Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: The Provincial Secretary for Social Development would like to introduce a group.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Chairman, may I take this opportunity to introduce to you and through you to the members of the House, the First West Rouge A Cub Pack, with their leader, Mr. Downey, who are in the gallery with some of their parents? I ask you to welcome them to the Legislature.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

House in committee on Bill 3, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: When we rose at 6 o’clock, we were discussing an amendment to Bill 3.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, in his proposed amendment the hon. member is varying, I feel, the authority of the Ontario Highway Transport Board in its determination of public necessity and convenience. The amendment appears to be a part of the board’s inherent authority to determine public necessity and convenience.

The proposed amendment is to a section which deals only with licensing of dump trucks. If the definition of the board’s authority to determine public necessity and convenience were to be varied, I feel it should not be done in relation to dump trucks only but to all vehicles operating under all classes of operating licences issued under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Although as I stated earlier I have certainly expressed agreement in principle with the philosophy of the hon. member’s proposal, such an amendment should be made in relation to the total responsibility of the board in the issuance of operating authority for all classes of truck transportation and not in respect to dump trucks only. Therefore, I’m not prepared to accept the amendment without the fullest consideration of the potential impact on all classes of operating licences issued under the Act and an opportunity to investigate this further with the responsibilities of the Highway Transportation Board.

I’m pretty well positive that there will be further amendments to the Public Commercial Vehicles Act in the spring and I would like the time to investigate this and, if possible, if there is any change necessary, to implement the philosophy that we’ve discussed. I would be quite happy to consider it at that time.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might seek the indulgence of the House to announce the presence in the chamber this evening of the Third Lakeshore Boy Scout Troop of Wesley Church, Mimico. In charge is Mr. Wilfred Hall.

Mr. Chairman: The committee has heard the amendment moved by Mr. Moffatt; which was:

“That clause (c) of subsection 3 of section 2 he amended by adding thereto item (iii) as follows: ‘Where there is more than one applicant for a licence of rights, determine as between or amongst the applicants the most equitable distribution as between or amongst them of the licences of rights hereunder.’”

All in favour will please say “aye.”

All opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 3, as amended, reported.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 27, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has two amendments.

On section 1:

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of clarification, in this section, seatbelt assembly means a device or assembly composed of straps, webbing or similar material. My point is that I am concerned about the suitability of some of the seatbelts in older cars that have the straps separate from the lap belt. I realize that it would be a problem, I suppose, in what I would be probably recommending that we only have the lap belts used on cars of older vintage. I find that most of them are very uncomfortable to use, in fact, almost impossible in some cases. I have sat in cars with the newer models and to me they are much more comfortable.

It concerns me as to how we are going to get people to use the belts that come from the roof down by themselves. In most cars in which I have had occasion to try using them, they have not been nearly as comfortable or didn’t seem to fit comfortably. When you have them on, you feel they are not going to do the job. I just wonder if that has been brought to the minister’s attention before.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The specification as to the equipment that is installed’ in each automobile is the equipment that was required by the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Act which, as I mentioned earlier, is the federal legislation. We really have three sets of circumstances, as I see it. There may be more but certainly there are three sets at the present time. In fact, we have four. We have the older cars from 1967 back that don’t have any belts or at least aren’t required to, although some of them may have had them installed as special equipment. Then you have the cars that have the lap belt only. Then you have the cars with the lap belt and the shoulder belt as two separate pieces, and then in the last three years or so you have a combination of lap belt and shoulder belt, which I think works very well. This legislation only refers to the belts that are required by the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Act to be installed in the car. I don’t really see any other specification we could use.

Mr. Young: Could the minister in that respect tell us whether there is a move on behalf of the federal department which sets standards to try to standardize the whole matter of seatbelts so that we get the very best type and kind in practically all the cars? I don’t think there’s been any real move. We leave it to the individual motor-car company to install the belts. We have certain standards but we don’t stipulate any standard type of belt. Is this true, and is there any reason?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sorry, I cannot totally answer that, Mr. Chairman, as to just what the federal specification is, but I presume it’s probably standard because all the cars seem to have the same basic belt in them pretty well now.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that subsection 2 of section 63(a) of the Act as set out in section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out “modified or” in the fifth line, and by adding at the end thereof, “or modified so as to reduce its effectiveness.”

Mr. B. Newman: I think the suggestion is good, Mr. Chairman. I had brought this to the minister’s attention earlier, that an individual could modify the belt so that it would be more comfortable to him, and under the present legislation it would not be acceptable at all. With the amendment, it would be acceptable.

Mr. Young: This was the very amendment which I mentioned in my presentation and we agree with it entirely.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that subsection 7 of section 63(a) of the Act as set out in section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out “or” at the end of clause (a) by adding “or” at the end of clause (b), and by adding thereto the following clause (c) “is occupying and properly secured in child seating and restraint systems prescribed under the regulations.”

Mr. Young: May I, Mr. Chairman, ask the minister whether or not something is being done to make sure that the companies which do have approved child restraint systems make them available on the Canadian market, because that would be essential, I think, if this is going to be carried out. As I understand at the present time these restraint systems, particularly the ones from GM, Ford and Simpsons-Sears, are available in the United States, but they have stopped selling them in Canada. I wonder if the minister would comment on that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly going to look into that. I understand there are four types of devices that meet the standards. As to their availability in Canada, I can’t say for sure. 1 know I had a telephone call today, I believe it was on the open-line show at noon, from a gentleman who had bought a particular device in Buffalo and he wanted to know whether this would be approved here. It’s apparently one of the approved types. The regulation requiring the constraint of the children under two years of age will not be passed until such time as we know the proper devices are available and on the market at competitive prices.

[8:15]

Mr. Young: Is it the intention to have these tested by the Canadian Standards Association, or what standards will you set up?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It will be either the CSA or some similar federal jurisdiction presumably.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in my comments on second reading of the bill, I asked the minister to name the four types of devices so that the individual who may want to purchase one can do so. If it is not available on the Canadian market, some individuals do have an opportunity to purchase one on the American market and bring them into Canada, I think it would be in the best interests of those who are seriously concerned to have that information at this time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, the names of the four seats that are on the market and meet the federal safety standards for child restraints are Dorel Trave-L-Guard, Questor Kant Wet Care Seat, Peterson’s Safety Shell (1974-1975), and Swyngomatic Child’s Car Seat. Those are the four names that I understand meet the 1975 federal safety standards.

Mr. Ruston: On the question of age from 2 to 16, how is an operator of a car supposed to assess at what age a person can be put in a regular seatbelt that is installed in the car or in one of the children’s ones that are available? The problem I’m concerned about is, how is a five-year-old or a six-year- old, or whatever the case might be, going to be strapped into a car under the regular belt system that we have that the adults use. I’m not sure that they actually are going to work; I’m a little concerned as to how they are going to work. I know that some of the ones we just spoke about before are for small children, but the concern I have is how do we make the other ones work for certain-sized children? I’m concerned as to how the operator of the car is going to judge.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, under two years of age, at the moment there is no requirement for the belt or for the restraining device. Two years or older, before this amendment, required the seatbelt. This amendment would allow a child of say, two or three or four years of age, to not use the regular belt if it uses one of these approved child restraint seats. I think it’s up to the parent or the driver of the car. But I don’t see any problem with a four- or five-year-old child, as the hon. member mentions, using the ordinary seatbelt. I don’t think there is any problem there.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister how seven passengers are allowed to drive in a car with only six seatbelts?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the legislation, as long as all the passengers occupying a seat where a seatbelt is available are making use of the seatbelt, then the operation is legal. In other words, if you are taking a bunch of kids to the show or the hockey game and you have five youngsters in the back of the car and there are only two or three seatbelts, as long as the seatbelts that are there are in use, there’s no infraction of the Act. It is the same with a station wagon. Sometimes a station wagon is used to carry toddlers to nursery school or wherever it may be, and the back of the station wagon may be laid down fiat and a mat or mattress of some kind put in there so that a number of small children can ride in the back. Since there are no seatbelts available, that is not contravening the Act.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 27, as amended, reported.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 6, An Act to amend the Development Corporations Act, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I wish to offer to the House under section 5 if there is no other discussion.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything prior to section 5?

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Renwick: I only have one question on section 4, and that is whether the minister has made any decision or the three development corporations have made any decision as to who are going to be the chief executive officers of those?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, the chief executive officer will be the chairman of the Ontario Development Corp. It will give him the opportunity of being chairman as well as being over the entire administrative operations on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Renwick: For the Northern Ontario Development Corp. and the Eastern Ontario Development Corp.?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The chief executive officer of the Ontario Development Corp. will also be responsible for the other two divisions, which at the moment are answerable through the administration arm of ODC.

Mr. Renwick: What the minister is saying, I take it, is that while they are established as three corporations at the present time, they are not functioning as three corporations; they are functioning as one corporation with two divisions. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, that is not quite correct. The Eastern Ontario Development Corp., the Northern Ontario Development Corp. and the Ontario Development Corp. each have their own board of directors, and they make their decisions related to the applications that are made to those corporations, which of course relate to the areas of the province they are held responsible for. The recommendations come to the minister through the administration of the Ontario Development Corp., which is located here at the main office of the Ontario Development Corp.

We have reviewed on more than one occasion the possibility of duplicating or putting into three sections the administration for the Ontario, Northern Ontario, Eastern Ontario and Ontario development corporations. I would believe, from the information we have gathered and from good business practice, that the distribution of funds after the applications have been approved and the administration of the accounts receivable and payable would appear to be much more adequately looked after by one parent body than three.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, what are the names of the three chief executive officers and what will be their remuneration, in accordance with the provision or commission granted by this Act?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There is one executive director or administrative officer, and he will be in the same classification as an executive director of the ministry. His income range will be between $32,000 and $38,000 per year.

