The House resumed at 8 p.m.

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved second reading of Bill 39, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have a statement to lead off the debate with?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few introductory and clarifying remarks, hopefully to avoid any unnecessary debate based on misunderstanding of the intent and effect of the bill.

Mr. Deans: We understand; you want to encourage people to drink more alcohol.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The bill is designed to replace foreign sugar with the distillate of cereal grains grown in Ontario for the fortification of Ontario wines. The viability of the Ontario wine industry depends greatly on its ability to compete with imported wines which are low cost, which use grain alcohol in their fortification and which have the support of their governments.

The seriousness of the challenge which is posed by the imports is shown by the statistical information for last year, indicating that foreign wine sales increased by 9½ per cent while Canadian wines decreased 1.6 per cent. One of the purposes of the bill is to enable our Ontario wine industry to compete on an equitable basis with those imports.

Mr. Deans: Is there any evidence of that being because of the cost?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It certainly is partly because of cost. Ontario wines are not as competitive as they should be on the basis of cost, although they are continuing to improve their quality and we believe are competitive on the basis of quality.

Mr. Nixon: Now you own all the grapes we will be able to do something about that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The amendment before us tonight has the support not only of my ministry, of course, but of the LCBO, the Ontario Wine Council, the Ontario Grape Marketing Board, the Department of Finance in Ottawa, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of National Revenue, customs and excise division.

Mr. Nixon: There has to be something the matter with it.

Mr. Moffatt: That’s a bad bunch.

Mr. Deans: What has National Health and Welfare got to do with it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is complementary to regulations which were passed in Ottawa this summer which have been implemented in all the other provinces and which we are now implementing to bring Ontario into the same competitive situation as wineries in other provinces.

Mr. Gaunt: We will have to review our position on this matter.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Primarily, the Ontario wine industry has been using sugar to fortify Ontario wine. As everyone knows the cost of sugar has risen greatly in the past few years. It is now starting to drop --

Mr. Riddell: That is because of the sugar beet industry.

Mr. Deans: That is because you destroyed the sugar beet industry.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There is no sugar beet industry. This is all foreign wine.

Mr. Deans: There used to be and you destroyed it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: When he talks to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) I think he can talk about the sugar beet industry. What we are concerned with at the present time is the wine industry in Ontario. It cannot use domestic sugar because there isn’t any; therefore it has been using imported sugar. The purpose of the bill is to replace that foreign sugar with Ontario grown cereals.

We also want to make it quite clear that there will be no use of grain alcohol in anything except fortified wines. To that end we will be introducing a regulation -- as a matter of fact it is now in the process of being drafted -- which will restrict the use of grain alcohol to wines of 14 per cent or more alcohol content. That puts it on a par with the imported wine.

I hope the House will consider the amendment in the spirit in which it is introduced. That is to assist the Ontario wine industry and not for the purpose of increasing alcohol consumption.

Mr. Deans: After destroying the whole sugar beet industry, you’ve got the nerve to complain about the price of sugar.

Mr. Moffatt: I don’t know whether or not it is safe to talk about the spirit of the bill but I think one should. I think that in principle we are prepared to accept the amendment which the minister has brought forward, But, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we have some reservations about some of the things which have taken place in the past and have added to this particular bill. These are some things which I think the minister should be cognizant of in order to make sure that there are significant changes in protection of the consumer and the grape industry in this province.

First of all, it was stated by the minister that the Grape Growers Marketing Board has lent its support to this particular bill. It has been lent in the true sense of the word. They were kind of dragged, kicking and screaming, by the wine industry to the position where they would support this particular bill, because the minister and the ministry was not prepared to adopt the kind of protection which the grape growers felt they needed in this particular industry.

Now, whether the protection could be implemented at the provincial level has been a subject of great debate. Those people are convinced that it could have been implemented at the provincial level -- it did not need the federal action -- but that has been the route used to get away from the issue by this particular government.

I would like to say also that the present practice which involves the use of the remnants of the wine industry in conjunction with sugar and various other things to produce an alcohol which can be used to fortify wines, is one which has really been taking place over a number of years. The business of the sugar beet industry was laughed off by the minister and was the subject of heckling by other people on that side. But, in fact, we have that now clearly in place in this province. There is no sugar beet industry and that was very nicely orchestrated by the present government and the demise was --

Mr. Nixon: The industry was phased out.

Mr. Moffatt: -- looked on with great approbation by the Premier of the day, Mr. Robarts, The present Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) was involved in some of that sort of thing. The previous Minister of Agriculture and Food said, “Well, if we have to do without our sugar beet industry, then we shall.”

As I said, we are prepared to support the amendment, but we want to make sure that the minister will make really significant moves to the kind of production control to which he alluded in his final paragraph.

The grape growers are very concerned that in this province there are no real production standards. We would like to see those in place in the very near future. I am sure that in his remarks in response, the minister will be able to give us some assurance about those kinds of production standards.

It seems to me, too, that we need to look very carefully on the last sentence uttered by the minister regarding grain alcohol -- now controlled by a very limited number of firms. The use of grain alcohol to fortify wines can lead to a sort of vertical integration of that industry in the same way as we have seen vertical integration pervade various other agricultural endeavours. I want to know tonight if the minister is prepared to make sure that we don’t suddenly see all of the present wineries and grape acreages come under the control of the House of Seagram, or one of the other distillers.

I think that that is an important point and not one to be laughed off. It also seems to me that there are times when we need to look very carefully at what this kind of wine can be. This could be the bingo business, and the kind of wine that is used for a cheap drunk, I think --

Mr. Deans: That bingo?

Mr. Moffatt: That bingo, yes. Not the church type; the other type.

It seems to me that the LCBO has a direct responsibility to make sure that these wines are marketed in some kind of reasonable fashion which precludes that sort of thing. As I said earlier, we are prepared to support the amendment, but we have some reservations. Thank you.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make some comments on the bill. I was rather hoping that the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) would join in -- and he may yet -- so we will see what his views on this are going to be.

Mr. Lewis: Stop inciting.

Mr. Nixon: Well, there is hardly anyone in the gallery, so we might not have as much action as we used to around here.

Mr. Lewis: Getting inflammatory.

Mr. Nixon: I was interested in the minister saying he was most concerned that this grain alcohol would not by law be added to any wine that had an alcohol content of less than 14 per cent. In other words, we’re going to be careful we don’t do what apparently was done in France where they got some coloured water and dumped in some alcohol and a little grape essence and sold it to, perhaps the LCBO -- who knows -- as French wine which could then be imported at a suitable markup. They had quite a scandal.

It may be that that’s what the minister is concerned about. When the member who just spoke said we are concerned about the quality standards here I’m sure he spoke for all of us, because we do want to have a wine industry coming out of the Niagara Peninsula which is going to continue to improve its standards, have a larger share of the market and, I suppose, grow more competitively than we have seen in the past.

They’ve had a considerable amount of support from the government. I can remember when the Minister for Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) was here convincing us that we should allow grape concentrates to be imported into this province. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have a prohibition which actually controls and keeps out concentrates from Ontario in its raw form, although as the minister admitted a few days ago, we allow them in in a bottled form; that is, if the other provinces import concentrates, they can make them into wine and sell them on the shelves of the LCBO, which, in my view, is not suitable competition.

If we’re going to allow imported wines to come in, fine, then let them be so designated and let their price set them apart for those who go for a certain standard and quality which they perceive, having been associated with the longer traditions and probably up until now better grape-growing facilities and abilities.

I really am interested to know why the exclusion of grain alcohol as a fortifier was not included in the earlier definitions of “Ontario wines,” that is, in the definition under the Act, because it seems to me that this community does use fortified wines -- sherry, I presume; port, and what’s the other sweet one?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Muscatel?

Mr. Nixon: Muscatel, or bingo as somebody has called it. The fortification with grain alcohol would seem to me a reasonable and economical way of doing the job which is to increase the clout of the product that’s being sold.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, yes, it is. If the minister thinks it’s got anything to do with the taste he is naive, because it simply increases the alcohol content which is supposed to make one’s meal sit more comfortably, I am told. We support the principle of the bill on the basis that it is in the interests of our own wine industry and we believe that they are worthy of the protection that can be given by this government and by the government of Canada. It’s a worthwhile industry which is growing in importance.

Mr. Swart: I rise, I guess to support this bill, but at the same time --

Mr. Nixon: Unwillingly.

Mr. Swart: -- to speak against it.

Mr. Eaton: He’s like a Liberal. You can get it both ways. You can vote no and still drink.

Mr. Nixon: It’s like the local option votes.

Mr. Swart: I suppose that may cause some people to think that I’m singlehandedly trying to emulate the caucus on my left.

Mr. Nixon: No, just the one in the back row.

Mr. Moffatt: Just the Liberal Leader, who never knows where he’s going.

Mr. Swart: Actually, I’m taking that approach because I think it’s the kind of approach that this bill deserves. We really have it before us at this time, as has already been said by my colleague from Durham East (Mr. Moffatt), because of the failure of the government through the Liquor Control Board to protect our domestic wines. They have allowed the undercutting of our domestic wines by the foreign imports. Now we are proposing to use a method of fortifying the ports and the sherries which is cheaper than the traditional method and therefore hoping to get some of that market back.

The minister has admitted that we have been losing the market in our own wines. It may be because the Liquor Control Board has listings for 1,300 foreign wines, compared with only 400 of our Canadian wines. If the Liquor Control Board had direction from this government to give some priority to the marketing of our own wines, we might not have to introduce this amendment, which in the long run may hurt our wine industry and the grape growers in this province. I say without any doubt that the fault here lies directly with the Ontario government because they haven’t taken this action.

[8:15]

The minister also mentioned all those who are supporting it, but I am aware that it was really being pushed by the wineries and that they did their lobbying. Not only are they hoping to increase their sales, but they are hoping to increase their profits from this measure. I would just ask the minister whether any steps are going to be taken to ensure that the financial benefits from this will be passed on to the grape growers rather than being absorbed by the wineries.

It is also my understanding that the Liquor Control Board has been pushing it and, as my colleague from Durham East has said, the grape growers’ organizations reluctantly -- and fairly reluctantly in a very substantial way -- have gone along with this.

There are some really legitimate concerns, because although there may be short-term benefits in shifting a higher percentage of sales to our domestic wines, in the long run there may be less of a market for the grapes, because at least some of the fortifying traditionally has been done by the distillate of the Ontario wine.

Mr. Nixon: I thought you said they did it by sugar.

Mr. Swart: I am told too that this may mean there will be some psychological rejection of wines fortified in this way. As a matter of fact, quite a few jurisdictions prohibit the fortification of wine from cereal grain alcohol, and these include most of the United States, Australia and New Zealand. None of them permit this.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, you are against the grain farmers, eh? The grain farmers are going to find out about this.

Mr. Swart: Another concern is about the timing of the proclamation with the regulations.

Mr. Gaunt: You are against the grain farmers.

Mr. Swart: This is something the minister mentioned, and I am wondering if he is prepared to assure the House that in fact the regulations will be tabled before the bill is proclaimed, because they are a very important part of this whole package, so that we can be assured that only ports and sherries will be fortified. The bill does not say what the minister has said will be the policy. I am not denying that he intends to introduce that, but we should be assured that those regulations will be tabled before the bill is proclaimed.

Interjection.

Mr. Swart: There is a concern, as has already been stated, about production standards that ought to be set by the government, and perhaps primarily by the federal government; but they haven’t yet done it, and in lieu of that the province could accept and ought to accept that responsibility. Most jurisdictions do have these standards.

I wonder too if the minister would be prepared to assure the House that in fact this bill will not be retroactive. It is my understanding that the fortifying of the wine is usually done at the end of fermentation, which is past now for the 1975 crop. Has any fortification by alcohol from cereal grains been added to the 1975 crop or is this going to be applicable only in the year 1976?

Although I am going to support this bill, and our party is going to support it, I do have some rather strong reservations. It ranks -- and I use that word advisedly -- with the amendment to the Ontario Development Corporation Act, because there had been a failure in that field on the part of the government. They brought in a bill which perhaps gave a little assistance in that regard. Now we are doing the same thing with the amendment in this bill. I think the primary concern of the government with regard to the grape-growing industry should be along the avenue of giving protection to our grape growers in Ontario against the foreign imports and not by sort of a backdoor bill of this nature.

Mr. Reed: I would like to point out to my friend from Welland that the fermentation on this year’s crop is not complete and fortification can take place at any time following the completion of fermentation.

Mr. Swart: That’s just because you are shaking the bottle.

Mr. Lewis: Did you get that in Hansard?

