000. The Windsor office has a slight edge but it is just that -- a slight edge.

Mr. Ruston: It is more efficient.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Given the savings of $500,000 that will accrue in the move to London, the staff in London will be able to handle the volume very well for that entire part of southwestern Ontario.

Mr. B. Newman: If the minister is going to use such an argument, why doesn’t he close up other offices in the province, concentrate all of his facilities, all of his claims here in the Toronto area, and save a lot more money?

Mr. Deans: Don’t suggest that. He will.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will be pleased to take that suggestion from the official opposition as notice.

Mr. Deans: That wasn’t very clever.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We don’t think that it would work, though. As you know, we are trying to decentralize out of Toronto.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a logical extension of what you are doing in Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Consistency and inconsistency, from the member’s point of view, depends upon what he wants to do with it.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections and answer the supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would be pleased to, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. We are going to move the head office of OHIP out of Toronto. This is not a centralization. It will still be decentralized away from Toronto but, for southwestern Ontario, effecting some savings. As I recall, during debates that were going on during the month of May leading up to the election on June 9, the points coming from the Liberal Party were that we should be looking at every aspect of government for possible economies. This we are doing and this is one of them.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Health has closed Riverview hospital in Windsor and now the OHIP office, does he have any plans to close anything else down in Windsor?

An hon. member: What have you got against Windsor?

Hon. B. Stephenson: How about Windsor itself?

Mr. Lewis: Did you hear that? “How about Windsor itself,” said the Minister of Labour while the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) nodded.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You have been broadcasting too long.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have a suggestion that we close about four riding offices there.

An hon. member: Call Tory headquarters.

An hon. member: Don’t tempt us.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I reiterate that it is not a total closing of the OHIP office. It will still be maintained for inquiries from the public and from practitioners. The background to the Riverview unit of the Windsor Western Hospital -- and Riverview is not a hospital -- is a matter we have discussed many times.

Mr. Bounsall: Has the minister any idea --

An hon. member: No, he hasn’t.

Mr. Bounsall: I must wait until he finishes his reading, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any idea of the number of claims that come from Windsor area residents for treatment in Detroit because of the specialized treatment and facilities in that city, claims which they personally bring in to that Windsor office for processing? It’s a situation which does not arise in the London office and a situation that’s very important to the delivery of the OHIP services and doctors’ payments in the city of Windsor. Finally, is he aware --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Bounsall: -- that there is now, with the planned consolidation of his OHIP office space in London, a shortage of space for those employees already there, let alone those he plans to offer to shift from Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, just to answer the last point first: The indications from my staff in OHIP are that there is sufficient space and sufficient machinery and so forth in London to pick up the extra load.

As regards the first point -- no, I am not aware of the volume but I am sure that of the two million claims processed by that office, I doubt if that kind of claim would account for more than a small fraction of one per cent. You certainly wouldn’t use that as the basis of a decision not to go to London, and because of that not save $500,000 a year. I understand there is a postal system in Windsor which also connects with London, and those claims can be mailed to London.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Treasurer: Do I take it the Treasurer noticed that the single largest component, I believe, of the announced increase today in the consumer price index was property taxes for the first time in a very long time? In the circumstances would the Treasurer reconsider altering his present position on the Edmonton commitment, which he appeared to repudiate?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second part of the question is no. The answer to the first part of the question is that I had noticed that. I don’t quite understand, since these are Canadian figures, why property taxes come into the Statistics Canada figures at this point in time. Tax bills in Ontario generally had been known, and many of them would have been paid, much earlier in the year. Whether this increase is the influence of other parts of Canada or whether they bring them all in during this month, I simply don’t know.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, surely the Treasurer recognizes that this is an accelerating problem in Ontario as the municipalities bear the burden of the provincial financing. And since it is now hitting the home owners so dramatically that it figures in the cost of living, is there not some way in which the Treasurer can cushion the burden by way of supplementary estimates or supplementary contributions to the municipalities?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to find out that the leader of the third party recognizes that taxes are part of the cost of living --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, terrific!