Mr. Renwick: Have they been appointed as yet?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Renwick: What are their names?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the executive director or the administrative officer for the Ontario Development Corp., which will be answerable for the administration affairs of the three, is Mr. Jim Joyce, who is presently chairman of the Ontario Development Corp. and who will now be appointed, if this Act is carried, as the executive director.

Mr. Angus: The statement that there will not be a full -- time executive director of each of the boards disturbs me. I can appreciate the minister’s rationale in terms of funnelling it through one corporate body; I don’t necessarily agree with him. I think if we are really talking in terms of looking realistically at the three areas -- the northern, eastern and Ontario area -- we must begin to have our separate identities.

While we have the boards, I think a full-time person who is responsible to that area, to the minister and even to the ODC, is necessary. As I see it under the Act, the amendment you have placed there, if I’m not mistaken, does give you the authority or gives the government of Ontario the authority to have a separate executive director of each corporation. Can you tell me, given your answer to the member for Riverdale, why you can’t see having directors of each of the corporations full-time?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all the chief officer we’ll have is for the Ontario Development Corp. who will oversee the administrative responsibilities. As far as the individual corporations, such as Northern Ontario and Eastern Ontario are concerned. we have a person directly from the Ontario Development Corp. who will report for those other branches. In northern Ontario, it is Mr. King who is the administrative officer responsible for the functioning of and reporting for the Northern Ontario Development Corp.

The chief executive officer for the overall operation and the administration of funds and disbursement of funds will be Mr. Joyce, but we do have Mr. King who is the person from the Ontario Development Corp. responsible for its function and reporting to the executive director, Mr. Joyce, who, in turn, reports to me as the minister.

Mr. Angus: Do you not have an administrative officer for ODC? Would not the appointment of your chairman as’ the executive director of ODC only overlap or duplicate the responsibilities already held by the administrator of ODC, in the same way that there is the administrator for NODC and EODC? Aren’t the functions the same? Really, you have another level which is not needed.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The responsibility of the chairman and the chief executive officer of the Ontario Development Corp. is to see that the administration is looked after adequately and that the disbursement of funds, whether it happens to be for ODC, NODC or EODC, is carried out in a proper manner, as are the accounts we have to collect.

Mr. King’s responsibility is to see that the applications are processed properly through the Northern Ontario Development Corp., that they are reported upon under the Act and that they meet those terms of reference. That is his responsibility. In other words, he is the chief officer for the functioning of the Northern Ontario Development Corp.

There is one individual we are appointing to look after the administrative functions here, who will control the entire financing as far as disbursement of funds is concerned.

Mr. Angus: You are saying then that the type of workload this gentleman will be responsible for will be equal throughout the three corporations and that there is no need to have a separate identity in each of the corporations to handle that workload?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s correct.

Mr. Renwick: I am still not clear and I’m glad my colleague from Fort William has raised the question. As I take it, Mr. Joyce will be the chief executive officer of the Ontario Development Corp. and although provision is made in the bill which is before us for a chief executive officer of the Northern Ontario Development Corp. and the Eastern Ontario Development Corp., you will not have such a person holding that office? The boards of directors of those two, which you refer to as branch organizations, will deal only through an administrative officer who will report, in turn, to the chief executive officer of ODC. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, that is correct. At the moment, Mr. Joyce has the responsibility to look after the disbursement of funds, as I’ve already said.

Mr. Renwick: Is he an officer of the other two corporations?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, he is not an officer of the other two corporations.

Mr. Renwick: Is he a director of the other two corporations?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He is a chairman of the Ontario Development Corp. As the members likely know, on the Ontario Development Corp. we have directors from the Northern Ontario board and the Eastern Ontario board representing their positions relating to policy and approval of applications that affect central southwestern Ontario.

[8:30]

Mr. Renwick: Who is the chairman of the Northern Ontario Development Corp., or is there such a person; and is there a chairman of the Eastern Ontario Development Corp.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is a chairman for the Northern Ontario board, John Andrews; and for the Eastern Ontario board, Mr. Gerald Ducharmes. These two gentlemen, if they happen to stay as chairman of the two boards which they presently represent, on alternate years become the vice-chairman of the Ontario Development Corp.

Mr. Renwick: Is it your intention, at some point in time, to have the chairmen of the two branch organizations to which you refer, the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. and the Northern Ontario Development Corp., become the chief executive officers in accordance with the terms of this enabling legislation?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, if that date should arrive it would not likely be the chairmen of those particular boards. Mr. Joyce is a full-time employee, while the chairmen of the other two boards are on a per diem allowance and they do not serve on a full-time basis.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would have assumed when these two organizations were set up, it was certainly the impression which I had, that the intention of the government was to provide two facilities; one in northern Ontario, one in eastern Ontario and perhaps co-ordinate them through the Ontario Development Corp., which has additional responsibilities. But for practical purposes they would be autonomous bodies dealing with development problems in the northern part of the province and in the eastern part of the province because of the need for additional incentives and assistance in those particular areas. It does seem to me that if you continue to maintain the subservience of the two organizations, which is inherent in your terms when you refer to them as branch organizations, that in fact you are not carrying out the intention of the Legislature at the point in time when those two development corporations were established. I rather regret that my friend the Chairman of this present committee sitting is not in his own seat tonight.

Hon. Ms. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. and the Northern Ontario Development Corp., with their 13 members of the board of directors in each location, have the right to review applications under the policies and the terms of reference that are set down, either by government or by an agreement through the Ontario Development Corp., and to make their recommendations as they see fit to the minister related to making loans available to industries for the development of that particular community.

They are not subservient to ODC in any way, shape or form. Their decisions do not go back to the Ontario Development Corp. Their decisions and their recommendations are brought directly to the minister for approval, in which case they can either be approved by the minister or go on for an order in council through our friends in cabinet. They are autonomous; they make the decisions on the applications as they see fit.

One area where the Ontario Development Corp. operates with them is where there are new policies or decisions relating to the development or to the operation. These go to Ontario Development Corp. where the four directors from eastern and northern Ontario have a chance to have an input as to whether the policy is applicable to the areas which they serve. This is also the case where amendments are required to more adequately serve the area of northern or eastern Ontario.

That’s where their decisions and their input happen to be; but ultimately when they deal with applications in northern or eastern Ontario, it is their board and their board only that makes recommendations to the minister.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) and the member for Fort William (Mr. Angus) indicated, at the time we had further discussion on this bill some two weeks ago, that certain words in section 5 should be amended. I would say to you that we have accepted their suggestions. I believe both the NDP and the Liberal representatives have been supplied with a copy of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that subsection 6, as contained in section 5 of the bill, be amended by striking out the words, “grant a subsidy to any person” in the third line, and inserting in lieu thereof, “make a loan to a municipality mentioned in subsection 8.”

Mr. Angus: Mr. Chairman, in our discussions two weeks ago -- and if I can refer to my colleague’s words -- we found nothing wrong with granting a subsidy to municipalities. What we were concerned about was granting subsidies to private corporations. In the revision that the minister has placed before us it says, “provide a loan for municipalities as defined under section 8,” and in light of his comments during the debate relating to the forgivable portions of those loans or grants as they were known three weeks ago -- of no interest the first year, only 25 per cent of the interest the second year, etc., etc. -- I’m wondering if he is still planning on providing that forgiveness to the municipalities in terms of paying back the loan.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, it is our intention that as far as municipalities are concerned the terms of reference that I referred to as far as repayment of loans is concerned would still be applicable under the amendment as we have it.

Mr. Angus: In light of that, I’m wondering if the minister would be prepared to add some form of comment to that amendment, such as, “and that such interest be deferred over a period of five years at such a rate that the minister shall decree,” so that we have something in the legislation that states there will be some forgiveness.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Chairman, I’m not prepared to make that amendment, he- cause there might be occasions when there will have to be some adjustments to the terms of repayment as we go along. I think there has to be a degree of flexibility in light of the economies of the day and the requirements of the municipalities which you happen to deal with. You know very clearly that northern municipalities will constantly come in and ask for a different type of repayment position. They believe they are entitled to some extra extended benefits over and above what eastern or central southwestern Ontario might receive on their particular plan. That is part of the reason for this bill. It does give us the opportunity, in light of situations of the day, that if there is a necessary requirement giving extended terms to municipalities, it’s within the rights of government to encourage those municipalities where the need is prevalent and known to us to offer that type of term. At the moment the terms that we have offered are those that I indicated to the House here about two weeks ago.

Mr. Angus: I am wondering in light of your comments whether I can rephrase my question. Would you he prepared to change your amendment to have some mention that “interest shall be deferred for a length of time and at a rate that the minister shall decree,” so that we do have mention in this bill that the municipalities will get some assistance in terms of paying back those loans?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I fully appreciate what the member is referring to. I would have to say that I am not sure that it is necessary to have it in the bill. The Act is brought in for the very purpose of offering some encouragement -- first of all, the opportunity of borrowing funds from the provincial government for the establishment or expansion or extension to a municipally owned industrial park. It’s under the understanding that there is likely to be some advantage to the municipality, or otherwise they would go to the open market to secure those funds for the development and expansion of their industrial requirement.

Mr. Deans: I have a question to ask of you.

Mr. Chairman: Did the hon. member for Fort William want to pursue something?

Mr. Angus: No, I think I would rather have my colleague go ahead at this moment.

Mr. Lawlor: A well-skilled Tory -- he wants to keep all the power over there.