Mr. Reed: I wonder how significant this piece of legislation is in terms of the actual amount of sugar consumption it will replace. In the past, we have been noted in Ontario for producing quantities of fortified wines; the trend lately of the work towards upgrading the quality of wines in Ontario, has put new emphasis on the 14 per cent and under. We know that the production of Ontario grapes is such that we do have, in many years, to add a certain amount of sugar to those grapes even to produce a 12, 13 or 14 per cent wine.

I am just wondering how big an impact it will make. Traditionally, the fortified wines have been the cheaper wines. As my other friend has pointed out, they have been those commonly known as bingo, but we must also recognize that Ontario does make some very good quality sherries and they do require that fortification. So I do speak in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There have been some excellent comments made and I would just like to reply briefly. First of all, I might say to the member for Durham East (Mr. Moffatt) that the grape growers were not dragged kicking and screaming into the bill. On May 9, 1975, the secretary-manager wrote to the Bureau of Nutritional Sciences in Ottawa. I will just quote briefly:

“In our opinion, it is desirable to amend the food and drug regulations to allow use of alcohol derived from food sources to fortify certain types of wine.

“We understand that permitted sources of alcohol presently stated in the regulations would be retained.”

That was their comment in May of 1975 when this was being discussed in Ottawa.

I think we are concerned on all sides of the House about the wine standards, and with developing quality standards in Ontario. I think recent press reports have indicated there is great progress being made. I expect to have a presentation made to me and to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) within the next 10 days outlining the wineries’ position with regard to wine standards. That will then be put to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) and the Grape Growers’ Marketing Board to determine whether or not we can get agreement on wine standards. I am sure that progress has been made. It has been made while I have been minister. Hopefully, there will be an agreement put forward which will be part of a package for the promotion of Ontario wines.

I also want to lay to rest any fears that the distilleries might gain control of the wine producers in Ontario. The distilleries provide only a minute part of material requirements of the wine producers and there is very little danger that they will, through the process of providing grain alcohol, be able to control by any corporate means the wine producers of Ontario.

I also want to make it quite clear that the purpose of the bill and the effect of the bill will not be to increase the amount of high alcohol wine which is now produced. The amount of high alcohol wine which has been produced has been determined by the market. The simple process of adding grain alcohol is not going to increase the volume of high alcohol wine on the market in Ontario or the market for it.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) was concerned that table wines might be fortified in this way. Obviously our regulation, and I will speak on the timing of the regulation, would not permit the fortification of table wines. They never have been and we are not about to permit that. The market tastes in Canada have indicated there is a growing preference for table wines and a lack of preference for the fortified wines, and I expect that to continue. This is really an interim measure to permit the Ontario wine industry to compete with the imports which have this privilege, despite the bans in some parts of the world on the use of grain alcohol.

The reason we haven’t brought it in before is simply that by the definition of Canadian wine, which is governed by federal control, it has not been permitted. It was only when the amendments were made in Ottawa that it became possible for provincial authorities to allow its use in their own wine.

The member for Welland (Mr. Swart) asked us to protect the Ontario wine industry by placing certain restrictions, I assume on the sale of imports. Ontario is being criticized by some foreign countries in the GATT negotiations now under way in Tokyo for taking certain protective measures. Our policy has been to promote and to encourage our domestic industry without putting artificial barriers in the way of imports. We don’t have that kind of jurisdiction. We can, through certain tax measures and certain mark-up policies, encourage our own industry, but we cannot intrude on the federal jurisdiction in foreign trade. I think if we did, the federal government would be strongly criticized by foreign governments in any future GATT negotiations.

Mr. Nixon: Gene Whelan will look after it.

Mr. Moffatt: It’s amazing how many decisions are made in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The buyers come to us with the wines and the wines meet all our quality standards. If we put up artificial barriers, we would be introducing an internal provincial tariff which we don’t have the authority to do. We are developing a promotion programme with the wineries. I’ve spoken to my colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism, and we’re developing a variety of techniques to improve the market for Ontario wines and thus improve the market for Ontario grapes.

All I can say about the timing of the regulation is I can make a commitment to introduce the regulation concurrently. However, I can’t pass a regulation nor can the cabinet pass a regulation before the bill authorizing the regulation has been proclaimed. We expect the proclamation to take place very early in January and I can make a commitment that the regulation will be proclaimed on exactly the same day as the Act. The Act has to come first, unfortunately.

Nor will there be any provision for this to be retroactive. If you note, section 2 of the bill says the Act comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation. Therefore, no winery can use grain alcohol until such time as it’s proclaimed.

My understanding is in agreement with the member for Welland rather than the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed) in that the season has passed and this bill will not be of any benefit to the wineries for the 1975 crop. It will, however, be used in 1976 and the amount which we’re told will be saved in a normal year by the Canadian wine industry would be $5 million. The Ontario wine industry, which is approximately 70 per cent of the total, would benefit by, roughly, $3.5 million.

I want to assure all hon. members that that amount will not simply be put into the pockets of the wineries because part of our programme is for them to finance part of the promotion programme.

Mr. Nixon: It’s okay for them to make a profit, right?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It may be all right if they make a profit. I wouldn’t want them to continue in the loss situation they have been in for the past two or three years.

However, we do want them to use part of their profits on promotion and they’ve agreed to do that. There has been a commitment made to us and we expect to be announcing a promotion programme which will cost the wineries a fair amount of money, a great deal of it this.

Mr. Nixon: Promoting fortified wines?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Promoting all Ontario wines. The first step in that process has been the opening of an all-Ontario wine store in Toronto. It’s been a great success so far. We expect to have foreign promotions of Ontario wines; we think they can stand on their own with the wines of any other country in the world and we hope to be able to assist. The wineries are quite prepared to put money into that kind of a promotion programme.

I am pleased that all members appear to be supporting the bill and I trust we will be able to proceed from that point.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the minister, please?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister wish to answer? The hon. member for Durham East.

Mr. Moffatt: The minister didn’t deal with the promotion aspect in his initial remarks and I would like to know if this promotion is in response to the fears expressed by two or three people here that this would promote the use of a cheap kind of drink.

[8:30]

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m talking about promotion of Ontario wines generally. All we’re saying here that there is a market in Ontario for fortified wines -- there always has been, both imported and domestic -- and the only purpose of the bill is to permit the Ontario wineries to use a different agent in fortifying that fortified wine for which there has always been a market.

Mr. Nixon: Why was it excluded?

Mr. Haggerty: But it does not allow for the blending of imports, though, does it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, we’re not allowing any blending of imports or concentrates. The promotion programme that we’re talking about is to promote Ontario wine as a marketable commodity, not only in Ontario but in other parts of Canada and the world. That will require a promotion programme which will cost money -- the advertising. We will be touring the country and other countries with samples of wine as part of a trade promotion.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe some of us would be available to assess them.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Would the member like to go? I can’t go.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Everyone had an opportunity to participate in this debate. If there are going to be many interjections I think we should do it another way. If there’s just going to be a question or two --

Mr. Nixon: Let’s send it to committee.

Mr. Lewis: No, lot of questions.

Mr. Speaker: A lot of questions? Well, we’ll proceed then.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Committee of the whole House, Mr. Speaker.

Clerk of the House: The second order; House in committee of the whole.

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 39, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act, 1975.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: There is only one clause in this bill. Any comments from any speaker? The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, the minister brought, as was noted, a new element into this whole situation. I’m wondering whether or not this promotion business means that he’s promoting the sale of wine in general, or specifically Ontario’s share of the wine? I assume that’s what he means -- promoting the Ontario share of the wine that is already used. How we can differentiate between the two, I’m not sure.

I think all of us are very concerned about what’s been happening in the province and across the world in recent years, particularly among the young people of our province, where the death toll is rising, on the highways particularly -- and that has been my interest, as you know, in this House. I’m very concerned that this added advertising campaign simply means advertising in order to increase consumption. If it is, then I think it’s a very serious thing for us to look at, when we’re demanding that the wineries participate in this kind of an advertising campaign to build up the consumption among our people.

How you differentiate between the increased consumption and supply trying to find our share of what is already consumed, I don’t know. I think that’s a concern that should be expressed here and a concern the minister should answer.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the Ontario advertising directives confine advertisers of spirits to brand advertising, specifically to promote the sale of a brand. And our proposed programme -- although it has not yet been fully defined -- obviously is to enable the Ontario wine product to regain the percentage of the market which they formerly held. They have lost a fairly substantial percentage of the Ontario market to begin with and of the Canadian market in general.

The purpose of the promotion programme will be to encourage the purchase of Ontario brands to enable them to pick up that percentage of the market they’ve lost; not to increase total consumption.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, again, I haven’t been convinced that it’s possible to do that very thing which the minister specifically states. At the very time when public opinion generally is swinging to the idea we should be prohibiting the advertising of alcoholic beverages because of what is happening in our whole health field and all the rest, at this very time we are saying to the wineries: “You must participate in an expansion programme as far as advertising is concerned.”

The two just don’t add up. I’m not sure why the minister is embarking upon this kind of a programme right now. It may be there are other ways that he could look at to ensure our bigger share of the inevitable consumption, I don’t know; but to have an increased advertising campaign at the very time when we should be cutting back on advertising of this lethal product, as far as our programme is concerned, as I said, just doesn’t make sense.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize if I left the wrong impression with all the members. The government is not insisting on this programme. What has happened is that the grape growers and the wineries, in conjunction, have developed a total programme of improving quality standards. In order to do that -- and that will cost money -- in order to recover the cost of a quality improvement programme, they obviously must promote the sales of their products.

We are saying that what we are hoping to do is to replace the share of the market which they have lost, and to that extent I think we are meeting the suggestion that the member for Welland put to us, to encourage the sale of Ontario wines.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Chairman, I find this tremendously illuminating. The amendment at no point dealt with the remarks introduced by the member at the close of the debate on second reading.

Mr. Haggerty: Vote him out of order, then.

Mr. Moffatt: But we have now got into this and we find that in order to regain losses in the fortified wine market --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Not fortified, all wines.

Mr. Haggerty: Both out of order.

Mr. Moffatt: In order to regain losses in the wine market then, we must have a tremendous advertising campaign to promote the consumption of Ontario wines, Whether that’s right or not --

Mr. Drea: You really have to be kidding.

Mr. Moffatt: -- makes no sense to me.

Oh, welcome, welcome.

Mr. Lewis: Get into this debate. Come on. It has been quite a while since you have been in this type of debate. You can speak with authority on the subject.

Mr. Moffatt: I haven’t seen him; oh, I did see him.

I would like to know in some detail, just what kind of cost is involved in the programme alluded to by the minister, and what was the sort of quid pro quo that brought this amendment forth at the same time as we have a kind of general promotion of wines and fortified wines across the province. I want to say as well that a number of people are extremely concerned about the use of this particular commodity -- the fortified wine as a 92-cent bottle or whatever -- for sale to certain of the native peoples. If you walk into various liquor outlets in the north I am sure that that is a promotion that is to some extent unfair to those people; and I hope that’s not going to be promoted in your production of this promotion scheme.

Mr. Nixon: It’s going to be a long night.

Mr. Moffatt: I just don’t want to get too deeply into this and keep the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk awake for longer than he has been all day.

Mr. Nixon: The last person who implied that wasn’t re-elected.

Mr. Moffatt: It seems to me we are talking about spending a lot of money to do something that really doesn’t need --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It seems to me there isn’t anything in this bill that deals with promotion at all.

Mr. Deans: The minister raised it.

Mr. Moffatt: It was raised by the minister.

Mr. McCague: It was raised by the member for Welland too.

An hon. member: It was the member in his opening statement.

Mr. Chairman: If it was raised, it was raised out of order.

Mr. Moffatt: Retroactively out of order, then?

Mr. Chairman: You might say that.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, take back all you have said.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, this comes as a considerable surprise to myself. I wasn’t even aware this was going on in the wine industry in Ontario, I am quite innocent as far as this is concerned, and I am sure most of the people of Ontario also didn’t realize that the wine was being fortified by artificial means. The purists who make wine in their own cellar, these people who won’t buy Ontario wines, also won’t allow their wine to be adulterated by anything, not even sugar. Here we are adding grain alcohol. You know those kinds of people who make their own wines in the basement, that’s what I call pure wine.

An hon. member: We’re not quite as familiar with them as you are.

Mr. Germa: I am saying it is a surprise to me as an innocent. I am not a connoisseur; I am not a connoisseur like some of the other people who have spoken. I am going to study this bill.

I want to come to one point, though. The minister did state that the reason he was introducing this kind of amendment was to give him a competitive edge, or at least to let him compete with foreign wines which are coming in and taking the market. The member for Welland indicated to you that part of the problem was that you have 1,300 listings of foreign wines on the board, and you only have 400 listings of domestic wine on the board.

Mr. Nixon: That’s out of order too, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s too many, too.