Mr. Warner: The Treasurer is causing them to rise.

Mr. Lewis: They are now identified.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- that whether they are personal income taxes, whether they are sales taxes, or whether they are property taxes, they are a part of the cost of living. That’s a tremendous leap forward on his part.

Mr. Lewis: Thanks so much. By way of supplementary, has it occurred to the Treasurer that if he had saved some of the money he squandered on Haldimand-Norfolk, Edwardsburgh and Minaki, he would be able to give the municipalities of Ontario what he originally committed himself to?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, when I go to bed at night, I sometimes worry about some of the things that the member has mentioned --

Mr. Sargent: I’ll bet you do.

Mr. Warner: You should.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- but inevitably I get down on my knees and thank God that the people of Ontario haven’t listened to all his hare-brained schemes.

Mr. Lewis: I am glad the Treasurer gets down on his knees to someone -- anyone.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A supplementary by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: Let the Treasurer name one.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nationalizing Inco.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, don’t be so silly. You’ve destroyed the province of Ontario and now we’re paying for it.

Mr. Foulds: The Tories nationalized Minaki Lodge.

Mr. Martel: Look at Hydro.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the Treasurer not accept that by putting the burden of growth on to the property tax --

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Sudbury East and the member for Port Arthur just try to restrain themselves?

Mr. Lewis: Have you seen what the member for Sudbury East is wearing?

Mr. Speaker: He looks like a chairman of the board; I wish he would act like one.

Mr. Lewis: He is a Deans supporter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: And he is going to Winston’s tonight.

Mr. S. Smith: Does the Treasurer not accept that municipal finance at this time in Ontario is in serious difficulty, and that by putting the burden of additional expenditures largely on to property tax, we are actually getting to the point where we are beginning to interfere with some of the fundamental social aims of the province -- some that I know he shares; such as home ownership and allowing some of the elderly people to stay in their own homes.

Would the Treasurer not undertake to give a commitment that means something, rather than the Edmonton commitment, to the municipalities of Ontario so that he can put some firm lid on the property tax increases and give them a share of other revenues in a way that they can count on from year to year and so that we don’t lose track of some of the fundamental social policies which I suspect that even he in his heart shares with the rest of us on this side?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I don’t accept the premise on which the question was asked and if the member would consult with any number of tables, he would find that property taxes as a percentage of household disposable income in this province have been dropping rather dramatically over the last 10 years, and that the facts as the member would have us believe them are simply not so.

Mr. Cassidy: They were, but they’re going up now.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Not the percentage.

BAR ADMISSION COURSE

Mrs. Campbell: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. Having in mind that the chief law officer of this province is concerned about the intellectual quality of legal education, has the Attorney General read the report in the Globe and Mail of this morning? Has he any comment on the awful scene at the bar admission course? What does he propose to do about it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker; I have no knowledge of the article to which the hon. member has referred.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Haven’t you read the Globe this morning?

Mrs. Campbell: Then, Mr. Speaker, I would invite the Attorney General, who I think is probably the only one who hasn’t read it, to read it and perhaps comment as to whether or not he would like to see intellectual excellence rather than a sexist bias on behalf of the instructors in the bar admission course.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Without reading the article, I can agree to that, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Campbell: The Attorney General agrees there shouldn’t be hockey violence. What does he agree should be done about this kind of sexist education? What is he going to do about it? Or does he care?

Hon. W. Newman: They would take you off the ice.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: I wonder, while the Attorney General is taking this serious matter under consideration, if he would give us a report on the admission course, the kinds of instructors that are there, the types of textbooks that are being used. I wonder if he has some comments on the particular textbooks that are being used, that were called by the paper “sexist oriented.” Perhaps he could tell us what he intends to do after having investigated those textbooks and the instructors who are used at the course.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have not agreed to investigate, as the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere states, the bar admission course. If he has any specific concerns in relation to textbooks that he really feels should concern the Attorney General of this province, then I’ll be happy if he brings them to my attention.

