Hansard Transcripts 1977-Dec-09 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

L075 - Fri 9 Dec 1977 / Ven 9 déc 1977

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ACTIVITIES OF RCMP

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have some information in response to questions raised by the leader of the New Democratic Party on November 1.

The questions were in relation to his party and any investigation of it by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police during the years 1971 to 1973, inclusive.

In response to those questions I wrote to the Hon. Francis Fox and the Hon. Ron Basford on November 2, asking them for information in this regard. At the same time I provided the leader of the New Democratic Party with copies of my letters to those two gentlemen. Late on December 6, I received a rather short reply from Mr. Fox which said, in part, and I quote:

“I have been assured by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that they have not conducted an investigation into the activities of the New Democratic Party as such. As I have stated in the House of Commons, however, membership in a political party does not give immunity to anyone who would tend to promote changes brought on by violent and undemocratic means.”

Mr. Fox went on to say in his letter that M. S. Sexsmith, deputy director general, operations, for the RCMP security service, would provide any further information in this regard.

As a result of this letter, I requested the following day that Mr. R. M. McLeod, acting assistant Deputy Attorney General, meet with RCMP officials in Ottawa. As a result of that meeting, a summary of RCMP activity in this regard was obtained. That summary, obtained from the RCMP, is as follows, and again I quote:

“1. The RCMP have not conducted an investigation into the activities of the New Democratic Party.

“2. After a complete review of their files and to the best of their knowledge, Assistant Commissioner Sexsmith and his staff advise that no member or agent of the RCMP has ever committed any illegal entry of any NDP office or other NDP premises anywhere.

“3. The RCMP have always acted in the belief that membership in a political party does not give immunity to anyone who would tend to promote changes brought on by violent and undemocratic means and thereby attract the attention of the RCMP on the interest of national security.

“4. Between 1970 and 1973 the RCMP did conduct investigations into the activities of certain members of the Waffle group while it was still a part of the NDP. This was explained as follows:

“(a) When the Waffle group came into being, it invited persons outside the NDP to join its ranks. These persons included ex-members of the Communist Party of Canada and members of the Canadian Trotskyist movements. The leaders of the League for Socialist Action (Trotskyists), in fact, directed their members to join the Waffle group.

“(b) The RCMP investigation of certain members of the Waffle group established that subversive elements penetrated the NDP through the Waffle in order to gain more respectability, credibility and influence.”

Ms. Gigantes: Subversive elements, huh?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: “Although the RCMP investigation concentrated on individuals of security interest, inquiries were broadened sufficiently to put the activities of these individuals in proper perspective. The investigation was de-emphasized” --and I want to emphasize this -- “the investigation was de-emphasized after the NDP decided to rid itself of the Waffle.

“The individuals of concern to the RCMP, having lost the legitimacy of membership in the NDP, also lost interest in the Waffle. The RCMP concern with these individuals was not reduced, but any concerns that the RCMP had that these subversive elements were using the Waffle as a means of penetrating the NDP and therefore as a means of acquiring credibility and influence was accordingly eliminated.

“(c) During the period referred to in paragraph (b) above, the RCMP concern with individuals in the Waffle was increased when it was found that a Canadian news media person, closely associated with leading people in the Waffle, was meeting clandestinely with Konstantin Geyvandov, a Russian KGB intelligence officer who, between August 1968 and September 1973, operated in Canada as a Pravda correspondent.”

Mr. Nixon: Where is he a member of?

Mr. Gaunt: KGB.

Mr. Turner: We knew it all along.

Mr. Nixon: Was he a British subject?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, but he had been here for two years.

Mr. Nixon: Pravda.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: “The RCMP investigation confirmed that this Canadian provided reports to Geyvandov during these clandestine meetings and on at least six occasions was paid money by Geyvandov. Amongst other things, the Canadian was specifically asked by Geyvandov to provide reports to him on the NDP and the Waffle.

“(d) The RCMP believed that Geyvandov’s purpose in seeking such reports was to assist the Russian KGB intelligence service in deciding whether the Waffle group or any of its members were worthy of further attention by the KGB.”

Mr. Gaunt: Now a pipeline right to the Kremlin.

Mr. Nixon: They said they would fire him when they got that report.

Mr. Martel: Our KGB will get you now. I am going to turn the KGB loose on the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Hon. Mr. Davis: They were looking for you!

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: “(e) Geyvandov returned to the Soviet Union in September 1973. On January 8, 1974, the USSR Embassy in Ottawa was advised by the Department of External Affairs that because of activities unrelated to his work as a journalist, Geyvandov would not be permitted to return to Canada.

“(f) Consideration was given by the RCMP to the possibility of laying a charge against this Canadian news media person but the conclusion reached was that no charge could be laid.”