Mr. Deans: My reading of the section leaves me with the impression that it isn’t necessary to set out the terms and conditions in any regulations, but the terms and conditions are subject only to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council -- which is, of course, the cabinet. Therefore, there would be no way for anyone to know, other than if the minister happened to make a policy statement at some point, or if one municipality happened to get the information from another municipality, what sorts of terms and what kinds of conditions were available to municipalities around the province. 1 don’t quite understand it.

Are you saying, in this section, that you can deal with the terms and conditions of each grant on application by action of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, or are you saying that there will be some guidelines established with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council which will be applicable across the board, and will they then be published or available in some written form?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the very first point we should make under section 5 is that in the Ontario Development Corp. Act and the amendments that we have had since its origination, the only entities that have been excluded from securing funds from the development corporations have been municipalities, and that’s why we are here this evening. Obviously it is to amend the Act to allow us to lend to municipalities for their industrial park expansions.

As far as amendments are concerned, or policies or regulations, the member for Went- worth knows very clearly the regulations will be gazetted, which will clearly indicate the terms under which loans are being made to a municipality, whether it happens to be in eastern or northern Ontario or some other part of the Province of Ontario. It will be clearly spelled out as to what the terms are under which we are operating.

Mr. Angus: Could the minister advise this House what the procedure is for changing those regulations once they are published? Is it the minister’s prerogative? Does he have to check with cabinet? Does the House not have to know before they are in effect?

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, he changes them three times a day.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Quite clearly, Mr. Chairman, this House knows that regulations are changed by an order in council and gazetted, which keeps the people of our province, the legislators and others, informed of exactly what the position of government happens to be.

Mr. Lawlor: Everybody reads them scrupulously.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s up to you. You are negligent.

Mr. Angus: Is that after the fact or is it in advance notice?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: After what fact?

Mr. Angus: You have mentioned that you change a regulation by order in council and you publish it. Does the Act come into effect the day it’s published or three months after, so that people have an opportunity to react?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the Act is approved by royal assent of this House. The regulations are approved by cabinet and, in turn, by an order in council from the Lieutenant Governor. The orders in council relating to regulations could be changed during the lifetime of the bill. Very clearly, I would say to this House that we have different types of loans within the development corporation and we change the terms of reference relating mainly to the interest factors or the repayment periods by an order in council, which clearly indicates what the government’s position happens to be at that period of time in relationship to loans, and it would be the same in relationship to this Act and the terms of reference relating to lending to municipalities.

Mr. Angus: I am sorry, I am not quite sure of what you are saying and if you could shorten it down to three or four words, I would appreciate it. Are you saying that the order in council and the publishing in the Gazette is when it comes into effect and not three months afterward -- that it’s a decree more than an advertisement?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the member’s referring to when the order in council comes into effect and not the Act itself.

Mr. Angus: That’s right, the regulations.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The regulations would come into effect with the date of order in council. That’s correct.

Mr. Chairman: You have heard the amendment --

Mr. Angus: Mr. Chairman, if I am not out of order at this moment I would like to move a further amendment to the minister’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman: A sub-amendment to subsection 6?

Mr. Angus: Yes, and the subsection shall read, “and that such interest be deferred over a period of years and at such a rate as the minister shall decree.”

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Talk about power; that is power. You are going to oppose that aren’t you, Pat?

An hon. member: I like that “decree.”

An hon. member: It is right up your alley.

Mr. Chairman: Will the member for Fort William give the page a copy of the amendment?

[8:45]

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Can I have a copy, too?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Angus moves that in section 5, subsection 6, the phrase “grant a subsidy to any person carrying on an industrial undertaking in Ontario” be changed to “provide a loan for municipalities as defined under section 8 and that such interest be deferred over a period of years at such a rate as the minister shall decree.”

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, would you not say that that is out of order in as much as it’s demanding an expenditure or directing an expenditure of government which I don’t believe is within the prerogative of a private member of the House?

Mr. Deans: I don’t think it is directly.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’m asking for a ruling.

Mr. Deans: I am trying to help.

Mr. Chairman: In my opinion, the amendment is in order inasmuch as it’s bringing money in at a rate rather than expending money. It would be my ruling that the sub- amendment would be in order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, if I might see a copy of the amendment so that I can relate to it -- it would appear to be, without having had the full advantage of seeing it in writing -- first of all, I would look for some legal counsel on the amendment, “and that such interest be deferred over a period of years at such a rate as the minister shall decree.”

Mr. Ruston: That is using public money.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would think -- and comment has been made from the Liberal Party -- that it’s using public funds. We’re talking about an interest rate without a defined position, obviously, and I still think we’re directing the government on how to spend public funds.

Mr. Renwick: Why don’t you appeal the chairman’s ruling?

Mr. Angus: In light of the minister’s comments, all I was attempting to do was to put his intent into the bill so I cannot see that I have changed anything. I am only putting it in a position where it is law as opposed to regulation.

Mr. Haggerty: By amendment.

Mr. Ruston: Did you hear what the member for Erie said?

Mr. Nixon: It might be of some assistance since you have given a ruling on it -- you might want to consider it further -- it seems to me that the hon. member who has moved the amendment is more concerned with our procedure on regulations than anything else and, believe me, this has concerned opposition members for a good long time. It even concerned the government members some time ago. We established a committee on regulations which was supposed to assume the responsibilities we all feel for granting to individual members of the government the ability almost to legislate without us and without our knowledge and simply, by order in council to say what a certain specific matter will be.

Mr. Eaton: That is a good committee.

Mr. Nixon: Unfortunately, the committee on regulations has not functioned. The members have really refused to attend since they don’t have any reasonable duties. I would suggest that rather than ponder on declaring it in order or out of order, perhaps we could decide now whether we are going to clear up all the problems of regulations in general or this specific matter by passing the amendment.

I would say, for us, that we are concerned with the overall abilities of the various ministries to make regulations. Since we haven’t been able to come to grips with that on a broader basis I really see no additional problem with saying to this minister, since he has expressed his policy, that the regulatory powers granted to him probably should, in the custom we have been exposed to here for so many years, be granted to this minister so that if he wants to give a bit of an abatement in interest payments under certain circumstances, we would consider that his policy. I hope you wouldn’t worry too much about whether it’s in order or not, you’ve said it’s in order. What I mean to say is, even if you go for it, we’re not going to support it, although I sympathize with you.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: You had him worried for a second.

Mr. Chairman: You’ve heard the sub- amendment moved by the member for Fort William.

All those in favour of the sub-amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the sub-amendment lost.

You’ve heard the minister’s amendment to section 5.

All those in favour of the amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

I declare the amendment carried.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other discussion on any other section of this bill?

Mr. Angus: Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to section 5, subsection 7. I have a feeling it’s going to follow the same vein of discussion, because in the debate two or three weeks ago we again expressed concern over the various I criteria that the minister explained to use was behind the intent of the bill. We in the New Democratic Party would like to see that intent written into the bill.

In subsection 7, we would like to see the government-proposed clause removed and the following substituted therefor:

“The powers respecting the acquisition, financing, use and development of land in connection with an industrial undertaking by a municipality may only be exercised by each corporation with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council

“(a) If it complies with the principles and criteria established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation;

“(b) If it does not require the use of agricultural land, classes 1, 2 and 3, except as approved by the minister;

“(c) If there is a clearly demonstrated need for the municipality to encourage or assist in the development and diversification of industry;

“(d) If the undertaking has been adequately planned, having regard to (1) the servicing of the land, (2) the availability of labour, (3) the availability of adequate housing accommodation, educational facilities, transportation and another amenities, (4) the availability of adequate electrical power capacity and (5) the environmental impact survey shows that the development does not by itself or in combination with pre-existing industries cause an immediate or future deterioration of public health levels through air or noise pollution or other factors;

“(e) if the undertaking will not affect adversely other municipalities through the relocation of industry.”

That amendment is presented, as I said earlier, to incorporate the regulations into the bill. The minister has admitted that was the principle they were developed on. I agree with him that those concerns have to be met but, because of the other discussions we’ve had this evening, we feel strongly that those things should be incorporated within the bill.

Mr. Chairman: You have heard the reading of the amendment by the member.

Mr. Nixon: Does the minister want to accept that?

Mr. Chairman: Shall the reading again be dispensed with?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I had the opportunity earlier today of discussing with the member the proposed amendment that he has before us. First of all, I clearly indicated to him that I believed that it was moving to try to place regulations within the Act, which has not been the position of the government prior to this date. I clearly supplied to the NDP representative and the Liberal Party representative the proposed criteria to establish the eligibility of municipalities in the scheme that is being proposed. I believe, if we read all of them, and there are 10 areas that we cover, most of them have been rewritten in slightly different verbiage within the amendment to what we had originally intended as the criteria. I appreciate the fact that the NDP representative would see fit to feel that the criteria that we have established would appear to meet with their acceptance in trying to qualify municipalities for loans under this particular section of the Act.

May I draw to the attention of the House that to put in the Act some of the criteria would virtually eliminate municipalities from making application for the loan assistance under the proposed plan?

While we realize that the availability of housing is necessary, it’s also very obvious that until an industrial park is established and there is some indication that someone is going to start bringing in industry private interests are not likely to became too excited about developing housing.

Once the park is developed and put in place, then it is likely that industries will come and, with that, developers or private enterprise will decide that they can develop their lands and supply the housing requirements. Then the other amenities of life, such as schools, churches and playgrounds, will follow under the planning requirement of that municipality.

We are concerned about the environmental impact. We are concerned with all industry in this province and what it might do to change the environmental position of the community in which it happens to be locating. But I do draw to the attention of the House that to try to do an environmental impact study on the location of an industrial park and the existing industries is rather difficult in that we are never sure what type of industry might locate in the new operation. If we knew that, of course, we could do an environmental impact study. I would suggest that municipalities will be doing a very close examination of the type of industries that they will likely invite into their parks, once they are established.