DAY CARE

Mr. Breaugh: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. There have been a number of reports in the media lately concerning day care provided in private home situations with, in some instances, rather large numbers of children in a private apartment. Is the ministry aware of that and is the minister considering any steps that might regulate that?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The present legislation already provides for the regulation of day-care services where more than four unrelated children are present on the premises.

It has been brought to my attention through the media that there have been reports of incidents where apparently there has been service provided in breach of the legislation. I have instructed members of my staff to investigate. In fact, in one case they have been in contact with the person from whom the story originated, but were unable to get substantiating information. That does not mean the matter has been placed to rest. We have laid charges against persons operating an illegal day nursery and that matter is now proceeding.

Especially if these operations exist in a setting such as an apartment building, it’s sometimes difficult to detect that. But wherever we hear any indication of it, we follow up on it immediately.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. I know he wouldn’t agree to this last week, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder if he would agree this week, that as long as he is going to restrain the growth in a necessary service like day care he is going to have bootleg operations.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that, even this week. I would point out to the hon. member that within the province of Ontario at the present time, and I think our ratio is probably better than elsewhere in the country, we provide daycare service --

Ms. Gigantes: On what grounds do you say that?

Mr. Warner: Ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- to about 15 per cent of the children of working parents. But the bulk of the service provided in day care, care for children in this province, is provided by the parents making private arrangements with friends, neighbours or family.

Ms. Gigantes: Totally inadequate.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You may think that it is inadequate. I happen to believe there is still room for parents to make certain decisions with respect to the care of their children.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is not inadequate. I used it for years and it is not.

Mr. McClellan: Spoken like a true bachelor.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would think it presumptuous of me as the minister in this portfolio to assume that I could make the kind of rash statements that the hon. member has made, that children whose parents may be working are necessarily at risk. I disagree with that. I think parents in most cases are quite competent to make decisions with respect to the care of their children.

Mr. Foulds: Why not give them an option?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would point out that in many instances there is a choice available.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You take care of your own kids.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Although we are not in a position to provide publicly supported day care services for all of the children of working parents, I would go so far as to say I don’t even think that is a desirable objective. Our first priority is to help those people who are in need.

Ms. Gigantes: Two hundred and fifteen spaces this year.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Look at the total number available in the province.

HARTT COMMISSION

Mr. Hennessy: I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources about a statement that was made yesterday by Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt. He said he intends to move the inquiry down to the southern part of Ontario; it was a northern inquiry as far as I am concerned. The statement made was that there is more political influence in the south, and that the south should take care of the problems that exist in the north. This I disagree with very strongly, being a member from the north.

I would like to know why Mr. Hartt is moving his inquiry down to the southern part of Ontario when the whole inquiry concerns the northern part of Ontario. I don’t think any inquiries from the south are moved up to the north.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Let me assure the member that Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt is not taking any direction from me, nor should he.

Mr. Roy: You are not going to call him up?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can only say that if, in his wisdom, he feels he needs to talk to people in southern Ontario who may wish to express opinions about the north, he is certainly free to do so.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Can the minister tell us how the royal commission is being funded, as we found out last night it was not being funded through the Attorney General’s department?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think I need to have somebody in the legal department of government, or the Chairman of Management Board answer that question rather than me.

Mr. Sargent: Only $2 million? Let it go.

Mr. Foulds: Can I redirect the question?

Mr. Speaker: If there is a minister prepared to answer.

Mr. Foulds: The Chairman of Management Board?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The question that was asked a moment ago?

Mr. Lewis: Who pays for the Hartt commission?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, funding for the Hartt commission.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The amount will be shown in the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Correctional Services: This is a three-part question. Is the minister employing female guards in all-male prisons, and is he employing male guards in all-female prisons? If the answer to either is yes would he not consider that some of the duties these guards are asked to perform are not an infringement of the personal privacy of the inmates?