Mr. Germa: He suggested to you that maybe there should be a curtailment of the foreign wine listings, which would give the Ontario wines a better advantage; or at least a fighting chance to compete in the market. Your response to that was that under GATT, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, you could not put barriers against foreign trade. You did indicate that when a seller comes to the liquor board and shows a wine or makes a pitch to sell a wine, you are bound to buy that wine because it happens to meet your regulations. I stand to be corrected.

Mr. Chairman: There’s nothing about GATT in this bill either.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, could I explain the reason for the amendment?

Mr. Drea: He knows.

Mr. Germa: It’s to give domestic wines a competitive position with foreign wines. This is the purpose of allowing alcohol to be added to our domestic wines. We showed the minister another way he could give domestic wines the same advantage without the addition of alcohol, by cutting down and by not purchasing. You don’t have to change any legislation not to purchase. You just don’t place an order.

Mr. Haggerty: What’s your brand?

Mr. Nixon: Morty Shulman imported it personally.

Mr. Germa: At what point in time is the Liquor Control Board forced to buy or put on the shelf any wine from any foreign land? If you see a wine which is directly competitive with a wine from Ontario all you have to do is not buy it the next time the buyer goes to Italy, France or wherever he’s travelling. Just tell the man: “Don’t bother buying any more of that because it’s competing with an Ontario wine.” I think you could solve the competitive business that simply.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reply very briefly to the member for Sudbury.

First of all, I didn’t introduce the question of protecting Ontario wines. It was the member for Welland and I outlined the promotion programme in reply to his request for some assistance to the wine industry. There is no quid pro quo. There is no promotion programme. It hasn’t been put to us. There have been proposals that a promotion programme be put before the government and we’ll be very interested to see it.

I’m surprised the member for Sudbury isn’t aware of the fact that all of the sherries and all of the ports which are on the shelves of the LCBO or any other store anywhere in the world, are fortified by the introduction of an outside agent.

Mr. Lewis: That’s just shocking.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It’s shocking but that is the way those wines are made.

An hon. member: So why don’t you dry up?

Mr. Lewis: I didn’t know that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We’re not about to change the way sherries and ports are made in this world. What we would like to do is see Ontario sherries and ports of high quality compete.

Mr. Nixon: Carried.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We don’t have buyers going around the world looking for wines. They come to us.

Mr. Ruston: Let’s divide the House.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The standards the LCBO uses for listing are applied equally to all wines, and Ontario wines which meet those standards have automatic listing; foreign wines do not.

Mr. Gaunt: The government falls in wine debate.

Mr. Nixon: Carried.

Mr. Foulds: I am very disturbed by the whole process of fortified wines and I want to speak about a matter that is very delicate, but it is a very real problem in northern Ontario, and I suppose in many other places in urban centres. Fortified wines, for example, are in the Kenora liquor stores kept under the counter and handed to any native person who comes in and asks for a bottle of liquor. That is a fact. Fortified wines are used, unfortunately, in this province as a cheap goof, and there’s no other expression for it.

Mr. Moffatt: Shocking.

Mr. Foulds: I would like the minister to tell this House how much of the market in Ontario is fortified wine; and how much sales have dropped that it is necessary to introduce this amendment; and what concrete steps he will take to ensure that fortified wines are not used in the abusive way that I have just outlined.

[8:45]

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The 1974 figure, which is the last I have, indicates that table wines, that is not exceeding 14 per cent alcohol by volume, have increased over the past five years in percentage of the total market from 33 per cent to 61.9 per cent. Fortified wines, those over 14 per cent, that’s 14 to 20 per cent, have dropped from 67 per cent in 1969 to 38.1 per cent in 1974. The trend has been to non-fortified, the weaker alcohol wines.

With regard to the question which the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) asked, I want to assure him that this government is fully aware of the problem he outlined and that while --

Mr. Lewis: The devil you are. The Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) has a letter of Nov. 25, from Treaty 3, about this problem and what the alcohol is doing now.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I want to tell the member right now that we are responding to that particular request by taking fortified wines off the market in certain parts of the province. I think really it is a very delicate subject to deal with, because what we are saying is that certain parts of the province are fully capable of accepting fortified wines and others are not. We are responding to that request on a trial basis and fortified wines will not be sold in certain stores in this province. We will be monitoring the effect of that particular step.

Mr. Lewis: Name them. Tell us where.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I haven’t got locations right now but if you would like to ask me in question period.

Mr. Yakabuski: Double standard.

Mr. Lewis: You are setting it. Your government is setting it.

Mr. Yakabuski: Is that what you want?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I will have those stores available for you in question period, but I don’t have them immediately here.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t know what the answer is. In Manitoba they have done that.

Mr. Yakabuski: Double standards okay.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to point out that in Manitoba fortified wines are banned. They are not allowed for sale in Manitoba.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In the whole province?

Mr. Foulds: In the whole province.

Mr. Lewis: Period, they don’t have a double standard.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister not see it frankly as a good thing that table wines with less alcohol content gain a proportion of the market and that fortified wines are dropping in proportion? Is that not a healthy thing -- that wine is therefore looked upon as a drink instead of a short route to oblivion?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, I would agree entirely, but I want to point out that simply because a wine is fortified does not mean it is a cheap wine. There are many good quality, high quality and fairly expensive fortified wines.

Mr. Ruston: There are some rich alcoholics, too.

Mr. Foulds: I don’t want to delay the House unduly but I feel very strongly about the matter and I would like --

Mr. Nixon: Lots of time.

Mr. Yakabuski: You never did.

Mr. Foulds: I have been very good this term. Just be quiet.

Mr. Yakabuski: You are improving but you have a long way to go.

Mr. Lewis: Why don’t you go off to Pembroke and make an announcement?

Mr. Yakabuski: No, the next one is in Renfrew.

Mr. Foulds: At some point the minister said he could have some information available as a ministerial statement before question period. I would like him to let the House know the geographic breakdown of the initiatives he is taking; the geographic breakdown of the proportion of sales, if that is possible, of fortified wine. That is, are they unduly salable in terms of the total proportion of alcohol sold in different regions of the province?

Mr. Yakabuski: One programme for northern Ontario and one for Renfrew.

Mr. Lewis: Make it universal. It is a simple matter.

Mr. Foulds: I think what we need -- and I know the chairman will rule me out of order almost before I finish the sentence -- the Minister of Health is spending, I think, a mere $80,000 on “Be your own Liquor Control Board”; while the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is at least helping to promote a $100,000 programme for the sale of Ontario wines, the major effect of which will be to help the fortified wines increase their portion of the market.

I think that is self-defeating and I think it is quite shameful, frankly, that we starve the Ministry of Health in its programme yet we encourage the private sector to outpace government spending on the promotion of this product.

Mr. Chairman: I must remind the committee that this bill deals with the method of fortifying wine.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, it is directly to that point

Mr. Nixon: Go ahead, you have lots of time. The chairman will soon give up on you, too.

Mr. Foulds: Why is it necessary to use grain distillate? Because it is cheaper?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member must have missed the whole previous debate. The only reason we are using grain is to replace higher-cost sugar. The promotion programme really is to intensify the trend, which is indicated by the figures I have just given to the committee, and that is to improve and enhance the sales of the table wines, which have gained public acceptance over the past few years. This is not a promotion programme to promote fortified wines per se.

Mr. Makarchuk: I think the minister indicated that one of the reasons for the bill is to give the Ontario producers a greater share of the wine market in Ontario. I have a feeling that he is really going about it the wrong way.

I would suggest to the minister that he has a certain amount of control over the liquor establishments that exist in this province -- I mean the dining establishments where wine is served with meals. One of the problems that a lot of diners face when they wish to purchase Ontario wine is that it’s either missing totally from the wine list or else there are probably only one or two selections.

The other point, of course, is that the price differential between domestic wine and imported wine is really not very large in many cases. There may be a 75-cent difference or it may be a $1 difference. On occasion, when I am dining with my Tory friends or something like that, I suppose, I would probably order the domestic wine. However, on most occasions when the difference is relatively small and the choice is limited, what the diner does is he turns to the imported wine.

What I suggest to the minister is that he insist that these establishments carry a reasonable number of Ontario wines on their lists and make sure that the price of the wine is within reason, that it is not jacked up to where it is in the $5 to $6 bracket, which is the price that is charged for Ontario wines right now.

Mr. Nixon: The bill has got nothing to do with that.

Mr. Makarchuk: I think if we were to bring the price down to the $3.50 to $4 area, which would still leave the dining establishment with a reasonable profit, it would make Ontario wines available to the diner at a reasonable price if he wished to have some. By that method, I am sure we would be able to promote the sale of Ontario wine to a much greater extent than the minister’s doing here by sort of insisting on providing this liquid lightning, I suppose one could call it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I just want to point out to the hon. member that less than seven per cent of all spirits in Ontario are consumed on licensed premises, so the greatest programme in the world in those premises would not have a great effect on the total market.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 39 reported.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 4, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Mr. Chairman: Any questions, comments or amendments to any section of Bill 4? The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine. What section?

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment --

Mr. Chairman: To what section?

Ms. Bryden: To section 37g. The amendment simply is that --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Are there any comments before section 37g?

Mr. Reed: Mr. Chairman, in regard to section 37f --

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything before section 37f? If not, the hon. member for York Centre.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Reed: Halton-Burlington, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Halton-Burlington. Excuse me.

Mr. Reed: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about section 37f, which says that “no person, except a distributor, shall use gas in Ontario that has not been acquired from a distributor.” What this means in effect is that all producers of natural gas in Ontario, regardless of their location, their size or their present market, must under compulsion of law hook into a distributor’s gas main and be paid the price agreed upon between the distributor and the producer.

I stand corrected then. I see the minister shaking his head.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, let him make his own statement.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Do go ahead.

Mr. Reed: The clause seems to have the effect --

Mr. Riddell: Are you throwing your hat into the leadership race, Dennis?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yours?

Mr. Riddell: You wouldn’t have a chance.

Mr. Reed: If I might be permitted to continue --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Eddie Sargent offered it to me two years ago.

Mr. Reed: The clause seems to have the effect of promoting what is virtually a monopoly situation, since it is obviously impractical for a producer to deal with any distributor except that one in his own locality. It is, therefore, obvious that the bargaining position of the producer is lost.

Since this bill deals with allocation, it would seem logical to me that a producer could be subjected to regulations governing allocation just as easily as a distributor. The long-term effects of this clause are rather far-reaching.

The first effect would be to reduce or even curtail the amount of independent exploration which is going on in Ontario at the present time. Natural gas reserves in the province are estimated at somewhere upwards of 3.4 trillion cu ft and some experts tell us perhaps upward of four trillion Cu ft, and based on present consumption that’s perhaps a little over four years’ supply. That’s insignificant perhaps on the overall scale, but it’s critically important in terms of the increase in the number of storage vessels available for the importation of gas when it comes on stream from the Arctic. To be able to have three or four years of storage available to Ontario at any given time would make us far more secure than we are today.

There’s no reason that I can see, other than the fact that in times of allocation the government would have to deal with more companies than it would have to deal with now in order to effect a programme of allocation; and the feeling that has been expressed that these smaller companies producing and selling directly could do what the minister has called an end run around the Act, is not necessarily so, provided allocation is imposed on them as well. There are a couple of other considerations that I would like to deal with.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, could the member perhaps elaborate on that last point and make what he means a little clearer?

Mr. Reed: I’m very sorry my quality of debate has declined somewhat since the election campaign, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the member --

Mr. Reed: I would just like to say that when this amendment was discussed --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Do you mean since the election campaign or since dinner?

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Order.

Mr. Gaunt: Order.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The member for Halton-Burlington has the floor.

Mr. Ruston: Smart alecky minister, eh.

Mr. Reed: The minister has stated himself that he was concerned that if there was direct sale of gas by independent producers to consumers they could effect what he called an end run around the Act.

Mr. Gaunt: That is your term, not his.

Mr. Reed: Those were, I believe, your words.

Interjection.

Mr. Gaunt: Well then, you know what you meant.

Mr. Reed: I am trying to point out to the minister as best I can, in my own halting way, that that would not necessarily be so, provided those producers came under allocation.

There are a couple of other considerations that I’d just like to mention. Direct sale promotes free market competition between producers and helps to establish a market price for gas. Clause 37f removes the free market, so from here in we would not have a true picture of the value of this energy resource. Competition, exploration, future storage and the vitality of an industry located in this province would all be going down the pipe, if I can coin a phrase, if this clause were to be passed by the House. Unless the minister can point out to me where I am in error on this reasoning, I must submit that I cannot vote in favour of 37f.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have any comments?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, I am a little --

Mr. Yakabuski: That wasn’t a good speech.