Mr. Speaker, that is the conclusion of the summary that was obtained by my office, more particularly Mr. McLeod from the RCMP, in relation to the activity of the RCMP following the receipt of the brief letter to which I referred from Mr. Francis Fox.

NUCLEAR CONTROL BOARD

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on December 5 the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed) expressed concern that provincial interests might be abrogated by the federal government’s recently proposed Nuclear Control and Administration Act and asked whether there had been meaningful consultation between the federal and provincial governments on this Act.

This has been a major concern of my own for many months now. In fact, the lack of federal-provincial consultation in this area has prompted considerable correspondence on this matter between the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Hon. Alastair Gillespie, and myself, dating from April 25 of this year. I have made it very clear in letters and telexes to Mr. Gillespie, dated April 25, June 24, September 9 and November 16, that this is a matter of serious concern to Ontario.

In summary, on three separate occasions I have asked that the substance of this new federal bill be submitted to the provinces for consideration before its introduction into the Commons. I also expressed specific concern over the proposed decontamination fund and the way it would operate.

I expressed concern about the degree of control that the federal government would exercise over heavy water plants. I expressed concern over the possible duplication of hearings, and unnecessary delays which might result from the new hearing process under the Nuclear Control Board. I expressed concern over the extent of the federal government’s authority over uranium as an energy source. I have made it abundantly clear to the federal minister that many aspects of this Act affect the provinces, particularly Ontario, which is undertaking an important nuclear program.

To quote from my most recent telex to Mr. Gillespie, of November 16:

“I can only reiterate Ontario’s concern. Ontario is both a major producer of uranium and the major user. Consequently, we are concerned with both the jurisdictional ramifications and economic impact that the Nuclear Control and Administration Act may have on uranium mines and mills; fuel fabricating; heavy water production; uranium marketing, both domestically and abroad; on nuclear power production; and, of course, on the whole spectrum of irradiated fuel management.”

Also, in a letter of September 9, 1977, to the federal minister, I said: “I do hope ... you will reconsider your position in the light of open disclosure of proposed legislative changes by other parts of the federal government, and make available the key proposed legislative changes in a form which can provide a basis for meaningful assessment and discussion.”

In spite of these efforts, other than peripheral discussions at the staff level about what the bill would likely contain, there has been no meaningful consultation on energy-related matters in the drafting of this bill. I understand that the ministries with other interests, however, have also held discussions with federal authorities with varying degrees of success.

I would also like to point out that the new Nuclear Control Act very clearly separates environmental from energy concerns. Questions on this issue, and as to how the Environmental Assessment Act process should be coordinated with the Nuclear Control Board hearings, ought to be properly addressed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr). The Act also clearly discusses occupational health and safety issues which would fall under the aegis of the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson).

It is a matter of great concern to me, as I expressed at the recent federal-provincial energy ministers’ conference in Ottawa, that the federal government would take such an aloof approach on an issue of such substantive importance to the provinces.

[10:15]

This unilateral action without provincial consultation was very similar to the way the federal government introduced the Canadian home insulation program earlier this year.

I was successful, with the support of the other provinces, in having Mr. Gillespie recognize the error of his ways on that issue. Because of my initiative as chairman of the Council of Provincial Energy Ministers, changes are being made in that program. It now allows for Alberta and Quebec to participate in the insulation program and, in addition, a process to initiate other changes was agreed upon which will broaden the program so that its application will be more meaningful to all sections of Ontario.

I regret the attitude of the federal government on this matter of the Nuclear Control and Administration Act; I have not stopped pressing for more consultation on this and the related matters of uranium and thorium legislation. I hope that, through the new forum of the Council of Provincial Energy Ministers, I will be able to make the federal government come to recognize that there must be more provincial consultation at every stage in the development and carrying out of new policies which so directly affect Ontario and other provinces.

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). I must say I’m fascinated by this KGB story, but I think we’ll let that go for now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why aren’t you asking a question? I thought you might.

Mr. Nixon: Let it sit just the way it is.

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll just wait on that.

Mr. Warner: They’re a paranoid group.

Mr. S. Smith: It seems to me your report is casting a cloud over the press gallery, but we’ll wait.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT SYSTEM

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Does he have anything to report on the intermediate capacity transit project of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation in response to my earlier question to him in the House concerning that? If he does, will he also comment on reports that are circulating now that air cooling of the linear induction motors has been abandoned in favour of liquid cooling? Would the minister agree that this would almost certainly add to the complexity and possibly even to the size and weight of the vehicles? Can he tell us, is he up to date on the problems and can he answer the questions I asked him about 10 days ago?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I’m getting the information that the hon. member asked for. I would mention that my estimates now are in committee and we have set aside Monday evening next to deal with the UTDC project and with questions that the committee or any member of the House may have regarding UTDC.

As far as the question regarding liquid cooling of the linear induction motor is concerned, I have not heard anything about this aspect. It has not been reported to me at this date.