Mr. Roy: It is tailor-made for you, Frank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, firstly, I am very proud of the fact that we have more than 125 female correctional officers dealing in what I think would reasonably be regarded as all-male institutions, and doing a remarkable job. We have a unisex ministry.

Secondly, for many years, ever since the opening of the Vanier Institute for Women, there have been male staff there. There is a difference between what generally would be regarded as an all-male and an all-female institution --

Mr. Roy: You are right again, Frank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- in that a female correctional officer can work three shifts in an all-male institution, whereas a male officer is not allowed to work the third shift, or the sleeping shift, in a female institution.

An hon. member: That’s sexist.

Hon. Mr. Drea: To the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, the only comment I would make is that the same deterrent that the hon. member is trying to put in front of female correctional officers in male institutions applied when Florence Nightingale tried to bring nursing into the twentieth century.

Mr. Lewis: You are not doing too badly, fellow. Not badly at all.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: While appreciating the minister’s quest for equality, first of all does he not recognize that the differences in functions in male and female prisons are an obvious recognition of discrimination? Would he not consider that some of the functions that these female officers are asked to perform are not an infringement of the personal privacy of the inmates?

Mr. Foulds: Like what?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Such as?

Mr. Reed: Such as guarding them while they are performing their personal ablutions?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is a difference between males and females.

Mr. Martel: Right on Frank, right on.

Mr. Philip: When did you find out, Frank?

Mr. Lewis: Thank God the school children are here.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I regard females who are specifically trained for an occupation in the year 1977 to be professional people. I regard them in exactly the same capacity as I would female doctors. We don’t preclude female doctors from administering to male patients. We do not preclude the vast majority of our nursing staff, which traditionally over the years are female, from ministering to male patients. As a matter of fact, most of the male patients are profoundly grateful that they are there.

Mr. S. Smith: Why don’t males work the third shift? They are professionals.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Certainly in no way, shape or form am I going to turn back the clock and say that we are not going to employ females as on-line correctional officers. We are the only ones in Canada who do so. We are going to employ more. I will tell the House in terms of guarding the inmates’ privacy, there are certain functions that are not performed by female guards, such as the original skin search when a person is admitted. But in terms of being on line -- and they are on line, even on the midnight shift in places as tough as Millbrook -- there is no difference between the functions they perform and the professional manner they carry them out, and in what a psychiatric nurse in Penetang does.

Mr. Lewis: Well done.

Mr. Conway: There really is a future leader over there.

Mr. Lewis: Now, if the Attorney General handled the bar admission course question the way the Minister of Correctional Services handles institutions.

[2:45]

Mr. Davidson: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that the present system as it is practised today is far more beneficial than detrimental to the system? And will he tell us when he plans to hire more female guards in order to look after the needs of the institutions that exist in the province -- be they male or female?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if I could just appeal to you for a moment, for about the fourth time, I would appreciate it if correctional officers were referred to here as correctional officers rather than guards, which is a very outdated title.

Two things have happened upon the introduction in the past year of female on-line correctional officers. The reason I say “on-line” is that I want to differentiate between the female correctional officer and the female person who is watching over a female inmate. The first thing that happened was that the language has improved enormously inside. Two, the personal hygiene among males has improved enormously with the introduction of female correctional officers. Three, in general the rowdiness in the cell corridors has diminished remarkably.

As a matter of fact if you want to go back in history in this province, Mr. Speaker, they have had the same impact upon the jail system as the integration of the beverage room -- they cleaned up the act.

Mr. Foulds: Let’s not carry that parallel too far.

Mr. Roy: How would you know that, Frank?

Mr. Reed: Being an expert on both.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I never drank beer.

Mr. Martel: Tonic water, Frank?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The hiring practices in a ministry are a matter of talent, a matter of experience, a matter of qualifications, and we have unisex hiring as we have unisex work performance.

Mr. Reed: With all of this equality that is now before us, why are male correctional officers not allowed to work the third shift?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I believe it has been traditional. It probably came when the Vanier Institution was opened some years ago. The mere presence of males in a female institution was regarded as somewhat radical. I think falsely, but necessarily, there is a concern that during the third shift, at which time the inmates would be asleep, there might be some attempt at a violation of their personal integrity. I regard that as absolutely no threat, but the public and a great many people who are associated with female institutions do.