Mr. Nixon: It was a good speech.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m glad you understood it. I’m a little hard put --

Mr. Nixon: You should. You are the one that’s keeping those producers from getting a fair price.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Ah, I see. I’m a little hard put to understand exactly the point the member is making, unless he is supporting the position of the government of Canada that the prices in this country must approach those of world levels. If he is supporting that position, which is not necessarily the position supported by this government, nor by that of many other provinces --

[9:00]

Mr. Nixon: You are so full of gas.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- then I suspect he is in a minority in this province. What we have said all along, what we have supported is that the prices paid by the consumer in Ontario must be competitive, that they must bear a relation to the prices paid by the distributors in Ontario for the gas which they are purchasing from western Canada via the TransCanada PipeLine system. I can’t agree with the hon. member that the proposed section 37f in any way inhibits exploration for new reserves in Ontario or the exploitation of known reserves in the province. What the hon. member is talking about really is contractual arrangements between the distribution companies and the producers --

Mr. Reed: Consumers.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- pertaining to prices paid by the distributors to the producers, and that has nothing to do with this. What we are talking about, the main purpose of this section of the Act, is to ensure mainly that large industrial consumers do not make -- and I said these words, and you have repeated them -- do not make end runs around the allocation plan, that they do not, by virtue of their economic position, make purchases which can put them in a position that they are at an advantage which other consumers in the province cannot enjoy. If you are supporting that, then please let us hear it. If you are, in effect, thereby not supporting allocation, but in fact suggesting that certain classes of users --

Mr. Gaunt: He is just suggesting the opposite.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- should have advantages over less advantaged classes of users, then let’s hear it. What we are saying is that all of the gas in the Province of Ontario -- and this is supported, by the way, by the producers, including the Petroleum Institute, with whom I met last Thursday --

Mr. Nixon: Did you meet with them last Thursday?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I did, indeed.

Mr. Nixon: Good heavens.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Good heavens, yes. It was a very enjoyable meeting. What they are saying and what we are saying is that all of the gas in this province should form part of a pool, that if we do experience shortages -- and we all hope we won’t, but if we do -- all of that gas should be subject to allocation. If you are saying you don’t support that, then let’s hear it.

Mr. Reed: Mr. Chairman, I should perhaps make myself a little clearer --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Anyone with a middle name of Fletcher --

Mr. Reed: -- that there is no question of supporting allocation in this case.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege. I take exception to what the minister just said about somebody with the middle name of Fletcher, and if he has anything to enlarge on it I would like to have him say it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have nothing further to add, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ruston: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that if the minister is going to throw things around like that, that I object to it very strenuously.

Mr. Chairman: I don’t think anybody’s privileges have been breached in this House.

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Chairman, my middle name is Henry, and I have always been embarrassed by it. If you’d like to use it as an epithet, go ahead.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Halton-Burlington has the floor.

Mr. Reed: I would just like to point out a fact of life. These gas distributors, by virtue of the geographical location of their gas pipes and so on do constitute a virtual monopoly in their own area. I am sure the minister will agree with that. The only alternative would be for the small producer of gas to run a pipe to a competitor’s pipe many miles away, is that not correct?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No.

Mr. Reed: Would the minister be kind enough to explain how there can be a competitive situation --

Mr. Riddell: Come on, get off your high horse.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is nothing, Mr. Chairman -- notwithstanding the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) -- there is nothing to stop the individual producer from selling his gas.

Mr. Yakabuski: And there’s lots of it over there.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This Act we are proposing doesn’t change any of this. There is nothing to stop him from selling his gas either to a distributor, and let’s say it is in the area represented by the member for Essex North, to either Union Gas, or selling it directly, let’s say to Stelco in Hamilton. There is absolutely nothing in the law or in this amendment to the law that changes that situation.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might want to enter the debate after the last comments by the minister.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Erie.

Mr. Haggerty: I happen to come from an area that was producing gas and there were many small, independent distributors in the area. I can tell the minister this -- perhaps this was done by regulation too -- that when Consumers’ Gas bought out Provincial Gas in the Niagara Peninsula the independent gas producer in the area was wiped out. In fact, they went around plugging off wells in the area. So don’t tell me that there isn’t anything in the Act that says they can’t do this.

I can recall Consumers’ Gas coming into my place in Sherkston asking me to sign an agreement with them for 25 cents -- or $1 an acre I guess it was -- to lease my mineral rights. I had to almost threaten them off the land with a gun.

Mr. Yakabuski: Did you have to sign? Did you sign?

Mr. Haggerty: They wanted to use it for storing purposes. The Sherkston area is one of the largest storing areas for natural gas in Ontario; I believe there is also an area around Crowland township, now in the city of Welland, which they can use for gas storage.

The member mentioned the gas storage too. I can tell you this: I am sure if they go back to these gas storage fields it will be used for one purpose, and that is to store gas to export to the United States.

But this government destroyed the independent gas producers in the Peninsula. You closed them out; you plugged off almost every well.

Mr. Mancini: It’s what they have been doing for the last 20 years, destroying parts of the province.

Mr. Haggerty: The minister shakes his head no. I can tell you -- well, ask Mr. Brittain who used to be with the former Department of Mines. I can tell you of the time they almost charged me $900 to plug off the well that wasn’t mine but was on my property and I refused to pay it. So the government at that time were going around closing off small wells; perhaps some of them could be back in production today. It is quite a coincidence that just across the American border in New York State they are drilling for gas now when they never thought there was any hope of finding natural gas -- and they have been hitting good wells. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised --

Mr. Chairman: There is nothing about exploration or production of natural gas in 37f.

Mr. Haggerty: But the point raised by the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed) was that it could affect this bill and I think it can. The minister is saying that it has no effect on it. We have never done that. All I am suggesting to the House is it has happened in the past and it will probably happen again.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question about the gas distributors leasing the land of the farmers to explore for gas. They found gas wells and entered into leases giving the farmers $100 a well a year. This gas has now been flowing for maybe 40 or 50 years. In the lease they were supposed to supply the farmer’s home with free gas, but now they have notified these farmers that they are taking that free gas away from them. The farmers never had an increase in the price of their gas wells from $100 since 1913 or 1915, which seem to be ridiculous, and yet now they have notified those 43 or 45 farmers that there will be no more free gas for them. I don’t see anything in this bill that corrects that serious situation.

Then we find Western Petroleum has found gas in Lake Erie and they are paid, I am told, 35 cents a thousand cu ft and they cannot get any increase in rates. Yet, the distributor is buying from the western provinces at a price, as I understand it, of $1.25 a thousand cu ft.

Is there anything in this bill to correct this situation for those land owners who have gas wells on their property and leases that go back to 1913? They have never had a cent increase in the lease and now those farmers are being notified that free gas to their homes is going to be done away with. I took some 30 or 40 letters to the Energy Board from farmers who want to appeal that decision about distributors.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, the member is quite correct in that the bill, which proposes amendments to the Energy Board Act, does not deal with those particular problems that he raises. There are two problems that he is discussing, which he and I discussed at the estimates committee on Nov. 17 or 18 -- I can’t remember the exact day -- I think it was the 18th.

He’s first of all touching on contractual obligations between a land-owner and a local distribution company or exploration company. He’s partly right -- this bill does not purport to deal with this. We do not propose to deal with it. They are, in fact, contractual relations between the parties. He mentioned the question of the severance of free gas for some farm owners, and he might have gone further to mention some municipalities.

Mr. Spence: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s probably about all. If I’m relating what I know of the proceedings of the Energy Board at this point to what he’s talking about -- and I don’t know the particular properties or the particular townships or whatever -- I suspect what he’s talking about is a case before the Energy Board right now, which is an application by Union Gas to cancel some long-standing commitments. That is going to public hearing in the weeks and months ahead. That is being dealt with under other sections of the Act that require that particular distributor to file for approval to make such severances. They must have that regulatory approval.

Mr. Nixon: I want to speak just briefly on this subsection that we’re discussing, which indicates that no person “shall use gas in Ontario that has not been acquired from a distributor.” I think the reason this is of such concern to my colleagues is particularly because they represent the owners of small sources of natural gas -- that is, individuals and not distributors. My colleagues have been very concerned that the distributors to whom the individuals must sell -- and there is no practical alternative for them -- are not under the regulations of the Energy Board or the minister, and they have been concerned that these individuals are not receiving a price which they consider to be fair.

The minister says something about, “Do you believe that we should be moving toward the world price or something?”

It’s got nothing to do with it, because we do not believe that -- but we do believe these small producers should be getting the same price that the distributors are paying their major sources -- the Alberta sources. The distributors have come to us, or come to my colleagues representing those areas, which still produce quite a considerable amount of gas and might produce more in the future, and they have put before us these statistics, which I understand the minister is quite familiar with.

They are not talking about getting the Arabian price, or anything like that. They are, however, saying that Union and Consumers’ should be paying them the same amount that they’d pay for the gas that they distribute from the larger, much more commercial sources. I can’t see anything unfair about that.

For the minister to get up with his vest buttons popping and say, “Speak now whether you are in favour of allocation or not” -- well, we’ve already said that we are in favour of the powers to allocate. We indicated that when we voted in favour of the principle of the bill. Right now in committee we have an opportunity to question the minister on the details of the provisions in the bill. The one that concerns us is that these small producers must distribute through something designated as a distributor under the sections of the bill. That means these owners of small, gas-producing wells must sell to Union or Consumers’ or whoever it is. There is no practical alternative. They can use it in their own kitchen, they can pipe it over to a neighbour, but they cannot sell it to the Steel Co. of Canada.

Well, all right, are you going to pay for the pipeline that’s going to take it in there?

No. In practical terms they must sell to one of these distributors and they feel they’re not getting a fair price on the Canadian market as it now is. Please don’t obscure this with some reference to world prices and whether or not we agree with the principle of the bill. We’ve already made that clear.

[9:15]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is really, I think, obscuring it a bit himself. My comments about world price and whether or not the third party supports allocation really were drawn from some of the other --

Mr. Reed: Never mind about the third party; what about the report on the third world?

Mr. Nixon: Go ahead, we’re listening. Hansard is taking down your pearls.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- comments of the member for Halton-Burlington. There is nothing in this bill, there is nothing in the Act as it will be amended, we hope, that in any way prohibits or inhibits the sale from producers to end-users, whether those end- users -- you won’t find that in the Act --

Mr. Nixon: No person shall use gas that has not been acquired from a distributor; that’s what you’re asking us to approve.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I know very well the terminology of the bill, thank you very much. There is nothing in there that inhibits or prohibits the producer of natural gas in this province from selling his gas either to a distributor -- whether it’s Union Gas, Consumers’ Gas or, for that matter, even Northern and Central Gas -- or an end-user such as Stelco or any other industrial concern in this province; absolutely nothing.

What we have indicated to the OPI and to other individual producers with whom we’ve met in the Ministry of Energy -- the OPI is the Ontario Petroleum Institute which represents a number of the gas producers in this province and with which a number of members are acquainted -- is that we not only understand their aspirations with regard to price but we agree that they should have a fair market price. If there’s anything in the distribution system in this province which, in effect, locks them in and makes them subject to some form of monopoly -- if that’s what the member wants to suggest exists -- we will do what we can to make sure that doesn’t exist any longer. We want them to be in a competitive position.

Briefly, I began where I started: There’s nothing in this bill that in anyway hurts the producers of this province either in terms of the price of the commodity which they are selling today or in terms of future exploration for further product.

Mr. Reed: What about the practical considerations?

Mr. Nixon: They aren’t worried about practical considerations.

Mr. Chairman: Still on 37f?

Mr. Mackenzie: Yes, 37f. I just want to be sure -- and I’d like to ask the minister because I’m not clear either -- given the wording of 37f “That no person except a distributor shall use gas in Ontario that has not been acquired from a distributor” could a farmer, who has a well on his property, pipe and sell that gas himself to his neighbours or his sons or family? Given the wording of that section, I’m not sure and that’s what I want to ask you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nixon: What is a distributor?

Mr. Mackenzie: That’s what I’m really wondering: What is a distributor? Does he then become a distributor himself?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: A distributor is defined in an earlier section of the bill. Under section 2 37b(b), a distributor “means a person who supplies gas to a consumer.”

Mr. G. I. Miller: I’d like to make some comments on it and let the minister reply. This legislation is ostensibly intended to protect the public interest in the event of impending shortages of natural gas. However, I believe that unless the basic concept of section 37f is removed there is a strong possibility that Bill 4 will actually have the opposite effect because it will further jeopardize total gas supplies in the province.

If all producers are forced, either directly or indirectly, to sell indigenous production exclusively to the distributing utilities, any semblance of a free market will be effectively eliminated, as well as any economic incentive to develop Ontario’s estimated three trillion cubic feet of potential gas reserves.