The last clause, clause (e), “if the undertaking will not affect adversely other municipalities through the relocation of industry” is an interesting one. At this moment if someone was to make an application to the development corporation to establish a particular industry in a community and if it was going to move from community A to community B, it would not be eligible.

What we are dealing with is assistance in the establishment of municipally-owned industrial parks. At the time we are doing the assessment on the application by the municipality, I have no clear, bona fide indication as to exactly what the industries might be that will come into this particular location. So it is rather difficult to believe that we could really seriously and honestly make an assessment under clause (e) of the proposed amendment.

I would offer to the House that I believe the criteria that we have established as a ministry would cover the situation. I would be less than honest with the House if I didn’t openly admit that, as we go through the process of analyzing applications and handling them and approving or rejecting them, we shall come to experience difficulties that we had never anticipated. I believe that the criteria we have submitted to the opposition parties, clearly indicating how the application can be processed, serves to indicate what we would accept.

As much as I hate to refuse the amendment, I believe that it would only complicate, if not restrict and prohibit some municipalities in securing from the development corporation the opportunity for funds to open up new industrial lands in their community.

[9:00]

Mr. Angus: Mr. Chairman, I would like to relate back to the overall concept the minister has used throughout his preceding remarks and his feeling that the criteria, as his ministry has established them, will meet the needs we are expressing. I guess one of our problems is that we have an inbred mistrust, not only of his ministry but of other ministries in terms of actually following through on those things. I think, Mr. Minister, if you remember back to the discussions on the estimates of your ministry, the manner in which the various loans through NODC and EODC were handled were the concerns that we expressed.

Talking about a couple of details, you mentioned housing and our concern that there was enough housing available, that an industry in its right mind would not go into a community where there is not enough housing. I can assure you, sir, that there are industries all over this province, and municipalities all over this province, which have no regard for the total picture, which are more concerned with -- and it’s not a valid assumption -- the industrial assessment, so that they’re blindly attracting new industry when they don’t have a bedroom in the community in which to house the personnel. So on one hand they’re attracting people in, and on the other hand they’re forcing them out.

There is also the situation of the area to area move. You talk about the fact that it really wasn’t workable. I would like to suggest to you that it is, because if you have that subsection in the legislation you can say to a municipality: “Look, when you are attracting industry into your industrial park, for which we have provided funds, you cannot poll an industry out of one community in Ontario and put it into another.” You have that clout in the way that we have put this amendment to you. I would like you to look at it in that vein.

I would like to reiterate that we feel strongly about the amendment we’re putting to you and we would like you to reconsider your position.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, may I offer a comment on the question relating to housing? I think if the member honestly and fairly assesses it, he would find that where we have industries located and there’s a housing problem, a shortage, that most of them are industries which have been located there for a period of time and are expanding their operations. I talk to industrialists from day to day, people who are interested in locating in the Province of Ontario, and let me assure this House that those industrialists and those who are working on behalf of establishing new industries, who are doing the negotiations for them, are very concerned about the amenities in the community in which they wish to locate.

Mr. Renwick: Not for the people who work for them.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: They are very concerned; because Mr. Chairman, obviously if the employees are not happy and content the industry has trouble in trying to function and perform to its maximum capacity, with the productivity they need for the profitability of the industry. I will say very clearly that no industry has come to us because there is not sufficient housing, nor that they were unable to secure sufficient lands for development of housing and that for that reason they have steered clear of the community because they realize there are a number of employees they are going to bring in for their operation who are going to require some type of housing.

While I respect the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the member speaks of moving industry from one location in the province to another, the loan will already have been made to the municipality and they will be using their good judgement. It’s fine to say that if an industry wishes -- and this is where a lot of the decision happens to come in; and it could always be questioned as to whether it is the minister’s right to make the decision or whether the local municipality or the local industrial commission has the right to make the decision as to who comes into their park. But I can assure this House that the moment industry A decides to relocate because of a requirement for expansion of their facilities -- and you might say why don’t they expand where they are presently located; well sometimes it doesn’t pay them to do it because the updating and modernizing of their plant is far too costly.

At any rate, I can assure the members of this House the moment that I, as the minister, or whomever happens to follow in this portfolio, decide to say to municipality A, B or C: “You’re not eligible to have this group or this industry come into your community because they are being relocated” that I’ll have the local member, whether he happens to be Liberal, Tory or NDP, in my office wanting to know who I am that I should make the decision that an industry should not relocate after their industrial commissioner and their mayor and their dear knows who else in the community has been out luring them to come there and re-establish.

As I said to the member this afternoon, I suppose no one would really object if the industry was relocating from the Province of Quebec, or some other province, into Ontario. We would think that was fine. But I take it we are specifically referring to communities within the bounds of the Province of Ontario. I find it a very hard clause. Mr. Chairman, to know how we can make it apply on a loan that is given for the opening and expansion and servicing of a municipally-owned industrial park, without knowing what those industries might be and from where they might be moving.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I agree with the regulations which the minister has stated here. I sympathize, of course, with my hon. friend and his amendment. I think the leader of our party has stated our position very clearly, and in that regard I don’t feel that we can support the amendment. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, at some stage there should be a committee of the House appointed to regularly review the regulations to make sure that ministers do carry out the regulations as they state.

I would just like to say that it is my belief, as a former municipal representative, that wherever possible decision-making should be kept at the local level and the local people given the opportunity to state how they feel about the operation of theft community. I can tell you that many of the regulations which are in here are regulations which municipalities look into before inviting industry to locate. They are responsible people, and I can tell you that as a former mayor of a community that these are the very things which we went into many times when industry was knocking at the door or when we were looking for industry.

I can tell you also that when industry is going to locate they do research on the municipality to see that there is housing available, to see what the bylaws are, to see what services are available, what the education facilities are, libraries and other things.

I feel that I would like to see a little bit of flexibility and discretion, and you can get so tied down in regulations that you discourage people from locating in municipalities and from applying. I just want to say in many of these things I know that the municipal people are very responsible. The minister’s criteria are certainly the things which the municipal people themselves want to ensure are in the municipality before the industry locates.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I wish I could be as sanguine about the views expressed by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton and by the hon. minister. The fact of the matter is that industry has no record of any kind which would indicate that they take into account the concerns that the minister has stated they do.

Let’s be clear. This bill is related to a very large topic called industrial relocation or location in the Province of Ontario, but it can only deal with a very limited aspect of that programme or policy of the government, or lack of policy of the government, simply because the Throne Speech said we wanted to facilitate the development of industrial parks by municipalities. So we can’t solve all of the problems of industrial location and relocation.

I am quite certain the member for Victoria-Haliburton, if he casts his mind back, can think of situations -- and I am quite certain the minister and every other member of the House can think of situations, as I can -- where plants have been located or relocated without due consideration, either by the municipality or by anybody else, about the impact which they are going to have on the environment; about the impact which they are going to have on the available amenities; and about the impact they are going to have on all of the other range of infrastructure facilities which are required in order to do it properly. I am quite certain that the movement of the Duplate Canada plant from Oshawa to Hawkesbury was certainly not done with any sense of orderly planning. There was not the housing available; there were not the other facilities available; there was not the road construction necessary even to support that movement.

It may have made very good sense for Duplate to move to Hawkesbury at the time which it did. The fact of the matter was there was no preplanning of it. What we are saying to the minister and what my colleague, the member for Fort William (Mr. Angus), is saying in his amendment is let’s plan to use the leverage of the government loan to the municipality. Let’s ask the municipality to cooperate with the ministry. With the knowledge and abilities which the ministry has developed over a period of time and in association with the other colleagues of government interested in adequate planning, in the case of establishment of industrial parks in particular municipalities in the Province of Ontario, for once in our lives, let’s do it properly.

The former member for Beaches-Woodbine, Kenneth Bryden -- I put it in by way of a caveat -- when he sat here said it was not the role of members of the opposition to draft in precise and accurate language every consideration which was to be involved for incorporation in a statute. That’s what legislative counsel is for. The purpose of the amendment is to indicate quite clearly to the government that in the field of industrial location and relocation we think the policies of the government have been sadly in default and that due consideration has not been given to the need for the various amenities which are required.

In a very real sense this is substituting the provision of industrial parks for zoning bylaws in which various areas are designated; there are various classes for the purpose of location of various types of industrial or commercial undertakings. I would assume that a municipality which wished to use the industrial park and had the availability of these funds is going to discard the question of classification of land for zoning purposes in the traditional sense of the way in which we have understood plans.

A better and more adequate provision could be made to make certain that when industry is attracted it will be attracted to a relatively compact area in or around the municipality concerned and the impact of that, in a planned way, will be so that it can be incorporated into the municipality and into the life of the municipality in an orderly and staged way. There is nothing in my colleague’s amendment -- unless there is some deficiency in language which I can’t understand -- which would indicate he is asking that all the houses be in place; or that he is asking that all of the land be serviced; or that the financial capacity of the municipality be able to deal with all the problems immediately at that time as a completely developed park.

What he is saying is, “For this area of ground for which you, the government, are providing the funds by way of loan -- and in most instances it will be substantially all of the funds for that purpose -- all we want to say to the municipality is for heaven’s sake think about it. Work out what the plan is. Stage the development of it in such a way that it can become an integral part of your municipality, in an orderly way, for the purpose of sustaining the economic life of that area so that, as a good Marxist, the other aspects of life in that community can continue.” That’s all it is about and it is a very limited context.