The present system at Vanier is no hardship. Most of the male officers are in administrative capacities anyway and they just simply don’t work the third shift. The female staff who are in the preponderance there do work the third shift. I think it’s something that has to be looked at in the future, but I personally see no harm in it. I think that males in that atmosphere can be just as professional as females when they are on the line between midnight and the dawn rising hour.

HOSPITAL CUTBACKS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Health -- is he not still there?

Mr. Roy: Sure he is.

Mr. Cassidy: He’s hiding.

In view of the reports that are now circulating --

Mr. Roy: You’re not going to make much of a leader if you can’t see.

Mr. Breaugh: You should know, Albert.

Mr. Cassidy: He’s a retiring type.

In view of the reports which are now circulating in Brockville and in Kingston, is the government considering a closure of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital? Is it also considering giving the OHIP headquarters to the Chairman of the Management Board’s riding rather than the Minister of Community and Social Services’ when this headquarters is transferred to eastern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Neither rumour is in any way founded in fact.

Hon. Mr. Norton: He knew that when he said it on the radio in Kingston.

Mr. Lewis: Until it happens.

Mr. Cassidy: Since 16 casual employees have been laid off in Brockville and since 27 more are being given on-call notice after January 7, can the minister say what is the fate of 200 further employees who it is said will be laid off at the end of the fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t know by whom it is said, but I don’t have any such plans. The member knows last week we did terminate the employment of a number of contract staff in five or six of the psychiatric hospitals. But I repeat, and I suspect the member knew this -- it’s certainly been made very clear by the local member for Leeds (Mr. Auld) -- there are no plans to close the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. The plans to move OHIP to Kingston are going ahead.

LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General: Would he advise why his ministry, through the director of public prosecutions, overruled a decision of a local Crown attorney and laid a criminal charge against an individual for what is basically a civil dispute?

Mr. Roy: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Wait till you hear the answer. Here is a good answer.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I assume that the question relates to a matter that the hon. member spoke to me about recently. I requested that he forward me a copy of the summons so that I could identify the matter about which he was concerned. Today he has delivered me a copy of the summons and, Mr. Speaker, through you, I wish to assure him that I will attempt to obtain particulars of the matter about which he is concerned.

Mr. Roy: Could I ask a supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Sure.

Mr. Roy: Oh, does the hon. member for Huron-Bruce want to go first? I don’t want to cut off my friend.

Mr. Speaker: That’s awfully decent of the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Foulds: That’s why you didn’t make it as a leader, Albert.

An hon. member: Alphonse and Gaston.

Mr. Gaunt: May I ask the Attorney General if he would consider that a landlord who cuts off the hydro and water because the rent isn’t paid is deserving of a criminal charge?

Mr. Roy: Yes, as a matter of policy, let’s have it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think I should be more acquainted with more of the facts before I respond to that question.

Mr. Breaugh: That’s never stopped you before.

THUNDER BAY COURTHOUSE

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Government Services: What steps is his ministry taking to rectify the disaster of a provincial courthouse that he got lumbered with in Thunder Bay which has, after three years, a leaking roof, an artesian stream running through the nine cell blocks in the basement, and three inches of water as usual condition in that courthouse?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Good, a built-in swimming pool.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Is that fresh water?

Mr. Roy: Move it to Ottawa. It would be an improvement there.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are making improvements to the building and charging them against the lease.

Mr. Deans: What do you do about the stream?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Swim in it.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Could the minister find out whether the building is salvageable, or whether it might not be better to terminate the lease --

Hon. B. Stephenson: You have no imagination. That is what is that matter with you.

Mr. Foulds: -- with John H. McCormick and Group Building Systems Limited, inasmuch as the company has never lived up to the terms of the contract, and has never paid the subcontractors, and has delivered a shoddy piece of workmanship that is just not usable?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: A final supplementary: Can we find out how much the ministry is currently paying per month?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes.