At one time, Ontario was virtually self-sufficient in gas production. As a matter of fact, I believe it even exported gas, and that was prior to the establishment of intercontinental pipelines. Today this province produces less than three per cent of domestic total gas requirements. One factor in this decline in Ontario’s gas production is that a single utility controls the distribution franchises throughout the province. A single utility has what amounts to a monopoly and effectively controls the price of indigenous gas supplies.

Incidentally, this utility is, I understand, paying less than 45 cents per thousand cubic feet, for more than 50 per cent of the gas purchased in Ontario, while paying $1.25 from the transcontinental line. This is particularly significant when we take into consideration the fact that over the past five years there has been an incredible decline in the annual volume of Ontario gas produced by this utility, from 11 billion cubic feet to only three billion cubic feet.

Ontario’s domestic natural gas needs are somewhere in the region of something over 710 billion cubic feet annually, and it has been estimated that at this time some 20 billion cubic feet of drilled reserves are standing idle in this province. These reserves could very soon be expanded to 50 billion or even 100 billion cubic feet, about 10 per cent of provincial needs, if such an expansion could be justified on economic grounds.

With respect to the gas sources in Ontario which are not being utilized at the present time, one case in point would be the gas fields in Haldimand county, which were in active operation until a few years ago, producing gas at a commercially acceptable price. Union Gas decided to close down these operations maintaining that it would be cheaper to obtain the gas supplies from western Canada, and the gas wells were plugged and the lines taken up.

In view of the current shortage of natural gas supplies, serious consideration should be given to reopening these gas fields and bringing the wells back into operation. Development of Ontario’s sources of natural gas should be developed wherever possible to avoid virtual dependence on outside supplies from the Arctic and western Canada.

Some independent producers have made attempts to pursue long-term contracts directly with essential industries unable to obtain any assurance of future gas supplies. It seems likely that the direct sale concept would stimulate a competitive market in Ontario which would result in a significant increase in the development of new gas supplies and production. This would probably be sufficient to compensate for the proposed allocation of existing supplies. In the circumstances, I believe serious consideration should be given to the removal of 37f from Bill 4 of all indigenous production under the terms of section 37f of Bill 4.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think there we part company because we believe that if we are going to face shortages in the province in total gas supply, then the Ontario indigenous production of natural gas should form part of the pool which is subject to the allocation process.

An hon. member: What do you expect that for?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I mentioned earlier, I met with Mr. Goulet, the president of the Ontario Petroleum Institute, and I think three other representatives of that body last Thursday. We discussed the bill and they made it clear that the people in the industry in this province were not proposing that Ontario’s supplies be exempt from the bill. They recognized the future potential problems facing the province. They didn’t mention, but they might have recognized that Ontario production of natural gas represents, I think I am correct, one-half of one per cent of the annual consumption of natural gas in this province. The other 99.5 per cent comes from outside of Ontario, most of it being from western Canada. If we are going to have an effective allocation process in this province, if we are going to be ready for eventual shortages and not have to fall back on the sections of the Energy Act of 1971 which gave the minister arbitrary power, all gas has to be included.

If the member would send me a copy of his prepared remarks I will be glad to reply point by point to those remarks. I’m not familiar with some of the figures which he used, but I’ll be glad to look at his total remarks as they were prepared for him.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, a number of the members earlier raised the question of these small producers who have contractual arrangements with distributors at prices which were set many, many years ago. As I understand the minister, he sort of took refuge in the fact that these are contractual arrangements and, therefore, he is not going to interfere. I want to suggest that, in effect, he is copping out.

I can remember distinctly back in the late 1950s when Robert Macaulay organized -- and I’ve been trying to recall what the ministry was called at that time --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Energy and Resources.

Mr. Nixon: Energy and Resources Management.

Mr. MacDonald: Energy and Resources Management -- that he came to grips with that proposition of contracts that had been signed back in 1905, 1910 and 1915 for gas storage, sales and things of that nature. What you have, in effect, is a company that has got these small producers locked in and they’re ripping them off. As prices go up, they are paying that historic price of a generation, or two or three generations ago, and they’re able to make that much more profit.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman

Mr. MacDonald: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: So that the member understands, what the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. Spence) was raising was the number of cases where a landowner, a farmer, has by virtue of his contract, leased out the mineral rights to his property. He is not the producer himself. He’s dealing with the producer.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: He’s not the producer himself.

Mr. MacDonald: But my remarks apply just the same. In fact, it was exactly the same kind of situation. If I recall accurately, Robert Macaulay reacted in the first instance as a good Tory would -- that the contractual agreements should be respected, even though they were signed back in the Gay Nineties and were completely out of date. Subsequently, enough pressure was brought on him that he re-examined it; and with his capacity to take a fresh look at the subject, said: “There’s unfairness in this.” There was some action to bring the contracts up to date.

In short, all you have to do, whether it’s a leasing of land or whether it’s a sale on an old contractual agreement to a distributor, is some sort of an amendment or some sort of an Act which will stipulate that a large distributor, when he’s buying from a small producer of that nature, or whether he is leasing land on contracts that are used for production purposes, shall pay the going rate. You don’t leave him him in a position where he can rip off the person who happens to be locked into an old, old contract.

The reason why I suggest the minister to take a look at it is that I’m sure the amount involved is peanuts, in comparison with the overall sales, for example, of a distributor -- if I may use that as an example to illustrate my point again. The amounts that they’re picking up from these small producers in terms of what they’re buying from western Canada or getting from the US, or wherever, is a small amount. Therefore, to bring equity into what they have to pay for that small amount isn’t going to hurt them a great deal, it just shows that you have a degree of compassion.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, I hope that nothing I’ve said tonight, or at any point before this, indicates that I’m not concerned about production in Ontario. In any of the government policies, we want to make sure that we are encouraging production and exploration for new production.

We have not, as a government -- and this is a new concept I’m hearing from the opposition -- previously indicated that we will enter into or become a third party to any of these contracts. I have only just recently become aware of the problem by virtue of some of the discussions with the Ontario Petroleum Institute. I am concerned about it. I think we’ll have more discussions about it.

I’m afraid, again, what the hon. member is suggesting is, in effect, supplanting the free marketplace competition, where the producer has the option of selling to a local distributor or to an end-user, with a form of regulated price. Unfortunately, and I have to say it is implicit in this argument, it is a very high price and probably in the end the world price.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s permitting him to rip off the margin between current prices and the old contracts.

[9:30]

Mr. Reed: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister of Energy go on record as saying that under the terms of this bill, a private producer can sell direct?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes.

Mr. Reed: Thank you, in that case may I read the --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, what I have said repeatedly in response to the hon. member’s earlier remarks, those of his leader and some other members in this House is --

Mr. Chairman: One member on his feet at a time please.

Mr. Reed: Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that there is nothing in this bill or in the Act which it proposes to amend, that in any way inhibits the right or prohibits the right of a gas producer to sell his gas to whoever he wishes.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a further question. Can you assure me, sir, that this will encourage development in Ontario -- it won’t restrict it, which it has obviously been doing up to this point in time? There hasn’t been any encouragement for development in the province, and I think as a minister of our province you should represent the Ontario producer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated to your colleague, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), I think it was yesterday when he raised the question of gas production and the encouragement thereof, that this really involves not only my ministry but the Ministry of Natural Resources. I think that if you look at the total set of policies that relate to natural gas production in this province, they in fact are more encouraging to the natural gas production sector of the petroleum industry than in any other province in the country.

To answer his question, I don’t think there is anything in this bill that inhibits the exploration for new natural gas resources or the production of existing resources.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on this section? Clause 37f carried? Carried. Clause 37g the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, I would like to move an amendment which in effect deletes section 37g from the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that clause 37g of section 2 be deleted.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, to explain what this amendment intends to do, section 15, subsections 3 and 4 of the Ontario Energy Board Act provides mandatory public hearings. It says:

“Every proceeding before the board shall be open to the public. The board shall not make any order or proceed in accordance with any reference or order in council under this or any other Act until it has held a hearing upon notice in such manner and to such persons as the board may direct.”

The bill before us, by putting 37g in there, in effect removes the mandatory public hearings which are required for all other proceedings under the Ontario Energy Board Act, but leaves discretionary power to the board to have hearings or not.

It is my contention that all proceedings before the board should be subject to mandatory public hearings. A great many of the matters which are now under the Ontario Energy Board are of less importance than the question of the allocation of natural gas supplies in a time of shortage, because this is rationing, or could be rationing, of a very essential commodity. I recognize that the proposals the minister has put before us to date would put a zero priority, that is put the householder in the priority category where he would not be subject to rationing, but that is only the first proposal, and is only indicated as what would likely be in the first allocation plan. So we are not sure in all allocation plans that the householder would be exempt. In fact, the minister did hold out the possibility in some of his comments that there might be a limitation on the use of natural gas for air conditioning or for heating swimming pools; that certainly could affect the ordinary householder.

But even if the ordinary householder is not covered by an allocation plan, there still is a need for public hearings to protect large and small businesses, particularly the small consumers who might find it much more difficult to adjust to the allocation plan and that they therefore need some special consideration. An allocation plan is going to require those whose allotment is cut down either to cut their production, to find an alternative source of energy, to change their operational methods or to obtain substitutes, possibly at higher cost. All of those decisions may have to be made, and I think that the person who is being required to make these must have the opportunity of a public hearing.

In the committee which examined this bill, the minister suggested that all allocation plans would be public before they were adopted and that all objections -- which anybody who was affected could put in -- would also be public; he also suggested that people could study them and the board would study them before an allocation plan was made. This would be useful, but it is not as good as a mandatory public hearing. The documents presumably would be available in offices for people to inspect, but they wouldn’t be available throughout the province or only in certain offices.

The bill actually gives the board the power to determine the methods for publicizing the plan, for publicizing the objections, for notifying people affected, for the inspection of the plan and for its implementation. Therefore, the board more or less has a blank cheque to decide pretty well what kind of publicity any allocation plan will have.

The newspapers already have reported some protests by the independent natural gas producers in southwestern Ontario, who are worried about the powers given to pipeline companies regarding the allocation of gas to consumers, and I think their worries indicate the need for public hearings.

There is the problem that we might face a sudden emergency and we would need an allocation plan for natural gas in a hurry -- and public hearings can take a long time. I recognize that. It may be that we will have to contemplate the possibility of interim orders. This is done, as we all know, on price increases for natural gas; if the board decides a price increase should go into effect before the hearings are completed, it makes an interim order.

This would be possible for an allocation plan, provided it was subject to two stipulations. I think it would be acceptable only if these two stipulations were added; they are that the Lieutenant Governor in Council must approve any interim order before it is validated and, secondly, that public hearings must be instituted immediately after the order to see if there are any variations needed to correct apparent discrimination or deleterious effects of the order.

It may be that this creates some uncertainty as to the supplies that any individual company or operator is going to get. I think the board would take that into account and, if it varied orders, it might vary them for the following year or make some other arrangement for substitutes to compensate rather than vary the actual allocation. There are infinite possibilities of what could be done after the interim order was in effect, but it would at least see that there was an allocation plan going on for the period of any emergency.

The minister did indicate in the committee hearings that public hearings would probably be held for the first allocation plan which he envisaged might be contemplated for 1976-1977, but he used the phrase “with sufficient lead time before any serious supply difficulties.” That phrase would be very difficult to interpret and it would be the Ontario Energy Board which would have the discretion to decide if there was sufficient lead time rather than the minister, because the board is semi-autonomous. I can see that there would be a great dispute as to what was sufficient lead time, so that I think it would be better to make the usual requirement that is in the Ontario Energy Board Act applicable to rationing systems that hearings are mandatory, and then you don’t have arguments about the exercise of discretion as to whether there is sufficient lead time or not.

I would urge the members of this House to support this amendment. I think it is a very important principle that if you’re going to ration anything as essential as natural gas, you must see that fairness is done and that people have an opportunity to see that what is being done is fair. Public acceptance of rationing will only come if they feel that there is fairness and an opportunity to make their views heard.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other hon. member wish to speak on the amendment before the minister replies?

Mr. Nixon: I’d like to hear what the minister’s views are and what the reasons are that the hearings might not be held in public

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I indicated in committee several weeks ago on Nov. 13 and several times in conversations with the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), including a telephone conversation late yesterday afternoon, the government’s intention in proposing this section of the bill is that, first of all, looking at the general principle of the bill, that allocation plans would be on an annual basis and that the first allocation plan would be applicable after hearings held from the fall of 1976 to the spring of 1977.

When I referred to sufficient lead time, quoting from my remarks and from your press release of Nov. 20: “ ... with sufficient lead time before any serious supply difficulties.” What we meant was that in fact we would try to set a time-clock, if you will, that would allow the allocation plan to be presented, reviewed by those affected, objected to or commented on by those affected, reviewed by the Energy Board and then ruled on by the Energy Board in sufficient time before we foresee any potential shortages of natural gas. And the earliest that we foresee any shortages of natural gas is in two years’ time.