I am quite certain that my colleague would be quite happy if there were in place now or available to us the principles and criteria which he refers to in the first item in his enumeration. If you had the regulations which listed the various criteria and principles you are going to establish for these purposes in a meaningful way -- having regard to the various conflicting problems of adequate planning in Ontario at this time -- we might very well be able to discuss them or make suggestions to the minister about them.

[9:15]

What my colleague has had to do, of course, is to say that not only are we asking that there be principles and criteria established by regulation, but we want to imbed in the statute, in a very clear way, certain of the considerations which must be taken into account at the point in time when the cabinet approves of a loan to a municipality for these purposes. Surely that does make sense? Surely we can get away from the past history, of the disaster on many occasions, of the way in which industry has been located? When we are for the first time, as I understand it, providing loans to municipalities for industrial parks, let’s see if we can’t do it properly and do it well. It may very well be in an ongoing way, as each industry is to be located in an industrial park from time to time in a staged plan development, that the impact studies about the environmental assessment that is necessary to be undertaken are to be done with respect to each plan, having regard to the health needs and necessities of the people in the area.

Those are the reasons, as I understand it, which motivated my colleague to put in this amendment, and we certainly think it deserves very serious consideration. We’re quite happy to stand the bill down for the purpose of the legislative counsel drafting, in accurate and precise statutory language, what we desire. We’re quite happy to stand the bill down so that the minister can draft the regulation, with the help of legislative counsel, that will set out the criteria and the principles which are going to govern the preplanning in an organized and orderly way of these industrial parks so that they can take their part in the orderly economic development of the Province of Ontario, having regard to the disasters -- and that’s not too strong a word -- that have taken place in the past with respect to location of various commercial and industrial undertakings, not only in the outlying parts of the Province of Ontario but even, if I may say so, in that outlying part of the city of Toronto, the riding of Riverdale.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mrs. Bryden: I would just like to add to the comments of my colleague from Riverdale the absolute necessity for getting the criteria written down. We’ve been through the five or six years of the Ontario Development Corp. Act handing out large grants, $40 million or $50 million a year, without having been able to find the criteria behind a great many of those grants. They were never published in any great detail. During the estimates for the Ministry of Industry and Tourism this year, the minister himself stated that already 59 municipalities had met the criteria. They had made applications for assistance under this legislation that had not yet been passed, and he indicated they had met the criteria he had already set up. It appears, from what we’ve been able to learn by questioning and so on, that those criteria he was applying are very similar to what is proposed in this amendment. All we are asking is that the criteria he was applying even before the legislation was passed should be written into the legislation so there is no likelihood they will be changed without coming to this House for a discussion of any changes. I think that is only reasonable.

One other criterion that I would like to see considered, if we were going to stand down the bill and send it for drafting the criteria more precisely, is the question of giving preference to Canadian-owned, Canadian-controlled industry. There is nothing in these criteria to indicate to the municipalities we would prefer to assist them in developing industrial parks which would give preference to Canadian industry, and I’m sure we’re all agreed that is the best way to build up jobs and to build up control over our own destiny. I would like to suggest that if it is sent down for redrafting, that be included.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Brantford.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise another particular issue that is of concern to me. I have, when I read the bill, a lingering suspicion, perhaps not exactly accurate, that the government is trying to bail out a lot of land owners in the Province of Ontario.

My concern is that around every community of any consequence in Ontario the land is generally tied up by two or three or four developers, and it seems to me that what will happen as a result of this legislation is that the municipalities will be in the position to obtain money from the provincial government, and in turn they will use this money to buy land, ostensibly for industrial uses. However, there really will not be any kind of control, at least from the department as I can see it right now, that will ensure the price is equitable and fair and that, in effect, there is no collusion between the people who own the land and members of elected councils, who perhaps may decide to buy certain lands. I would like to have the minister comment on that at this time.

What steps are going to be taken by his ministry, in dealing with the municipalities, to ensure that the land that is purchased is not in effect bailing out some people? The other effect we will have is that we will be driving up the price of land as we put more money into the sort of speculative land market, where the municipalities will be in a position to buy land and perhaps hold it for industrial use at some future time, but in the meantime we are sort of taking the land off the market and causing more problems in terms of land for housing.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on this amendment?

Mr. Makarchuk: No, I just want the minister to comment on that, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, let me comment on the remarks of all three or four speakers who dealt with the amendment.

First of all, may I say to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) that I can’t find fault with the remarks relating to some of the disasters that have occurred with industry in this province over the last 50 or 100 years. Obviously we need not look too far from this particular location to find industry in an area that we would not wish it to be today, but it’s there and we are living with the problems and we hope that as time moves on that we will find ways, through both provincial and municipal governments, to relocate them.

The fact is that the criteria we have established very clearly indicate we will review the type of land the municipality intends to use for an industrial park location. We will look at it from the planning and the environmental points of view as to whether it’s up- stream or downstream or whether it’s up or (town in terms of the general wind currents of that community, as well as all the other things that are involved in the development of a viable, livable community.

There is no indication that it’s our desire to allow the municipality to go out on its own and make a recommendation they are going to take X acres of land in a particular part of the community under this particular type of proposal without, first of all, the people in our ministry, who are experts -- at least they are very knowledgeable -- having a chance to review it to see what it will do to that community as well as to review it under the Planning Act and under the land use that presently exists on the property.

We know there are difficulties with zoning bylaws and so on, but if the land is not properly zoned at the time, it must be; I believe the member for Fort William mentioned this. In the criteria we have established it must be properly zoned before this type of loan can be granted to them.

May I indicate to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mrs. Bryden) that they are loans and not grants that we are making to these municipalities, and they are loans we have been making over the last three years -- only loans -- to corporate structures that locate in a community. The 59 municipalities mentioned by the member are 59 that have made applications, along with a number of others in central southwestern Ontario, which at the moment will not be eligible. I said they were eligible under the criteria as far as geographic location is concerned in the Province of Ontario; as to whether they meet all the other criteria set down by the ministry, I would not know at this particular time.

We are not talking about loans to individual companies in this particular bill. We are talking about loans to municipalities to open up industrial lands. We would favour the opportunity of having more and more companies of Canadian origin establishing in our province. We give preferential treatment to Canadian companies making applications under the other plans of ODC, NODC and EODC, but the one we are dealing with tonight deals exclusively with the opportunity of dealing with municipalities and opening up new industrial parks and servicing them.

In response to the member for Brantford -- I should say, his remarks and the remarks of the member for Riverdale -- the provincial government will not be putting in the major portion of the capital required for the opening or expansion or servicing of the lands. We will be participating with municipalities and through debenture issues or cash they have now built up in the development accounts, they will have to raise the moneys required for opening up the parks.

Their concern as to the price of the land will be as great as our concern in the Development Corp. and in the ministry. They will be concerned about what the price of land happens to be in the community and what effects they might have upon the price of land if they should acquire it at a particular price. I repeat that our ministry will work very closely, extremely closely, with the industrial commission and the members of council in coming to a determination as to the need for the park; the availability of the amenities in the community to make industry tick; the availability of the labour force; the availability of raw materials necessary for their particular operation.

I believe the ministry’s people, the industrial development officers we have in 22 regional offices in this province, have by and large received the confidence of the development commissioners of the various municipalities. In more cases than not the ministry’s recommendations as to the location and various policies they should be adopting have been accepted by those municipalities. I believe that under this particular proposed operation, we’ll find that very same co-operative attitude, both from the ministry and the municipalities, is fully acceptable.

Mr. Makarchuk: I wonder if the minister at this time could indicate, when he is deciding the amount of money he’s going to give to a municipality, what criteria he is going to use.

Are you going to insist that each municipality would provide 50 per cent of the capital or 75 per cent or 33 1/3 per cent or whatever it is? Would you deal with all the municipalities in Ontario equally? In other words, no matter where the municipality’s located, if it made an application to you for a certain amount of capital to expand an industrial land bank, will it be entitled to a certain percentage regardless of the location -- a certain percentage of the money -- and will the municipality be responsible for raising a certain amount of capital on its own?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is correct; very clearly. The cost of buying and the cost of servicing will have to be documented and certified as being the actual costs. The percentage factors as they relate to the terms of reference and the criteria will be applicable to all municipalities across this province.

Mr. Makarchuk: Equally? Will it be applicable to all municipalities equally? In other words, you are not going to show any favouritism to certain municipalities or you are going to show favouritism to certain municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We are not going to show favouritism to municipalities. Let me come back to clarify any misunderstanding the members might have. I hope you realize that not every municipality in northern and eastern Ontario is likely to qualify for this type of assistance.

We’re going to have to rationalize the establishment of industrial parks in the Province of Ontario. We want to be assured of the possibilities of the disposal of the land once it’s serviced and ready for sale; that there is a true opportunity to do so. On the other hand, we want to make sure that the amount of land being acquired by the municipality is not an excessive amount. We are likely to get involved only in the servicing of portions of industrial parks and that will take place on a progressive basis.

In other words, if a municipality happens to buy -- let’s use 200 acres for an example -- and we believe that’s an adequate supply of land and that it will last them for a period of years, they only need to have 50 or 70 acres serviced this particular year. That’s the type of financing arrangements we will make with them -- service a portion of the park and not the entire park so that we don’t allow those capital investments to sit there f or a period of five or 10 years. It will be dealt with on an equal basis.

Mr. Makarchuk: Related to that aspect of the whole problem, what also concerns me is the fact that the ministry is prepared to provide subsidies to municipalities for industrial land or provide loans or assistance. At the same time the minister says he is concerned about other amenities, particularly housing. Certainly industry is concerned or is supposed to be concerned about housing though this is not the case in Ontario. I suggest to you that you look at the Nanticoke project, which of course didn’t go in on municipally or provincially-owned land; however, it did create a housing problem, it did create an environmental problem, and it did create a transportation problem and numerous other problems. It even saw the defeat of the former member from that area, from Haldimand-Norfolk. It contributed to that problem.