Mr. Deans: The inquiry is already on stream.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Minister of Housing, having to do with the long-standing dispute between his ministry and the city of Ottawa over the city of Ottawa non-profit housing: Can the minister advise the House whether he intends in the very near future to bring this dispute to a conclusion and subsidize to some measure the city of Ottawa non-profit housing, which is this year, as the minister knows, facing a deficit of half a million dollars? If the minister will not subsidize it, does he realize that some of the rents for some of these tenants, mostly senior citizens, are increasing to the tune of between 100, 150 and 170 per cent and, in fact, some of these people will be paying 30 per cent of their revenue for rent?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have already communicated with the mayor of Ottawa. We’ve had ongoing discussions and an exchange of correspondence concerning this matter. I think, as the hon. member is aware, the particular problem is shared with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and we have discussed with it how we could go about being of extra assistance to the non-profit housing units in Ottawa.

I have communicated with the mayor of Ottawa as to what the formula would be. That has been agreed to by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in order to be of assistance. Quite frankly, I was under the impression that what we had submitted was acceptable and that it would be worked out to handle most of the problem that the member has just mentioned.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary. In view of the fact that this matter, at least according to the city of Ottawa, has been a long-standing dispute with his ministry over three, four or five years, when does the minister plan to make an announcement that there has been a solution?

Secondly, how much money are we talking about? What solution has the minister proposed to help subsidize this deficit faced by the city of Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe that I should discuss the contents of the proposal I have made to the mayor until such time as he has responded and has accepted that as a solution to his problem.

I think the hon. member is well aware that the situation we’re facing in Ottawa is one where, quite frankly -- and I’m not attempting to be difficult about this at all -- part of that problem, if not all of it, has been created by the inability of the management of the units in Ottawa to keep up with the times.

What we are trying to do now is to make sure that these units do not become totally subsidized as public housing but that the tenants in them will receive the assistance they need according to their incomes. I believe it was at the recommendation of the city of Ottawa -- I’m sorry; not the city of Ottawa, but the housing management company --

Mr. Roy: The city of Ottawa non-profit housing authority.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I wanted to draw the distinction between city council as opposed to this group. They themselves were looking very seriously at increasing the percentage of income in those units to 30 per cent. When the mayor responds to the proposal we’ve made and, I emphasize again, it has been agreed to by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we’ll get on with the arrangements and make the announcement.

Mr. Roy: Could I ask one final supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: The final supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Would the minister undertake to press this matter with the mayor and with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation since some of these tenants are facing this increase as of January 1, 1978?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member is quite correct. I’m aware of that and I think that since this matter has come to my attention -- and I’m not aware that it’s gone on for four or five years --

Mr. Roy: It has.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- but since it’s come to my attention, I think we’ve made considerable progress. Understandably the mayor of Ottawa, quite properly on behalf of his community, grabbed for the whole ring. I must say to you, sir, with all respect to the mayor, he didn’t get the whole ring. But I think we’ve worked out something that is satisfactory and will be settled, I hope, well before that deadline.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No, that’s enough supplementaries.

TOW TRUCK LICENSING

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware that the licensing and legislation committee of Metro Toronto council is meeting today to deal with the proposal to license tow trucks? If so, would the minister care to make known his initiatives at the provincial level in this area?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware of that particular meeting of the Metropolitan Toronto Licensing Commission to consider the licensing of tow trucks within Metropolitan Toronto. I would have to say that is a position I would support and I’m very pleased to hear they are taking this initiative. I hope they follow through with it because I’ve given serious consideration to the possible provincial licensing of tow trucks.

The needs vary so greatly within the province of Ontario that it is my opinion, and I believe the opinion of the government, that the licensing of tow trucks should be carried out at the municipal level where it is deemed by that municipality to be necessary.