We think that the first plan can be heard. I may be not exactly quoting the hon. member, but it wasn’t an implication that there will be hearings; there was a commitment that there would be hearings on the first allocation plan.

[9:45]

My concern, as I’ve expressed it to the member and as I expressed it to the committee, is that in subsequent years some users of natural gas -- and I’m thinking particularly and primarily of large users, who have financial sources at their disposal to employ counsel and other people to act for them before the Energy Board -- could use this Act, without this section 37g, to prolong the allocation process. If we do get into a sufficiently dire supply situation, in fact they could put themselves into a more beneficial position. In fact, they could completely end-run the whole allocation process for who knows how long.

Mr. Lewis: So at that point in time you can enter the House and make an amendment. You don’t do it now, a few years in advance.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment. I will warn the member and the House that if we find that the allocation process is being bastardized, then we will come back to this House with amendments to this Act to ensure that the allocation process is being carried out in the best interests of the consumers of this province.

Mr. Lewis: That’s fine.

Mr. Singer: And if you have a majority, you might carry it.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I believe I would support the amendment put forward by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who has raised a valid point here. The more I look at this bill here, boy, there is enough power here to give an individual as much power as there is under the War Measures Act. And when we look in particular at section 37g --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. lf I may help the hon. member, he should know that under section 21 of the existing Energy Act of 1971, a minister of this government has absolute power to allocate natural gas with no public hearings.

Mr. Haggerty: The minister is quite right, I suppose. When one looks at section 37d, it says the board may, after a hearing, direct a distributor to make gas available to another distributor on terms and conditions, including compensation --

Mr. Nixon: There will be a few other amendments that you can push down his throat, Marion.

Mr. Haggerty: I suppose, when one looks at that particular section, it covers a pretty broad area. It says, “including sale, loan or otherwise,” and that word “otherwise” can be interpreted rather broadly. I think the member has brought forward a good point, particularly as it relates to section 37g and 37. Even in that particular section, 37h it says:

“Every order made under this part takes effect at the time prescribed in order and the operation of the order is not suspended by an appeal under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, 1971.”

I think it is very well put when the member says that there should be a public hearing on it. If we are going to have any possibility of gas shortage and relocation of gas to different communities throughout the Province of Ontario, I think the public should have some voice and some say in the matter. I would hate to see the rest of the Province of Ontario freeze while perhaps Metro Toronto would have all the gas available. It could happen that way.

Above all, I think that there should be a public hearing on matters regarding an allocation plan for gas in the Province of Ontario. It gives the minister, and perhaps the Energy Board, very broad powers, without having public input. For example, the select committee dealing with the Ontario Hydro rates in a sense now has the public taking an interest in that through the elected members of the Legislature. In fact, this even rules out the elected members of the Ontario Legislature from having some say in the matter of gas relocation in the Province of Ontario.

As I said before, this bill gives them as much power as the War Measures Act. I suppose, when we look at that, we might as well come back and set up the Emergency Measures Organization throughout the Province of Ontario and let them administer it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, I find the comments rather interesting. As I have indicated, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I have indicated that we put that section in because we were concerned that some large consumers particularly could have used the Act. But I want to just read section 21 of the Energy Act, 1971, which the hon. member opposite passed because he was in the House at the time and I wasn’t.

Mr. Singer: Gordon Sinclair was right; you are a finger-waving cabinet minister -- and every cabinet should have one.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That section has the effect of giving a minister of this government, namely the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the absolute power -- and the member for whatever-his-riding-is shakes his hand; that’s his best contribution today --

Mr. Singer: No, no, not at you; I was admiring Gordon Sinclair’s description of you. Most appropriate.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- absolute power to allocate natural gas in times of shortages. What we are doing by this Act is bringing all the people of Ontario, individually and collectively in classes of consumers, into the allocation process so that they know beforehand what are the priorities in their respective areas. I want to just read this section to you; this is section 21 of the Energy Act, 1971:

“Notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act, or in any contract for the supply of natural gas made between a distributor and a consumer, where the supply of natural gas to a distributor is interrupted or curtailed, the minister [and this means the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations] may order a distributor to halt or reduce the supply of natural gas to a consumer or a class or classes of consumers if he considers it advisable in the circumstances.”

We are trying to move away from that kind of arbitrary power in the hands of a minister of the government to a very public procedure, so that everybody understands the procedure and the implications of it.

Mr. Haggerty: At least the minister is responding.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: I know how excited you seem to be tonight to wave that hefty volume around and luxuriate in your unilateral arbitrariness. The fact of the matter is that --

Mr. Singer: His finger is waving all the time.

Mr. Lewis: -- you just discovered that statute.

Mr. Singer: Pointing it --

Mr. Lewis: If you had known of that clause --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order, this is the root cause for this amendment.

Mr. Lewis: It is very interesting. Did you make reference to that root when you introduced the bill, when you made your remarks?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I assumed that you knew something.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, well let me tell you, my friend, that in the workings of this Legislature I too have been here for a little while, and if that had been the root to this amendment you would have crowed about it in advance. You are talking of it now because one of your close subordinates managed to find it and to point out the arbitrariness for which this bill compensates. Congratulations. I didn’t catch it in advance, I concede happily. You didn’t catch it in advance either, or it would have been in the statement which accompanied the announcement of allocation and rationing.

As to my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine, the point she makes is very compelling and I have always thought that the arguments advanced were highly specious. If you are going to have compulsory hearings for any gas allocation 1½ or two years hence, and you have made that a commitment, then obviously if in 2½ or three years time you feel that some major corporate concerns are running an end run around the legislation, you can bring amendments into this Legislature. No one is going to object to them, so you are protected and the public is protected by deleting this clause.

So I congratulate you for accepting it. I always thought this kind of clause was absolutely perfect bureaucratic mechanism. It largely conveys the hostilities and suspicions so many bureaucrats tend to have about the public hearing process, and if they can see it eliminated or diminished in some way they always find a way to do it. It is the old bogey stuff; it is the kind of thing which you as a minister have started to intimate publicly about the time these public hearings take, about the costs of these public hearings, about some of the implications that have emerged around Ontario Hydro and the transmission corridors.

This whole public process causes such agitation to the Tories. You are forever applauding them on the one hand and regretting them on the other, and the beauty of the minority government situation is that when the member for Beaches-Woodbine rises and says we would like to delete that clause so that public hearings are assured of taking place, the amendment is accepted.

We think that is a very useful acceptance on your part, and we quite happily affirm it and support you in it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, can I speak to the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would like to reply to the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Chairman: The minister says he would like to reply to the member for Scarborough West and the Chair will recognize you later.

Mr. Lewis: Which will prompt a counter-reply from the member for Scarborough West.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sure it will, because you want to use whatever time you can. First of all, the point is that I did not have to introduce to this House, nor did the government, this kind of a bill because of the powers that are embodied in this legislation, which are well known to my ministry and have been well known to me since my early days in this ministry almost a year ago.

The point is, there is a sincere concern on the part of the ministry and the government that the people of Ontario understand what may be in store for them when we do face shortages of natural gas. That’s point No. 1.

Secondly, the hon. member suggests that what I have done as Minister of Energy --

Mr. Foulds: That is a scare tactic.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- is to adopt some kind, if you will, of a double standard or in some way to shroud --

Mr. Lewis: You are very ambivalent about public hearings.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- in an expression of concern for public involvement a real concern that this is costing money. What I have been saying as Minister of Energy is that the public of Ontario must be involved in the planning process but at some point somebody has to make a decision. At some point you may very well be doing a public disservice by not making a decision. You may very well be somewhere down the road and you don’t know any more than I do.

A lot of these things are objective decision situations. You may very well be endangering the supply of energy in whatever field it is or the price or any number of things. Let it be very clear that my commitment as the minister and that of this government is irrefutable -- we are committed to public involvement. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have the number of pieces of legislation we have or such bodies as the Porter commission.

Mr. Singer: Little old ladies.

Mr. Lewis: Right, I have only this rejoinder to you --

Mr. Singer: How long are you going to talk? Can I get in or is this a dialogue?

Mr. Lewis: Of course you will. This is the first debate tonight.

I have just this rejoinder. You talk about the public process as though it had gone on for decades in Ontario and you’re only now inheriting the problems. Let me remind you that Ontario Hydro and the government resisted public hearings until the mid 1970s. We are in the infancy stage of serious public hearings in this province. As a matter of fact, we haven’t even begun public hearings.

The Porter commission is the first truly serious, thoughtful and well-developed approach to public hearings. All the rest of it has been so much falderal as the transmission corridor hearings have demonstrated. Don’t talk to us about the implied proposition that somewhere somebody has to take a stand. Of course you have to take a stand; no one worries about that. It will be taken when it has to be taken.

We hope that at some point the right of the public groups to make representations will be allowed in a systematic and easy way. That’s what my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine is doing by virtue of the amendment. That is, in effect, what our colleagues in the Legislature, of all parties, are doing in that Hydro select committee.

All these veiled threats in the background about natural gas allocation -- I never know whether I’m listening to a provincial Tory or a federal Liberal but you’re all positing energy disasters.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Are you against it?

Mr. Lewis: Am I against natural gas allocation?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: I’m not sure whether it has any credibility or not.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Are you against preparing for it?

Mr. Lewis: Come on, I have supported the bill in principle along with others but I don’t know what devious mechanisms are behind it. I never know what to believe from the calculations of the oil companies on the one hand and from the spurious comments of ministers of the Crown on the other. So like a good fellow --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Do you question the credibility of the National Energy Board?

Mr. Lewis: I am questioning the credibility of the National Energy Board; you’re damn right I am. I read their comments on the predictions about reserves for the oil companies that shifted suddenly between 1972 and 1974.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What about gas supplies? What have you read?

Mr. Lewis: All right, now we come to gas supplies. As a matter of fact, I should only tell you what I was given to read and by whom -- but I can’t. One day I will but I can’t in this Legislature today. Like everyone else, I suppose, I have read the same red-jacketed document that you have and I’m not impugning the National Energy Board -- I’m just not sure about all these boards. I don’t know which sources to believe but if people say there might be a problem of allocation, I am prepared to support the bill in principle.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Do you have a better source?

Mr. Lewis: I have a much better source. We would approach the whole business of energy in a different way but that’s not being discussed here today.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You would buy the whole thing. Let’s have it clear that your policy is to nationalize the whole industry.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I wonder if we could return to the amendment?

Mr. Lewis: We have said we would take Consumers’ and Union into public ownership on a dozen different occasions -- 20 different occasions.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let’s take it a step further because if you are going to talk about --

Mr. Lewis: We’re not debating that here now. What we’re debating is an amendment from my colleague which you have accepted, gracelessly.

Mr. Riddell: So why all this dialogue?

Mr. Lewis: That’s a good point, I’m not sure. You have gracelessly accepted an amendment from my colleague suggesting that public hearings are paramount in a matter of this kind. But don’t pretend to us that somehow it’s a great concession and it implies some hazard for the future. It doesn’t do any of those things. It’s just an excellent, logical, common-sense amendment and should be seen as such.

Now I bow and defer to the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer), who will pick up the flow naturally and eviscerate you before 10:30, as you deserve tonight as a matter of fact.

[10: 00]

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I don’t intend to eviscerate the minister, I just was a little bothered by his unction and the thought that suddenly the Tories had discovered democracy. I’ve just come from a committee dealing with a bill presented by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) that had, believe it or not, this clause in it: “The Lieutenant Governor may, by regulation, provide section 2 does not apply to any class of retail business establishment or in respect -- ”

Mr. Norton: Irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the hon. member come to this amendment?

Mr. Singer: No, I think this is most relevant, Mr. Chairman. What this clause says is that notwithstanding anything in this statute that we’ve argued about for many days, the Lieutenant Governor in Council could change any part of it that he wanted to at any time without notice to anybody.

Mr. Norton: What are you debating?

Mr. Singer: If that is the new Toryism that the minister was talking about, that was supported by the minister at the committee --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

Mr. Singer: Oh, sit down. Sit down and stop interrupting.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair will listen to the minister’s point of order.

Mr. Singer: Oh, he’s been talking all night.

An hon. member: He’s been doing a few other things tonight I’m afraid, as well.

Mr. Singer: What’s your problem, Dennis?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I wonder what’s talking for you.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister will state his point of order.

Mr. Lewis: You know, that vest is choking you, Dennis.

An hon. member: He’s asphyxiated.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I just want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether in the opinion of the Chair any of this is relevant to Bill 4.

Mr. Lewis: You’re going to pop a few buttons if you keep jumping up and down.