Mr. S. Smith: A brief supplementary: Although I’ll be very happy to hear the minister in estimates, does the minister not agree that this project, which is costing some $55 million or so as he attempts to reinvent the streetcar and the bus, is surely something that the minister himself ought to be up to date on at all times? Is not 10 days a rather long time to come up with answers to a rather vital question?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do get periodic reports on the UTDC project, but I am not in touch with the UTDC board or president on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister would comment on the rumour that the cars are being lengthened substantially, which would fit into the question the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) has asked him, namely that we seem to be moving to nothing more than a glorified streetcar, having spent something like $85 million on this project already?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know where the hon. member gets the $85 million figure, but I’m sure we’ll have ample opportunity on Monday evening to discuss what has been spent on this project to date.

I did state in the House in my preliminary answer to the Leader of the Opposition that there was some consideration being given to some lengthening of the vehicle itself. This has been brought about because of advancements in the design as the project has moved forward. I can’t tell the hon. member exactly what percentage of lengthening is being considered, but we’ll have all that information for him on Monday evening.

STATUS OF REPORTS

Mr. S. Smith: May I ask a question of the Minister of Correctional Services? Could the minister tell us about two reports on his ministry’s activities?

First of all, at what stage is the Ombudsman’s report on provincial correctional institutions? Will we see it before Christmas?

Secondly, has he consulted with his colleague, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), to determine when the report of the royal commission on the Don Jail will be ready for us to look at?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Probably by the time it is torn down.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Under the procedures of the Ombudsman Act, his reports go back and forth at the civil service level. The final report is about a week or 10 days away from coming to my office. As I said last night in estimates, I haven’t read it and I won’t read it then. I have to print about 500 to 600 copies for the media, the opposition parties, the Legislature et cetera. I would hope that would be some time in the middle of January, although it’s a difficult time of year in the printing industry. When it comes back, I will consider it received and it will be available within 24 hours.

In my estimates last night I informed the critics of the opposition party and of the New Democratic Party that it would be approximately 10 days or so before the printer would be delivering it. As soon as I can get a relatively firm estimate of when it will arrive, I will tell them so they can be prepared for it. To the best of my knowledge, it will be some time about the third or fourth week of January.

As for the question pertaining to the royal commission, I have had a communication from Judge Shapiro which states that he is proceeding. It is more of a courtesy letter, because he is not responsible to me; it is a matter for the Attorney General.

The ministry has been providing Judge Shapiro with additional information and with various other kinds of reports, to keep him up to date. This information has not necessarily been on the Don Jail because, as I understand it, he is looking at conditions in general -- staff and so forth. He assured me in the letter, which I received about three weeks ago, that he was working towards the completion of his report. I don’t know what communications the Attorney General has had with him.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a brief supplementary, I thank the minister for his answer. Would he be good enough to consult with his colleague, the Attorney General, to determine when this commission, which was established in November 1974 to study allegations of brutality, will present its final report? Although these allegations relate to a jail that is to be closed by the end of the year -- and while I hope it won’t be destroyed, it may well be in the future -- it would be nice to see that report. Could he please make this inquiry of the Attorney General and let us know what the situation is?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, I will.

I would just point out one other thing to the Leader of the Opposition. When studies take this long -- and I’m not casting any aspersions on why it has taken so long -- there is a tremendous difficulty for the critics of the parties for the Legislature and for the media, because they’re longitudinal studies. The people start into them and then find that problems cease to exist or have been corrected. They are very difficult to interpret or to comment upon meaningfully.

I will ask the Attorney General about the status of Judge Shapiro’s report but, just from reading that letter, I would think it would be about five or six years away.

ACTIVITIES OF RCMP

Mr. Lewis: I am afraid I might contaminate the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, by asking any question at all.

I have just read the Attorney General’s extraordinary statement -- and may I ask him, just out of curiosity, what he thinks about the statement he read? His statement was, as I understand it, largely a report on what the RCMP had revealed to his own staff. What does the Attorney General think about all this stuff? How does he react to all of that as an Attorney General, as a noted civil libertarian, as a man of exquisite judgement, taste and talent? How does he react to this material? I am not going to tell him what I think, but how does he feel about it all?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Flattery will get you anywhere.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are getting carried away, but you forgot to mention he is an artist.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, and an artist; I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Despite all those very complimentary adjectives attributed to my undoubted talents by the leader of the New Democratic Party, I hardly consider myself to be any sort of expert on national security matters.

I was very concerned about the allegation that any police force might be investigating the activities of a legitimate and very important political party. I think my concern was reflected by my immediate request, and I supplied the leader of the NDP with copies of my letters. I hope this indicated my concern in this matter to the leader of the New Democratic Party.