[9:30]

What I am concerned about here is the fact that you have made some effort for the municipalities to provide land for industry, but you are not making any kind of an effort in this case for the municipalities to acquire land for housing. it seems to me that in many eases it would provide balanced growth and would perhaps even encourage the development of industry in certain municipalities, if there was land for housing.

Once again, we get back to the problem that in many of these cases in many of the communities in Ontario, the land is tied up. It is not being released for housing by the people who are holding the land, despite their squawks to the contrary or despite some of the comments they are making that it is being held up by the Ministry of Housing, which is not the case in all places.

You are doing nothing in this case. It would seem to me you should move in in the direction of trying to ensure that you provide the land for housing as well as industrial growth. If the municipality came to you and asked to see if you would provide assistance to them to provide for the purchase of land for housing, would you be prepared to consider this? Under the terms of this bill, as I understand it right now, the municipality will not be entitled to get any kind of assistance for housing land. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is absolutely correct. This bill relates to industrial park development. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) has various programmes to assist municipalities in acquiring land for housing development purposes.

Within the ministry or within the terms of reference of this operation, when a municipality happens to ask for a loan for opening up a municipal park or servicing a municipal park or whatever it happens to be, may I very clearly indicate that the financing of services relates only to the services to the interior of the industrial park and not to bringing the services to the industrial park. When we are reviewing it, the Ministries of Industry and Tourism, Agriculture and Food, Natural Resources, Energy, Housing, Transportation and Communications, Labour and Treasury and Economics are all part of the review process as to the eligibility of a particular application by a particular municipality for a loan under the proposed bill that we have here tonight.

Mr. Makarchuk: Again on the same item, it seems to me that you are prepared to deal with services to industry or assistance to industry, but you are not prepared to deal with assistance to the other aspects of growth in the community, and this again is housing. I suppose it is just like frying to sell suits, where you sell the jacket and forget about the pants. That is the nature of your policy right now in this respect. It would seem to me that if we are going to have sensible planning, and this is the whole gist of this amendment, we should be concerned about housing, about farm land, and about all the aspects of economic growth that we have discussed which we fed should be prevalent in Ontario.

There should be some direction from this government. You cannot continue running this province as if you were running some junk shop and allowing things to develop here or there or everywhere without any rhyme or reason. Those are the reasons why in this case by accepting this amendment we at least are going to start moving in some direction of organized growth and development, of balanced growth and development in Ontario. I think the rejection of this amendment is going to be a disservice to the people of Ontario.

Once again, I point to your Nanticoke project. There is a good example of the kind of development and planning --

Mr. Shore: We are on Bill 6.

Mr. Makarchuk: -- that is done by somebody else, and what you do is run around and try to pick up the pieces afterwards with all sorts of problems to everybody, including your own members.

Mr. Angus: I have just a very short comment. I would like to reiterate the general feelings of my colleagues that by putting forth this amendment and by wording it the way we have and including the minister’s own remarks, our intention is to take the discretion for a lot of these things out of the hands of die minister and put them in the Legislature of Ontario where we feel strongly they belong. That is why we propose this amendment and why we will continue to work towards that.

The committee divided on Mr. Angus’s amendment to subsection 7 of section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 26, the “nays” are 58.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.

Bill 6, as amended, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report four bills with amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 2, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Bill 3, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Bill 6, An Act to amend the Development Corporations Act.

Bill 7, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Bill 27, An Act to amend the highway Traffic Act.

Bill 34, An Act to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Interjections.

Mr. Ruston: Thanks very much. Maybe I should announce my candidacy right now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe when we were last on this motion the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) was speaking.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, if I may just explain. He isn’t available tonight. If I could carry on now and he could then come back at another time, would that be agreeable?

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreeable to the House that the hon. member --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Are we agreed that the hon. member for Hamilton West may continue when he returns? Thank you.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I suppose since the last time I participated in the Throne Speech debate, things have changed considerably in this House --

Interjection.

Mr. Ruston: As we notice, of course, as a result of the recent election, the rump is now the Liberals and the Conservatives don’t have one anymore.

An hon. member: Pretty good rump though.

Mr. Ruston: I don’t think the numbers here really reflect the feeling of the people out in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Riddell: That’s right.

Mr. Ruston: So I am not ashamed to say that I am in the third party, if you want to call it that.

Our party carried 34 per cent of the popular vote in Ontario, I admit we maybe didn’t do as well as we would have liked in Metropolitan Toronto; but I can tell you right now that we have a good base throughout the rest of southern Ontario and I think that is a good omen for us in the future.

Mr. Riddell: And Toronto comes next.

Mr. Ruston: I don’t think it is necessarily any reflection on the leadership that we have had over the past eight or nine years. I think that I have always been proud to be a part of the Liberal Party in Ontario.

Mr. Riddell: Right.

Mr. Ruston: In fact the first convention of any major party I ever attended was in January of 1967, when the then member for Brant was elected to lead the Liberal Party in Ontario. I attended that convention strictly on my own, without any particular involvement in politics prior to that. I was a civil servant at one time and not really allowed to engage too much in party politics. Having been a reeve of a township for a number of years, I felt it wasn’t my place to be involved in party politics; so I kept pretty well clear of too much involvement.

However, I suppose it is pretty difficult not to get involved to some extent. If you are in the riding that the Hon. Paul Martin held for 35 years in the federal House, I think you are bound to be involved to some extent. I attended the first nomination of Paul Martin in Essex East, which was in November of 1934. I can assure you I wasn’t old enough to vote at that time. And I didn’t vote at his nomination meeting, either.

However, when you look over the election campaign and some of the things that were said before and during that campaign by our leader, you would almost think that Mr. Maxwell Henderson had read our leader’s speeches before he brought his report in.

Mr. Riddell: Right on.

Mr. Ruston: The first weekend I had the report I sat in my den one evening for 2½ hours, and I wasn’t sure whether I was going to watch television or read the book. I started reading the hook and I kept saying, “These are things I read before; Bob Nixon had been speaking about them.”

Mr. Warner: Right wing stuff.

Mr. Ruston: But I want to say one thing, that I don’t agree with everything that is in here.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You don’t endorse everything in that book?

Mr. Ruston: I don’t agree with everything that is in here. I don’t believe that you can go around closing hospitals in the Province of Ontario, while at the same time giving Wintario grants to every fellow who wants to go travelling to Europe or some place and wants a $500 grant to do it. You don’t close hospitals and do that, I can tell you.

[10:15]

Hon. Mr. Welch: Are you opposed to the present system of Wintario grants? Are you opposed to what we are doing?

Mr. Ruston: I can’t hear you so I have to go on with my speech.

An hon. member: You are not making a speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Would the hon. member permit a question?

Mr. Ruston: Sure I’ll take a question.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Are you opposed to the way we are disbursing Wintario grant money at the present time?

Mr. Germa: He just told you that.

Mr. Ruston: I’m not opposed to the Wintario grant structure, providing that you make it useful in the community. If you do that, I’ll tell you that I agree with it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Name me one that is not.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ruston: You even gave one right in my own area for $325,000 for a new arena.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There have been a few interjections. The hon. member will continue his remarks.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is called sucking and blowing at the same time.

An hon. member: You should know.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is what the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) is doing with that report for the federal government.

Mr. Ruston: There was a real problem in the three municipalities. They had one vote and one municipality turned it down. They had another vote and then two municipalities turned it down. It happened to be the one that I live in that turned it down the second time. It did create a problem. I will say that you solved a great big problem in that area and that’s why I agree with it.

We have the arena. We have the recreational centre. In fact, we’re having the official opening on Dec. 20 and I’m sure you’ll be there or some of your friends. I would hope you will be there. However it didn’t get the government the votes it intended to get, I’ll tell you that; but that’s beside the point.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That wasn’t our motive.

Mr. Ruston: Another thing, with regard to the election campaign, I got a kick out of the policy of that famous farmer from Scarborough West, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis), where he was going around. At one point he said he was going to guarantee every farmer $7,000 a year.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Personally.

Mr. Ruston: I was at an all-candidates meeting when we were discussing this. The hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) attended that meeting as well, because two ridings were holding that all-candidates meeting.

Mr. Deans: It sounds like the grape vine news.

Mr. Ruston: I said: “That’s an interesting thing. The NDP wants to guarantee every farmer $7,000 a year but you can go into a shop at Chrysler and you can make $12,000 a year and all you have to have is a house to live in. You don’t have to buy a combine; you don’t have to buy a tractor; you don’t have to buy a farm.” They were going to grant the farmer $7,000 a year. Do you know what I told the people at that all- candidates meeting? I said, “With a policy like that we’ll go hungry in Ontario in three years.”

Hon. W. Newman: You don’t even know what the average income for the farmer is right now.

Mr. Ruston: My brother farms across the road from me and his boy wants to farm. I said to him: “With policies like that, don’t come back on the farm. Keep on in university. You’d be a fool to go farming with policies like that.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: And what did they say?

Mr. R. S. Smith: They said he was right.

Mr. Deans: How does it feel to be the third party?

Mr. Ruston: Great. There is no problem at all. How does it feel to have 29 per cent of the vote?

Mr. Deans: As long as it makes us the official opposition we will accept it.

Mr. Ruston: By the way, do you know in the city of Windsor in the county of Essex, the great NDP were going to do wonders. They were going to get five seats.

Hon. Mr. Welch: They will have to draft Ruston for leader.