Mr. Philip: By way of a supplementary, is the minister aware that the two associations of tow truck operators, namely the Automobile Trades Association and the new Association of Independent Tow Truck Operators, favour provincial rather than municipal licensing? In the light of the possible Metro initiatives, would the minister care to tell us which of the seven recommendations regarding tow truck licensing found in chapter six of the report of the select committee on the highway transportation of goods, he is prepared to implement, and when?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the select committee on transportation of goods, there are some 300 recommendations -- or some very large number of recommendations. Since we received the committee report, the ministry has been actively reviewing and preparing information with regard to the implementation of many of the recommendations in that particular report. I will be bringing forward amendments, changes and implementation procedures for many of those recommendations in due course, but I am not prepared to say at this moment exactly what our response is going to be to those seven specific recommendations.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree, given that the tow trucks in question leave the various regions and travel quite freely throughout the province, that it would be more appropriate to consider provincial control rather than municipal control in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, that is not my opinion certainly at this time. I realize there is some degree of long-distance tow truck service, but I hesitate to suggest that tow trucks should be licensed by the Highway Transport Board and that there should be the necessary proven public need and necessity. In most cases a tow truck gives a local service. In larger municipalities, I think the tow truck industry should be regulated municipally as are taxis and there should be some minimum licensing requirements in the licensing, but not just a case of licensing for the sake of licensing. I have asked my ministry to do some work on preparing a sample bylaw that would be available to municipalities as a guide if they wish to regulate tow trucks in their municipality.

Mr. Philip: In coming to these conclusions, has the minister met with the two trade associations involved and has he sought their opinions beforehand?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have certainly met with one of the associations the hon. member mentions. At that meeting, I found those in attendance were very much not necessarily of the same opinion. I believe there is some difference of opinion in the industry.

RECOVERY OF HYDRO MONEY

Mr. Sargent: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Is the minister aware of a very concerted effort on the part of Hydro to recover a large sum of money, in the area of $240 million, from the Ministry of Government Services?

Mr. Worton: It’s not much if you say it quickly.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: No.

Mr. Sargent: Could I ask a supplementary then to the Treasurer? Is he aware of the fact that there is $240 million between Government Services and Hydro and that there is a very concerted effort to recover this money? Is the Government borrowing money from Hydro?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Sargent: As the Treasurer, the minister then says he doesn’t know about a $240 million advance from Hydro to Government Services?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary to the Minister of Government Services: Is he aware that his ministry owes Hydro $240 million?

Mr. Makarchuk: Try the Minister of Correctional Services. He’ll give you an answer.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, could I have the member repeat the question, please?

Mr. Sargent: Is the minister aware of Hydro’s effort to recover $240 million from his ministry?

Hon. Mr. McCague: No.

HOSPITAL CUTBACKS

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health produce the analysis and the studies which his ministry must obviously have done into the efficiency and the patient-staff ratio and also the staff functions at the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, which brought the ministry to the conclusion that it could afford to have a drastically reduced number of staff available in order to meet the needs of the patient population, both now and in the future?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I hope the hon. member knows, the reductions which were recently announced in the psychiatric hospitals are all in the contract area, and basically all in services.

Mr. Deans: It doesn’t matter.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The direction that was given to staff in reviewing the program was that direct patient care was not to be affected and this is certainly the case.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: How can the minister claim that when, in the case of the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital at least, there will be two doctors who will not be continued on staff or on a consultancy basis and --

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Deans: Oh, has it? Well that does pose a problem. Can the minister produce the analysis and the studies that brought him to the realization that he could do without these people?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member knows, the estimates of my ministry are presently before the social development committee. If he would like to appear there, I would be glad to discuss it with him and involve the staff who are doing the analysis for me.

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

Before we get to the orders, I think the hon. House leader would like to make an announcement.

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I thought I might take advantage of the attendance at the moment to draw the House’s attention to the visit on Thursday afternoon to the Legislature of His Excellency Guilio Andreotti, President of the Council of Ministers of the Italian Republic.