Mr. Chairman: It seems to the Chair that some of the debates are a bit redundant inasmuch as the minister has agreed to accept the amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I think that’s true.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree, but the minister, having agreed to accept the amendment, did it with such bad grace, did it in a method that indicated that the Tories suddenly were the modern-day heroes of the world, and I thought it was most important that you, sir, understand that while he is standing here singing their praises, what his colleague was doing, supported by the three Tory members of the committee, was wanting to include a clause in this other bill that would have allowed the Lieutenant Governor to do anything at all at any time and without notice, notwithstanding the statute that we were about to pass.

Mr. Kennedy: Not true, not true.

Mr. Singer: I think that’s important, and the next time the Minister of Energy gets up to sing his own praises and those of his colleagues, he should bear in mind section 4 of Bill 5.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that section 37g as proposed in section 2 of this bill be deleted.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, my remarks were entirely out of order and I apologize to you. I just wanted to mention that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is the only time I have agreed with the hon. member tonight.

Mr. Lewis: Do you know that you start to squeak every time you stand?

Mr. Foulds: Dennis, why don’t you go take a sauna?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Bill 4, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Kerr moved 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 one bill with a certain amendment and one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 39, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act, 1975.

Bill 4, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board 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)

Mr. Speaker: Has the member for High Park-Swansea further remarks?

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to speak with some of my friends and neighbours who disrupted proceedings in the House yesterday; and let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they are not in the habit of breaking any kind of rules and they regret taking this action. It was done out of a deep sense of frustration, sir, and I hope it doesn’t happen again.

I am going to ask the gallery to restrain itself, and if it does not I will simply terminate my speech because I don’t want to be a party to any sort of disruptive proceedings.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Does the gallery understand that?

Mr. Ziemba: Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to build -- I will test the gallery, Mr. Speaker -- if we are going to build a city for the automobile, Highway 400 is a good place to start; and if we are going to build a city for people, Highway 400 is a good place to stop. Fine!

My riding in the west end of Toronto, Mr. Speaker, has all the neighbourliness of a small town, although it is so close to all the advantages of the big city. It is known for the closeness of its ethnic communities: Lithuanians, Poles, Ukrainians, Maltese, Estonians, Latvians, Italians, Portuguese, Germans and Canadians of British ancestry; all support churches and enjoy restaurants serving the food of their original homeland. They patronize stores supplying distinctive products from 100 countries. Clubs and associations of many types receive enthusiastic support.

Two thriving local newspapers, the Bloor West Village and the Parkdale Citizen, attest to this sense of community in the area and a degree of interest in local affairs, as well as a variety of activities available for all ages.

High Park is a recreational centre known to the whole city, which is especially popular with local families all times of the year. They picnic, swim, skate, toboggan, row and bicycle together. Smaller parks attract their generous quota of small skaters, waders and ball players.

There is housing for all income levels, Mr. Speaker, and all preferences; well-maintained larger homes in some parts; modern highrises and neatly kept semis in others. Fully grown trees line most streets, giving a leafy, park-like atmosphere to the area. The business sections in several cases have made special efforts to appear attractive places to shop, with special planters and pavings; thousands do their shopping there, locally.

I know this area well; I grew up there and I still live there. I love it; I don’t want to see it destroyed by traffic. I do not want it to become another Marlee Ave. I do not want to see it flooded by cars from any expressway that ends without purpose or sense a few blocks to our north. This is why I must bring forward a number of pertinent facts against the construction of Highway 400 from Highway 401 to St. Clair Ave.

Traffic is already intolerably heavy along the arterial roads in the area. Jane-South Kingsway have 20,000 vehicles a day; Keele-Parkside Dr. have 22,000 cars; the Old Weston Rd. bridge has been closed temporarily for the last three years; and Osler will be closed in the not-too-distant future.

Symington, as a result, already receives some of the 7,000 extra vehicles. How are these roads to handle the 50,000 additional vehicles that some have estimated will he pouring off the end of Highway 400?

Fifty thousand vehicles; imagine that. The answer, of course, is that they can’t.

Traffic, large volume traffic, will flood our peaceful residential streets with all the danger to community life; including the physical danger to older citizens and children used to quieter streets. Traffic at the expected volume will cause a decline in local shopping; inconvenience church activities; make access to our parks hazardous; and even increase the danger to children coming to and fro from their schools.

In Toronto’s Ward 1 alone there are over 10,000 elementary school children who have to cross arterial roads on their way to school. Do you want to increase the traffic on these streets?

I have here some study figures on the Christie Pits area, that would compare with what is going to happen here.

Cars can do many things, worst of all they can kill. Consider the Christie Pits area; Bloor, Ossington, Dupont and Christie. This inner-city neighbourhood, Mr. Speaker, has a population of 8,300 residents, including 2,600 children under the age of 15.

There are three schools in the area serving these children. A child’s trip to school is a compulsory one and, according to our law, one he is forced to take each day. In the Christie Pits area, this trip includes crossing streets with unbelievably high traffic counts. Over 300 cars per hour have been recorded passing by the residential streets. Of these, over 40 per cent were found to be non-local or short-cutter traffic, zig-zagging through the streets hoping to save a few minutes time. In the haste, many traffic violations are committed; 53 per cent of the cars were found to be speeding.

What chance does a child have in this very machine-dominated space? In Christie Pits, very little. And 56 per cent of the accidents involving children with automobiles in the last four years have occurred during the child’s trip to and from school. When the path of a child crosses the path of an automobile, the child loses. In the Christie Pits area the children have been losing to the tune of one child being hit on the average of once every 28 days.

The children able to survive this inhuman condition find their lives affected in other ways. Roads are barriers. In Christie Pits, repeated observations of the number of children engaged in play show that less than five per cent of the children could be found in a Christie Pits park. The mothers are afraid to let their children cross these streets in order to get to the park; thus the playground might as well be miles away.

What is the solution to the survival question of Christie Pits, which is but one of many neighbourhoods facing similar problems? In the Sussex-Ulster area where a traffic maze was instrumental in lessening the volume of traffic in the area, child accidents went from one every five weeks to the point where, after a six months trial, there were no accidents reported. On a city-wide scale, the only viable alternative calls for a shift of emphasis away from the automobile towards public transit.

Subways are buried. They do not have the killing capacity of the automobile. The 1972 figures for private and public transport show that in that year in Metro 136 people were killed by private transportation, excluding Highways 400 and 427; yet only six people were killed by public transit, of which all were suspected to be suicides. Furthermore, private transit caused 22,000 injuries while public transit produced only 734.

To the degree that public transit solves the problem an expressway worsens it. An extension just picks a new area to dump cars. On a city-wide scale, it encourages people to drive to work rather than use public transit. The people who will be forced to move out, should this expressway go through, may also be forced to buy a car -- and 50 per cent of the Christie Pits area people do not presently own cars -- that is if a viable transit system is not offered. Thus we destroy houses for an expressway and make it necessary for people to utilize this who before used public transit.

More cars downtown mean more short-cutters through neighbourhoods. It means parking lots, more cement and, most important, it means an increase in child deaths.

Besides the survival question, of course, there is the question of quality of life. Detroit is an expressway city. It has no subways or adequate public transit facilities. It’s a city dominated by automobiles and all the cement structure that the expressway idea entails. It is simply a coincidence that “Motown,” as it is called, has the worst housing, the emptiest downtown in terms of people, the highest murder rate in North America.

Nor does the expressway keep cars off the local streets. Cars are everywhere in Detroit. It has one of the highest children accident rates in North America. The seriousness of this matter cannot be underestimated.

Toronto needs to continue its tone as a city for the people. New areas of public transit must be explored. A recent report suggested utilizing taxies in the public transit role. We must stop the expressway idea; if not for ourselves at least for our children. If and when the people in this area are forced to witness the extension of Highway 400 right down to the Gardiner Expressway -- and there are few in the west end who have any doubt as to the inevitability of this southward extension -- then the destruction of our communities will become truly horrible.

[10:15]

It is no exaggeration to say that no matter which of the three routes might be chosen, that section of Toronto might be destroyed forever, such is the toll of housing, parks and community institutions.

I am going to quote a few figures from the “400 Update” of York University. I am going to put on the record the effect the Highway 400 extension will have on the Christie-Clinton route. This is broken down into three sections: By ward, park, acres taken and facilities taken.

In Ward 3 there is a small park in the Bristol area, 1.02 acres. It is a sitting out park and it has one playground apparatus. Also in Ward 3 there is Earlscourt Park, four acres; and it is a sitting out park. Again in Ward 3 Geary parkette, 0.734 acres, with one set of playground equipment, also a sitting out park. In Ward 3, again, Hydro-lands, a sitting out park, with one set of playground equipment.

In Ward 4 there is Stanley Park, 10.190 acres. It is a sitting out park, with one playground apparatus, one recreation centre, one supervised wading pool, one softball field, one natural ice rink and pleasure rink, one stadium, one public washroom and one changeroom. Also in Ward 4 there is Old Fort York and the park between the fort buildings and the burial ground. It is 7.025 acres. It’s an historical site and total acreage there is 22.851 acres.

Now by the Allendale route there are no parks taken. The Keele-Parkside route is the one affecting my riding, the riding of High Park-Swansea; it is called Ward 1. The park taken will be Baird Park, with 2.438 acres. Facilities taken will be one supervised wading pool, one natural ice rink and pleasure skating rink, two lawn bowling courts, one picnic table, one change room, one public wash- room, one boys’ club, and one sitting out park.

In Ward 1, there is also Park Lithuania, 3.655 acres. There is one recreation centre, one supervised wading pool, two baseball diamonds, a soccer and football field, volleyball court, one change room, one public washroom and one sitting out park.

Also in Ward 1 there is a portion of High Park, half an acre. It is a sitting out park, natural green, along with park benches and gardens. Total acreage in my riding will be 7.093.

Now in the event the Christie-Clinton route is decided upon, the important facilities taken will be one stadium, four baseball diamonds, four children’s playgrounds, one recreation centre, one historical place, and extensive natural parkland.

The Keele-Parkside route breaks down to two lawn bowling courts, five baseball diamonds, two wading pools, three natural ice rinks and three soccer-football fields.

The Allendale route includes three baseball diamonds, two soccer-football fields and extensive natural parkland.

The combined total, in the event the Christie-Clinton route goes through, will be 18.5 acres; the Keele-Parkside route will be 7.093 acres and on the Allendale route there will be, as I said earlier, no parkland taken.

Housing: This would put pressure on the housing market. Because an exact route has yet to be approved, statistics on the total housing to be demolished are very general. The only figures available come from the incomplete study made in 1969 by the city of Toronto planning board. They are summarized in report 44 of the Metropolitan Toronto transportation plan review.

The range of demolitions given in report 44 for each of the three alignments covers the various possibilities within each major proposal: The Christie-Clinton route, between 2,177 to 2,196 homes; the Allendale route, 1,006 to 1,877 homes; and the Keele-Parkside Dr. route between 413 and 1,080 homes. To give an example to explain these figures, the figure 413 for Keele-Parkside indicates the least number of homes which could be demolished of all the variations of that route. The figure 1,080 indicates the maximum number of expropriations which would be necessary because of a different set of interchange designs.

Several things are worth noting at this point. Outside the Parkside-Indian Grove area of the Keele-Parkside alignment, almost all the houses along the various routes of the extension are semi-detached homes in fair to good condition. The area in the path of the extension has a large Italian, Greek and Portuguese population. Using the 1971 census data, approximately 58 per cent of the people have a native tongue other than English or French -- the census tract numbers used for this estimate were those which contained some part of any of the alignments. Using the same source, nearly 24 per cent of the homes are rented as opposed to owner-occupied. This figure is probably representative of the number of rented homes among those to be torn down.

The above figures on houses to be torn down do not represent the total impact on housing in the area, or even in the city. For instance, because 2,177 homes may be demolished if the Christie-Clinton route was chosen does not mean 2,177 displaced homeowners would suddenly be out looking for a new house. As section D of the Metropolitan Toronto transportation plan review’s report on the Scarborough Expressway states, there are at least four factors which tend to decrease that figure.

The first consideration is one which, although not affecting the total number of new prospective buyers, would have a considerable effect on the housing market. Since the expressway would take several years to build, homes would be torn down gradually over that time. Therefore, the people would not enter the market all at once.

The second consideration involves ownership. As we noted above, about one quarter of the demolished homes may be rented. Of these people, probably few would enter the buying market, preferring instead to continue renting. It is difficult to say what their landlords, the owners of these houses, would do. They might enter the housing market to try to get a new income property or they might invest elsewhere. Renters would probably find it difficult to find similar accommodation at similar prices, of course, since rental accommodation is becoming increasingly expensive to build.

Third, not all displaced families would want to stay in the area. The effect of putting a fraction of these on the whole Toronto area market might not be significant because of the number of housing starts and the high Metro turnover rate. However, it would be an important factor in reducing the pressure on the local housing market compared to the situation which would occur if everyone wanted to relocate nearby.