Mr. Ruston: In fact, the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) came and told me one day: “We’ve got you, Ruston. The NDP candidate in Essex North is going to swamp you.

I said: “That’s fine.” I looked over the results of the 1971 election in my area, but with redistribution a lot of people said to me: “You shouldn’t accept that redistribution. It’s stacked against you.” I said: “I don’t worry who stacks the cards. I’m going to be playing them on election day, and that’s what counts.”

I came back and there was the 1,700 deficiency the member for York South told me about, but we overcame that and we managed to get the largest majority we ever had in three elections. Of course, there’s one other thing about the city of Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is because of your humility. It is your humility that comes through.

Mr. Ruston: I’ll have to read this after, to see what you said.

Another thing about the NDP in Windsor -- we’ll admit that our candidates in a couple of the ridings in Windsor were nominated late and there were a few problems, but we have these once in a while.

Interjection.

Mr. Ruston: But our vote went up from the 1911 election, from 34 per cent to 43 per cent of the popular vote; we went up nine points. The NDP went down three per cent in the popular vote.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You know where you went.

Mr. Ruston: Of course, the Conservatives went down 10 per cent.

Mr. Deans: Strangely enough they are over there, we are over here and you are third.

Mr. Ruston: However, that’s beside the point and I’m getting off the text of my speech, but I just thought the people would like to know that we’re not that far back. We’re right there and we’re in a position to take off very well whenever the gong goes and people start putting up the lawn signs.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In which direction?

Mr. Ruston: I suppose just a few minutes ago we saved ourselves from having a winter election by voting with the government. The trouble is it would be pretty tough putting stakes in the ground in January and I’m sure no one wants to have an election in January. Since we’re responsible people -- I’m sure all 35 of my colleagues are responsible people -- we can accept voting with the government tonight on that policy.

Interjections.

Mr. Ruston: We have reservations sometimes but after all the people must come first in Ontario. I don’t think we should call on them.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We will see what you do on the amendment in the Throne debate.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t got started into my text yet, if you’ll excuse me.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is obvious.

Interjections.

An hon. member: Don’t slow down.

Mr. Ruston: I want to say a word or two about the wage and price guidelines in Ottawa since we’re free to discuss these things. I must say I disagree with the method by which they brought them in.

If they’re going to pass a law or bring in guidelines and so forth, they’ve not only got to be fair but they’ve got to appear fair. I don’t think, with the way they’ve been brought in that they appear fair. They may end up being fair over a period of a year or two years.

I think the Prime Minister of Canada, in his Thanksgiving Day presentation to the people on television and radio, had the opportunity to tell the people that he felt the time had come when it was necessary to put in some form of wage and price guidelines. I’m not sure how well they’re going to work but I think he had the opportunity to say then that we’re going to put a complete freeze on everything -- that’s going to be prices and income -- for 90 days until we get the thing worked out as to how it’s going to be operated. Right now, they look to me to be flying by the seat of their pants most of the time.

Mr. Deans: That’s Bob Stanfield’s position, isn’t it?

Mr. Ruston: He had a position, I guess, like that in the last federal election. Of course, he may have changed it after he got elected, who knows?

Mr. Deans: I think that is exactly what it was as a matter of fact.

Mr. Ruston: I suppose things change and he may have changed it in the meantime.

We had debate here yesterday for three hours on the teachers’ strike and problems of that in Metropolitan Toronto. We had a strike in the Windsor area, teachers stayed out five or six weeks. We had transit strikes in London; we had transit strikes in Waterloo-Kitchener. We had a transit strike in Toronto and the government called us back to force the people back to work and if I remember correctly we voted with the government in that situation.

Mr. Deans: As usual.

Mr. Ruston: I recall some of the words I said that day when I got up to speak on the bill --

Interjection.

Mr. Ruston: If the member for Wentworth would shut his mouth, I might carry on a little bit. Or take that potato out of it so I can understand him.

Interjection.

An hon. member: He likes the last word.

Mr. Ruston: I said that day that I spoke to a son of mine who happens to be president -- chairman -- of the union where he works. I might say he’s doing a pretty good job as chairman of his union. I asked him what he would do if he was in my position on that particular strike. I said “What would you do if you were elected by the people of the riding, also to represent the Province of Ontario, and you went down the street in Toronto and found the traffic jams there?” They’re almost as bad now, though. It did inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Who is he?

Mr. Ruston: He said that I would have to make that decision at the time. I don’t know if I could tell you right today what I would do, but he said: “That’s a decision you will have to make and I’m sure if you make it by thinking it out, the right decision will come.” We accept that. We have to make decisions.

This afternoon no one caused a vote to be cast or a roll-call vote on the seatbelt legislation. We all got calls from people who were against it. The people who are in favour of it generally don’t call; it’s the people who are opposed to things. It’s pretty hard to assess whether the majority of people are against it or not. Out of a dozen calls I think there was only one call in favour of it. I suppose a lot of the people say, “I’ll accept what government gives to us. We elect them and we’ll have to accept what they do, if it’s within reason.”

So we have to make a decision, and apparently the decision of the 125 members here was that the seatbelt legislation would go through because no one stood up and demanded a roll-call vote against it. I told some of the people who called me: “I would think that if there was roll-call, probably 100 people would vote for it and 25 would vote against it.” I don’t know how far wrong I would have been, but I suppose I wouldn’t have hem too far out. That’s the decision we have to make.

I suppose the most difficult decision for people to make is with regard to capital punishment. I made a survey myself a number of years ago on capital punishment and 70 per cent of the people who sent back the surveys said they were in favour of capital punishment. I myself can vote for capital punishment with a clear conscience. I could stand up and vote for capital punishment with a clear conscience myself, but there are many people who cannot.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) got up one day and said he wanted law and order and I interjected: “Are you going to vote for capital punishment?” He wouldn’t say yes or no. He said it was a federal problem. I’ll agree it’s a federal matter. It’s the same if a member himself consciously doesn’t want to vote for capital punishment and yet maybe the majority of the people in his riding do.

The only way to alleviate that and solve that problem is to say we’ll leave it up to the vote of the people of all of Canada. I’ve suggested that here in the House. Of course, I know it’s a federal matter and we can’t deal with it here, but it’s a thought that people convey to me occasionally and maybe that’s one way to solve the dilemma of some of these things where we have a certain conscience we have to live with and vote with. Maybe the people as a whole should resolve these things by plebiscite, and I don’t know if that’s so bad. After all, we’re in a democratic country.

I should get into the text of my speech. I want to compare something about our financing here in Ontario to an article I read in the Detroit paper about financing in New York City.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps if the hon. member wants to get started into a major topic, he might move the adjournment at this time, or if he has a moment or two to use, he may do that as well.

Mr. Ruston moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. House leader have an announcement to make?

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order. I want to be clear exactly how we’re now going to deal with the dilemma we’re in, with the member for Essex North speaking and the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) having the floor? Is it your intention to allow the member for Essex North to complete his speech before calling on the member for Hamilton West?

Mr. Speaker: Actually, both hon. members will have the opportunity to complete their speeches and it depends which one catches the Speaker’s eye first. I hope it doesn’t get any more complicated.

Mr. Deans: That does play havoc with the rotation procedures that we normally follow.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t foresee any problem.

Mr. Ruston: To solve the problem, I would agree to the member for Hamilton West having first call when he returns.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. House leader have an announcement to make?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a motion prior to adjournment, is there not, tonight? Has that been withdrawn? Perhaps at this stage I could indicate that on Thursday we will go into committee of supply and, as the order paper suggests today, there are four hours and 43 minutes still left for estimates. That will be divided between the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development, the Office of the Premier ‘and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor; so it would seem reasonable to assume we will finish the estimates on Thursday afternoon.

If there is any time left on Thursday, after the estimates are completed, we will go back to the Throne Speech debate.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(a) I now deem a motion to adjourn the House to have been made.

The member for Nickel Belt, as hon. members will recall, has served notice that he is dissatisfied with an answer given him by the Premier (Mr. Davis) concerning layoffs in Sudbury. The member has five minutes to explain his dissatisfaction or his position. He has the floor.

FALCONBRIDGE NICKEL MINE LAYOFFS

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier’s absence is noted.

During the last four years there have been many occasions when I have been dissatisfied with answers by ministers in this chamber, but never before have I felt the same sense of anger and frustration I felt today when, for the third time, the Premier refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the problems of the layoffs in the Sudbury area by Falconbridge Nickel Mines and the relationship between the problems of the regional municipality of Sudbury and those particular layoffs.

For 75 years the Sudbury ores have been extracted at enormous costs to the safety and health of the workers, to the Sudbury environment and to the taxpayers of the Sudbury region. For 75 years Inco and Falconbridge -- Falconbridge for somewhat less time than that -- have not paid a fair share on the enormous wealth they have extracted.

During this century, 20 billion lb of nickel have been extracted from the Sudbury area. Despite this wealth, the regional municipality of Sudbury has its financial back to the wall. Some quotes from a paper of the regional municipality of Sudbury would be appropriate and, I believe, would put some things in perspective. I quote directly:

“The level of basic services available in terms of sewer, water and’ roads is well below the standards available in other regions.

“[And further) On the capital expenditure side, it is estimated in 1975 dollars that in excess of $75 million is required over the next five years to achieve minimum levels of servicing for roads, sewer and water and waste disposal.

“[And further] In financial terms, the local taxpayers cannot afford to finance more than $35 million of the total capital forecast for the next five years. The figure of $35 million also approximates the principal repayments that will be made over the period 1975 to 1979. The additional $35 million to $40 million will have to be financed by the senior levels of government.