The President will be here and a guest in the Speaker’s gallery at about 3 p.m. Thursday, following which the Premier (Mr. Davis) is having a reception for the President in the Lieutenant Governor’s music room to which all members of the Legislature will be invited, in order to meet with the President.

I thought that since the House will not be in session tomorrow, we should draw attention to the fact that His Excellency will be here at about 3 p.m., near the end of the question period. I hope most members of the House will be here to greet him.

Mr. Nixon: I would also want to draw to your attention, sir, that an old friend of ours is in the gallery this afternoon, the former member for Sault Ste. Marie and Attorney General, Arthur Wishart. I often think how desperately he tried to keep Green Stamps from Ontario, and as soon as he left we had Wintario which is now paying us $80 million a year.

OHIP OFFICE CLOSURE

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice under section 27(g) of the standing orders that I am not satisfied with the response of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) to my questions asked today and intend to raise the subject matter on the adjournment of the House tonight.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to give notice under standing order 27(g) that I am dissatisfied with the answer the Minister of Health gave to my supplementary question, and I would like to discuss it this evening.

REPORTS

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITITEE

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 Revenue be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year during March 31, 1978:

Ministry of Revenue:

Ministry administration program.........$ 4,974,000

Administration of taxes program..........23,736,000

Guaranteed income and tax credit program..............121,152,000

Municipal assessment program........51,712,000

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

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

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Ministry of Community and Social Services:

Ministry administration program.....$ 14,517,000

Social resources program.....853,278,000

Developmental resources program.....209,403,000

And that supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Ministry of Community and Social Services;

Children’s services program......$3,665,500

Also, that there be granted to Her Majesty, for the services of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978, the following sums:

Ministry of the Attorney General:

Vote	Item
1306	4	$ 2,722,000

Ministry of Correctional Services:

1501	1	$ 115,100
1501	2	243,800
1501	3	67,300
1501	4	134,300
1501	5	165,700
1501	6	50,900
1501	7	345,900
1501	8	35,500
1502	1	26,600
1503	1	699,600
1503	2	33,734,400

Ministry of Health

3101	1	33,000
3101	2	43,500
3101	3	45,800
3101	4	14,000
3101	8	25,000
3101	10	237,900
3102	2	52,803,400
3102	3	7,869,700
3102	6	1,000,000
3103	2	13,500

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

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

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

City of Chatham.

Mr. Breaugh also presented the committee’s resolution which was read as follows and adopted:

That since the present session has been so brief, it has not afforded the House sufficient opportunity to assess provisional standing orders. The committee therefore recommends that the experimental period be extended for another whole session.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that on the standing social development committee Mr. Van Horne be substituted for Mrs. Campbell.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. W. Newman moved first reading of Bill 102, An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. W. Newman: The purpose and intent of this bill, of course, is to make amendments to the Farm Products Marketing Act as a result of certain problems that arose out of recent court decisions that were handed down.

MILK AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. W. Neman moved first reading of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the reason for introducing this bill is exactly the same reason for introducing the Farm Products Marketing Amendment Act.

PUBLIC HOSPITALS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Williams moved first reading of Bill 104, An Act to amend the Public Hospitals Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the bill establishes several requirements relating to the composition of the boards of public hospitals. The bill further provides that the number of appointed directors who have a vote shall not exceed one quarter of the elected directors.

In addition, the bill establishes certain criteria for membership in a hospital corporation and guarantees a member’s right to vote in the hospital corporation.

[3:15]

ONTARIO COMMISSION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS ACT

Mr. Cunningham moved first reading of Bill 105, An Act to establish the Ontario Commission on Waste Management and Resource Recovery Systems.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, the bill establishes the Ontario Commission on Waste Management and Resource Recovery Systems to have the authority in matters concerning disposal, reclamation and recycling of waste materials and to provide aid to local governments that desire to develop waste disposal systems on their own.

CITY OF CHATHAM ACT

Mr. Bradley, on behalf of Mr. McGuigan, moved first reading of Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Motion agreed to.