A survey done by Earl Berger Ltd. for the Scarborough Expressway indicated that more than one-third of the owners of homes marked for expropriation would consider leaving the immediate area. In the area we are considering this fraction might be smaller because of the ethnic nature of the community. However, no survey has been done.

Finally, a new development may take place in the area. This could take the form of condominium, OHC projects or new houses being built. The latter possibility would be a small factor considering available land in the area. Because government payments for the compensation to an expropriated homeowner often lag behind the price of a new home, or even a home in similar condition to the old one, these less expensive forms of alternative accommodation might become more attractive, they may also absorb some of the local home renters. This lag in compensation is very important to the people who will leave the area. Buying a newly constructed home or a better home outside the neighbourhood may simply be too expensive now for a medium- or low-wage earner, despite the price he may get for his old house.

To summarize to this point, there are approximate figures for the total number of demolitions for each alignment and factors which decrease that number as it applies to relocation in the area of the extension. To get an idea of the possibility of finding a different home in the area, we can look at figures for the housing turnover published by the Toronto Real Estate Board’s Multiple Listing Service. These figures are a portion of the total picture gathered from real estate firms who take part.

The MLS areas used are C1, C2, C3, W1, W2 and W3 which approximate the area of this city whose local housing market would likely be affected by the extension. A map of MLS districts is filed here. Remember that these tables represent turnover rate only. The homes sold were not vacant before sale, the vacancy rate in Toronto being negligible.

Considering the number of sales it is unclear what the effect would be of, say, 200 people trying to find a home, where if the homes had been vacant, there would be no problems, but this is not the case. As mentioned before, the availability of alternative housing is not clear. It can only be assumed that in the neighbourhoods surrounding the extension there would be a housing shortage. Certainly there are homes for sale but if a displaced homeowner were to get one, then the family he replaced must also be looking, and so on.

On a house-to-house basis, the whole Metro area would probably absorb the new buyers without much difficulty. Whether the new buyers could afford to compete in the total market or whether they would want to is another matter.

Would you like me to adjourn at this point, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member is at a convenient break in his remarks, it might be appropriate at this time to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Ziemba: Yes, I’m at this point.

Mr. Ziemba moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: In accordance with standing order 28(a), I now deem a motion to adjourn to have been placed. As was announced to the House earlier, the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) had expressed his displeasure with the answer given to him by the ministry. He has now five minutes to discuss that matter, after which the appropriate minister, if he so wishes, has five minutes to reply. The member for York Centre.

LANGSTAFF JAIL FARM

Mr. Stong: I appreciate the fact that I have only five minutes in which to speak to this problem. I also respect the Speaker’s ruling that I cannot distribute pamphlets which are of an informative nature and I will make sure that those pamphlets are placed in the mail boxes of each member. This particular issue arises out of the answer to a question I asked of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) wherein he denied making a certain statement to the members of the Langstaff community who are present in this assembly tonight.

By way of background information, the Langstaff community is located in the town of Markham on the south side of old Highway 7, between Yonge St. and Bayview Ave. The boundary on the west is Yonge St., on the east it is Bayview Ave., on the north it is old Highway 7, and on the south, it is a cemetery.

[10:30]

On the north side of Highway 7 there exists 600 acres of vacant land owned by the city of Toronto and which comprises the Langstaff Jail Farm. With respect to this Langstaff community, there are 84 homes that are devoted to single-family occupancy. In addition, there are buildings which contain businesses in the number of 120. In the residences there are 223 occupants. In the 120 businesses, there are in excess of 800 employees. All the businesses, whether or not they are used in part for residential purposes, are assessed as businesses and pay a full commercial or industrial tax to the town of Markham.

Some of the homeowners have lived in their present locations for over 40 years. Several are infirm; one is blind and a number of them are of advanced age. It is not just their wish to remain; it is their need. The effect of relocating these people would be so injurious as to cripple them seriously or kill them.

The province has agreed to purchase their homes but at the prices quoted they would not be able to purchase others in which to relocate. In addition, no compensation is offered for mental damage or loss of surroundings which have been their environments for the better part of their adult lives.

Some are family businesses, carried on from the houses in which they grow and if their growth is cut off at this stage, they will die. There is nowhere else, because of modern planning concepts, where they can relocate.

Other businesses are more sumptuous by comparison. All of the businesses have located there because of the unique situation which is present. Some have located there because they cannot afford large, modern plants. Some have located there because of transportation needs.

Some have located there because of the market. Some have located there because their suppliers are there. Some have located there because their competition is there and customers can compare. Some have located there because of open storage and some have located there because of a combination of all these reasons.

If the parkway scheme proceeds all of these businesses will be seriously affected or, in some cases, completely destroyed. There is no question that 800 employees will be temporarily or permanently unemployed. This is unbelievable in today’s situation.

Mr. Speaker: Thirty seconds.

Mr. Stong: In consideration of the proposed plan of placing the parkway belt through this entire community it is obvious --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired. Would he close off, please?

Mr. Stong: Five minutes? Five minutes has expired?

Mr. Hodgson: Sit down.

Mr. Stong: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t realize my five minutes had expired.

Mr. Speaker: It goes very quickly. Thank you. The hon. minister.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, if I can just wind up very briefly?

Mr. Speaker: In about 15 seconds?

Mr. Stong: Thank you. The Langstaff community attended at the Treasurer’s office on Nov. 18 and he indicated, in an environment or an attitude of non-compliance and in uncooperative terms, that the situation would continue to exist.

Mr. Speaker: I think we should end here. Thank you very much. The hon. minister may reply.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, occasionally one feels one’s age and one’s experience --

Mr. Lewis: Mostly age.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mostly age, the Leader of the Opposition says. The member for York Centre has had in his possession a copy of a letter which I wrote to the Langstaff Community Association last Friday -- today is Tuesday -- which ends this way:

“We are attempting to do just that. My interjection was not in any way meant to be arrogant. If I have offended your group, please accept my apologies.”

I let it rest at that except to say that the member’s pressing of this point, his distribution of the pamphlet, his bringing this group down here tonight is simply an indication of the commitment -- or the lack of commitment, to put it more correctly -- of him and his party to sensible land use planning in this province. I leave it at that. I apologize to the people he brought in tonight.

Mr. Speaker: This matter is concluded.

The hon. member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) had also expressed her dissatisfaction -- earlier today I believe it was -- with an answer given her.

Mr. Lewis: That is right. If the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) wishes to apologize as well --

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment, thank you. The hon. member for Carleton East has the opportunity now for five minutes to explain her dissatisfaction.

HYDRO TRANSFORMER STATION

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, on Nov. 27 I asked a question of the Minister of the Environment concerning the proposed Hydro switching station at McCaul and Orde Sts. in downtown Toronto.

Today, the minister replied to my question and said, in effect, that he saw no reason for his ministry to initiate a study of the proposal as had been requested by Toronto city hall. He advanced several reasons for his conclusion, none of which appears to me to be an adequate explanation for rejection of the municipality’s request.

Furthermore, the minister’s response is unsatisfactory in total because it seems to me to be in contradiction of the spirit of a law which, he has assured us, will be proclaimed before the new year -- the Environmental Assessment Act.

Let me first turn my attention to the background of the proposed switching station and why the minister’s reasons for rejecting a review are not adequate. The project, as he knows, was first proposed in 1968; it was to be bounded by Cecil, Henry, Baldwin and Beverley Sts. The proposal met with strong community opposition with the result that the province directed, in 1971, that Hydro find a new site in the area which was not zoned residential.

In November, 1973, Hydro held a meeting with residents in the southeast Spadina area and proposed to build a redesigned switching station at McCaul and Orde Sts. Community spokesmen expressed concern about this proposal, as they had about the initial site proposal, and Hydro promised it would meet again with community representatives.

This meeting was held in April, 1974, but Hydro had not changed its basic proposal and no accord was reached. Hydro again promised to arrange yet a third meeting with community spokesmen but instead, in June, 1975, it began seeking demolition and building permits to proceed with construction of the switching station at McCaul and Orde.

Toronto city council has now deferred dealing with the Hydro application for demolition of two houses on McCaul for a period of three weeks -- two of which already have gone by. What does the Minister of the Environment tell us?

First of all, he tells us that the site is not zoned residential. That is not good enough. The site may not be zoned residential but it is clearly in the heart of a residential area. Considering developments both in the city of Toronto and in the minister’s own government concerning efforts to revitalize downtown areas the minister’s reply is inadequate.

He tells us also that the houses are empty. Of course they are empty; Hydro emptied them by expropriating the properties and evicting the residents this summer.

Finally, he tells us that only eight people from the community attended the meeting with Hydro in April, 1974. I would like to know if the minister checked with Hydro to find out who was invited to that meeting? How many people did Hydro notify? I know who went to that meeting -- five concerned people from the immediate neighbourhood and three representatives of the Spadina East Steering Committee. The Spadina East Committee is an active citizens’ group which meets twice a month and has a mailing list of about 100 residents.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, I ask why is it that a government which claims distaste for confrontation on one hand sees fit to turn around and demand head counts on the other? Would the minister prefer that community groups provide large angry crowds at all meetings?

The minister has indicated that every conceivable government agency has reviewed and approved this proposal. True but, I insist, unsatisfactory. Why will this government proclaim the Environmental Assessment Act if not to re-review just such development projects? Why will the minister not reconsider and indicate now to the city of Toronto that he will initiate a review of this project as soon as his government proclaims the Act?

[Applause.]

Mr. Foulds: Why isn’t the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) clapping?

An hon. member: That’s more than the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) got.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, there are two questions involved here, I think the hon. member for Carleton East will agree. It’s the question of the need of the switching station and, secondly, whether or not the site is a proper one. I understand the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) may dwell briefly on the question of need, and I might just review the history as far as the choice of the site is concerned and indicate what involvement my ministry had from the environmental point of view.

I understand that this land itself had been acquired since the early 1960s, and that since 1968 there were a total of eight sites that were considered before the particular Beverley block site which, as the hon. member knows, was the site that Hydro had decided to build on about four or five years ago. That was abandoned because of citizen objection; then, after that, six more sites were considered and finally they ended up with the Orde-McCaul St. site that we’re discussing this evening.

The consideration of all the sites, I understand, involved the Toronto Board of Health, the Toronto Planning Board, the Ministry of Labour and my ministry. The commissioner of planning of the Toronto Planning Board recommended the Orde-McCaul property because he said there was no source of any danger; it is compatible with the present nature of the area; the station is not an environmental problem; it does not generate traffic or noise; there are no wires, no emissions, no effluent; there are not even any windows. Next door to this particular site is a board of education warehouse, which in fact does generate a lot of truck traffic. The land is zoned commercial and meets all applicable zoning bylaws.

The whole block is of a commercial character and, as I mentioned in my answer this afternoon, there have been two public meetings. I’m not sure whether or not they were properly advertised or whether all the homeowners in the area were notified. This is something, of course, that can be confirmed later, but there was a letter to the Ministry of the Environment and a reply from the senior environmental planner that says in part, “We do not consider that the proposal would have significant environmental impact, provided steps are taken to minimize the apparent bulk of the building.”

I understand from the correspondence from the Toronto planner that he says in his report: “The original plan to build a tall structure on the site of what is now to be the Hydro Block has been replaced by a much smaller building proposed for what is predominantly vacant land at Orde and McCaul Sts.”

I understand that what is proposed for this site is what is called an SF switchgear station, which is the smallest station for this particular purpose.

I just close, Mr. Speaker, and say that we have no objection to further environmental assessment to this, if, in fact, there is consideration -- a collective consideration -- that that’s necessary; but as of this point, it has been acceptable to my ministry from an environmental point of view.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment referred part of the answer to the Minister of Energy. He has one minute.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, to give some of the background to this I should say that my information is that the meeting to which the hon. member refers was advertised to all of the residents in the area, in English and Chinese, by mail to all registered owners and to all members in the southeast Spadina-Queen area. That’s the information that I have been given.

Very briefly, this project proposal results from an indication from the Toronto electrical system -- the local municipal utility -- that they were concerned about the reliability of service in the core of Metropolitan Toronto in the late 1960s, since which time a number of major buildings have been added in the downtown area of the city of Toronto. Without quoting reports -- and I could quote a number, both from the commissioner of planning of the city of Toronto and from the Toronto electrical system, which are, of course, municipal departments and utilities -- let me make it clear that if the city of Toronto wants to defer the demolition permits --

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

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and call for independent reviews, then Ontario Hydro is not pushing the project.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. This matter is completed then. I believe before I declare the adjournment of the House the hon. Minister of the Environment, as acting House leader in the absence of the House leader, wishes to give us the programme for tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand that tomorrow we will start with Bill 20 in committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: I deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried.

The House adjourned at 10:45 p.m.