“The analysis to date has shown in the Sudbury region that existing current revenue sources, when compared to estimated current expenditures for municipal government purposes, are deficient by some $1 million to $2 million per year. Since taxation rates are among the highest in the province, the annual increases in these rates have been constrained to 10 per cent per year. On the capital expenditure side, it is estimated that from $70 to $80 million worth of capital expenditures are required in the Sudbury region to bring the service level up to standards enjoyed in the rest of the province.

“When a local economy is dependent on mining to the extent that exists in Sudbury, it is not financially possible to provide a level of municipal services to the local population comparable to that enjoyed by similar-sized communities in Ontario. The net effect over time has been the accumulation of a considerable backlog of capital servicing that it is now impossible for the local taxpayers to finance.

“Another result of the inability to tax the mining industry in previous years, because Sudbury now has one of the highest residential and commercial tax rates in the province, while still disadvantaged with respect to local services.”

Mr. Speaker, the financial straits of the Sudbury region are clear. Compounding the problem of the failure of this government to tax the mining industry is the boom-and-bust economic history of the region. Due to Inco layoffs several years ago, Sudbury went from the lowest apartment vacancy rate in Canada to the highest vacancy rate in the matter of a year or so. Imagine the problems of planning the orderly growth of residential and commercial development with this situation.

In early November Falconbridge announced, in the same week a contract was signed between the company and the striking Mine Mill union, that almost 1,000 men would be laid off. It appears the exact number is to be 939. This decision is the latest in a long story of boom, bust and uncertainty for the Sudbury area. The people of the Sudbury area who have created so much wealth for others deserve better.

The regional municipality of Sudbury is currently preparing a regional development policy that will guide the growth of the area for many years to come. How can such planning be done effectively when the resource corporations behave in such a unilateral fashion? The people in the Sudbury area have a right to know the role the Sudbury ore bodies will play in the long-run plans of both Inco and Falconbridge.

Mr. Speaker: Thirty seconds.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, since both men and Falconbridge are large multinational resource corporations, we are fearful that Sudbury is merely a pawn in a multinational resource corporation game, and we feel that both for those reasons there is ample justification for a select committee of this Legislature to examine, not only the layoffs, but the behaviour and the intentions of the resource corporations in the Sudbury area.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister wish to respond to this?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour will respond.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has the floor.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the hon. member from Sudbury regarding a select committee to study the layoffs from Falconbridge was the first suggestion which I think the Premier, in fact, rejected.

I think we should report to this House that yesterday representatives of the Ministry of Labour of this province met with Mr. Gilchrist, who is the area supervisor of United Steelworkers, with Mr. Astgen, the president of local 598 of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, and three other representatives of the unions involved, to discuss the layoffs at the Falconbridge mines.

At the meeting, the union expressed their belief that the layoff at Falconbridge constituted a mass layoff as defined in section 3 of regulation 251 under the Employment Standards Act. Therefore, they believed, the employees are entitled to the notice required under that specific section. However, at the meeting the unions were advised that in the opinion of the Ministry of Labour the layoffs were being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Employment Standards Act.

Section 41 of the regulations of that Act state that “where not more than 10 per cent of the persons employed are terminated in any period of four weeks or less, the requirement for individual rather than mass notice applies.” As the government understands it, the unions are suggesting that as the company has indicated that they may lay off up to 1,000 employees, a mass layoff is therefore involved.

We have been informed, in fact, that the company will adhere to the requirements of the Employment Standards Act. They will ensure that no matter how many employees they find it necessary to lay off eventually, not more than 10 per cent will be laid off in any four-week period, and that does comply with the Act.

Mr. Laughren: I understand that. You are not answering my question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Thus a large layoff, if it takes place, will be spread over a period of time.

Mr. Laughren: That is irrelevant.

Hon. B. Stephenson: This procedure is provided for in the regulations.

Mr. Laughren: That’s irrelevant to the question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: This is the basis upon which the question was asked of the Premier.

Mr. Laughren: That is not so.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The Ministry of Labour recognizes the problems which have arisen during the last two years in the application of the termination of employment.

Mr. Laughren: That’s not answering the question; let’s come back next Tuesday night.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The Act which covers that has provided us with difficulties. That entire section and the regulations thereunder are presently under review within my ministry. The ministry has already announced that new legislation will be ready for presentation to this House next spring and it will encompass all aspects of termination of employment.

I think perhaps it is worth adding that since the first word of the indefinite layoff was received within the Ministry of Labour, the employment adjustment service of that ministry has had several contacts with Falconbridge management. The ministry has received very encouraging reports of the efforts of a company-union committee, which is attempting to find alternative employment for those who are laid off.

The Premier believes that it would be inappropriate at this time to appoint a select committee to examine one specific area of layoff of employment. It probably would establish an unfortunate precedent, because the government cannot be expected to construct special committees for all local problems.

Mr. Laughren: I did not ask that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It probably is an unreasonable expectation.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; there can’t be a point of order in this debate.

Mr. Laughren: Pardon?

Mr. Speaker: There can’t be a point of order at this time, I believe.

Mr. Deans: You have got to hear a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear it; but the member had his five minutes to explain. The minister --

Mr. Bain: She didn’t reply.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member had his opportunity to speak for five minutes. The minister replied within the five-minute limit --

Mr. Bain: She didn’t reply.

Mr. Speaker: That’s all right; a minister may reply or not reply as he or she sees fit. Do you think you have a real point of order? If so, I will hear it.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly do. I am wondering whether you can give me some guidance. When we come here at 10:30 to have a question answered for which there was an unsatisfactory reply in the afternoon, what do we do when there continues to be an unsatisfactory reply? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the question that was put wasn’t even answered tonight. It was deliberately evaded.

Mr. Speaker: I think I answered that point of order before the point of order was raised. The hon. member for Oshawa also expressed his dissatisfaction with an answer given yesterday, I believe, and has given due notice. He has five minutes to explain his position.

STERILIZATION OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. Breaugh: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I asked a question of the Minister of Labour and it’s one that I found particularly awkward to ask --

Hon. W. Newman: You would.

Mr. Breaugh: -- because it entails a rather delicate matter.

Mr. Cassidy: He’s sensitive, you are not.

Mr. Breaugh: I asked it because the people involved are not just constituents who are somewhat vague; they are friends, they are people I have worked with, they are human beings whom 1 know and they are very real to me.

I anticipate that the minister would be quite willing to state publicly a position of the ministry on this matter. What perhaps is debatable in the matter is the motives of the company. There is no debate on the part of the company or the union or anyone else that, in effect, what the company has asked for is compulsory sterilization of female employees. Its words are that they must submit a medical certificate that they cannot bear children if they are of child-bearing age. There’s no question that a woman can’t get one of those unless she goes through some kind of sterilization process. That’s not the question at hand.

I anticipated an answer from this minister in particular, because she is charged under her responsibilities in this House to look after the safety of the work place, the occupational health of those people who work there, and frankly the human rights of all individuals in the province. In my view, that’s her legislative responsibility, if you like, and much more. But more so I anticipated an answer because she is a member of the medical profession, and even more so because I am told she has been an outstanding advocate of women’s rights for some time.

I anticipated that the minister would welcome a chance to clarify this issue and to state publicly the position of the Minister of Labour on this particular matter. It affects, if you like, not many people. There are now only 10 women working in that particular plant. Six of them have decided to opt for a transfer somewhere else. Perhaps it might cost them some money, perhaps not. Four of them have decided to apply to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to sort the question out.

In the meantime, none of them knows, nor do any other of the women -- or men, for that matter -- who work in any of these plants where any of this is suspect or open to question, have any idea of what their rights are. To my knowledge, it is the first indication ever that a company took it upon itself to make this a condition of employment. For what motives, let’s set aside. Perhaps it was for humane motives; perhaps it was to avoid a lawsuit. Nonetheless, it did happen and that’s not in dispute.

What I want, very simply, is for the minister to state publicly the position of her ministry on this particular issue -- not to let it go off to the Human Rights Commission for four months or six months or whatever, but to allay their anxieties, to state publicly what the position of the government is on the matter, and in my view to live up to her legislative responsibilities. She chose not to, and I am gravely disappointed. I offer this as an opportunity for her to make that position public now.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as I suggested this afternoon, when the question was first put yesterday it was badly put and it was misleading to this House and particularly to me. It mentioned the word “compulsory” sterilization, and that has a context which has really nothing to do with the matter under consideration.

I did explore the problem, found out all the information that I could -- all the factual information regarding the problem that I could -- and in fact reported that to this House this afternoon.

If the hon. member for Oshawa wishes me to give him a personal opinion regarding the need for compulsory sterilization at any time, I can tell him right now that I am entirely opposed to it under any circumstances, hut I fail to understand the context or the content of the question which he is asking me. Is he asking me to give the ministry’s position regarding compulsory sterilization as a requirement for employment?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. That is the question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Well, why didn’t he say that, if I may ask, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Breaugh: I did. I said that.

Hon. W. Newman: You didn’t.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You did not.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m sorry that I really did not understand this because from the content of the questions which the member posed to me it was impossible to construe that kind of question.

Mr. Breaugh: That’s the exact wording.

Hon. B. Stephenson: However, at this point I have given the member my personal opinion about compulsory sterilization under any circumstance, for employment or any other. It matters not whether it is required by someone for any kind of activity, I am entirely opposed to compulsory sterilization.

Mr. Foulds: What about the ministry?

Mrs. Gigantes: What about the ministry?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I can’t tell you what the ministry feels at the moment. This problem arose today --

Mr. Breaugh: What the hell?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Today; it is being investigated; it will be reported on in due course and as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Makarchuk: As minister what is your opinion?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This completes this order of business.

I deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried.

The House adjourned at 10:45 p.m.