I was somewhat surprised when so many weeks went by. When the leader of the New Democratic Party asked me informally in the House a week or so ago when I might tell the House whether I had received any reply from Mr. Fox, I was rather curious about the delay myself because I had been led to believe, on an almost daily basis, that a letter was forthcoming.

The letter that finally arrived on my desk was not totally satisfactory. I felt that if I had simply reported to the House on the basis of that letter, the leader of the New Democratic Party justifiably would have been quite unsatisfied with my answer.

I read into the record virtually the whole letter from Mr. Fox, which said that they had “not conducted an investigation into the activities of the New Democratic Party as such.” With respect, I didn’t think it would satisfy the members opposite to simply state that that was the response.

I am sure one of the questions would have been, was I satisfied with that response? Obviously not, because I instructed Mr. McLeod, our senior Crown law officer in the criminal field, under the Deputy Attorney General and myself, to meet with the RCMP and obtain clarification as to what they meant by an investigation into a political party “as such.”

I think we all have to be very concerned about maintaining the integrity and independence of political parties. We have to keep them free from any unjust harassment from any quarter, whether it be from police forces or any other quarter.

As a result, Mr. McLeod received a summary which I read into the record in its entirety. Whether or not the RCMP should have been concerned -- which I see as implicit in the leader of the New Democratic Party’s question -- quite clearly is not something that I feel qualified to make a judgement on.

However, I think it is very clear from this report that the RCMP had legitimate concern about certain individuals who may have formed a very small part of a group trying to infiltrate a legitimate political party. Obviously, no political party has any control over the members who may seek to join its ranks.

[10:30]

Mr. Makarchuk: Don’t forget your Western Guard association.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think it’s quite clear from the RCMP report that it was concerned about these individuals and the fact they might exploit their membership in a legitimate political party. As to whether or not I would agree that their concern was justified, I don’t have all the facts on which their concern was based. I’ve really attempted to communicate to the Legislature all the relevant information I have in this very sensitive matter.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t regard it as sensitive any more -- not after this, I can tell the minister -- but let me thank him.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I wonder if I might comment on that. I hope it has been made abundantly clear by this statement that the RCMP had no grounds at any time to suspect the activities of the New Democratic Party. I just want to underline that.

Mr. Lewis: Nor did they ever thank us, in the interest of national security, for turfing the Waffle out. I never got a letter of commendation from the RCMP.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s something I intended to add in my original remarks.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I look back over there and I am not sure.

Mr. Yakabuski: They’ve still got one there.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not in a position to speculate as to the nature of the concern of the leader of the New Democratic Party with the Waffle.

Mr. Lewis: I think they were just silly.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Obviously he had a sufficient amount of concern, if I may say with respect, to stake his own political future and put it on the line in kicking them out, I say to his everlasting credit.

Mr. MacDonald: You watch the Western Guard in your ranks.

Mr. Lewis: I may share with the Attorney General privately that it was a matter of mental health, not national security. It was pathology, not ideology, that was involved.

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the Premier on an unrelated subject, thank goodness? How is the government of Ontario going to respond to the suggestion that came from the federal government in the House of Commons yesterday that somehow it was the environmental standards which we were imposing on the resource companies doing business in Ontario that lay at the root of some of the economic difficulty; and that either we should reduce the environmental standards or perhaps return some of the money which has been paid to maintain those standards? Is it possible to win from the Premier a repudiation of that federal suggestion?

Mr. MacDonald: As he did the Japanese cartel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did have occasion, not only to read his remarks, but to observe Mr. Gillespie in action. There are some benefits also, on occasion, from television. Without checking all of the factual and financial information, I really found it regrettable that a federal minister of the Crown would make such observations.

As I said in my reply to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, I don’t think one can ignore -- nor should we, nor should the select committee -- the balance that must exist between the economic viability of any industry and the need to move ahead with improvement of the environment.

As I understand it in my fairly lengthy discussions with both Inco and Falconbridge, they will acknowledge our environmental controls did impose upon them the need for further capital investments. But they also have stated to me that their present situation, their ability to produce competitively in the world marketplace, at least at this point in time, has not been made much more difficult by our environmental controls. It has had some impact. I think it’s very regrettable that a minister of the Crown in Ottawa would seek to lay the blame on a province that is endeavouring in its own way to move ahead in the environmental field. I guess if I were provoked by some supplementaries I might even use stronger language, but I was very disappointed in Mr. Gillespie’s attitude and I make no bones about it.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: doesn’t the Premier think that Mr. Gillespie was wilfully and maliciously intruding in the affairs of the Ontario economy in a fashion clearly ultra vires; that, like all other federal Liberals, he just plays games with problems of the economy, games which are mirrored here as well? Can I ask the Premier for a simple yes or no?

Mr. S. Smith: Have you thought of a road show?

Mr. Lewis: Actually, I have a couple of months.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess the Liberals are embarrassed by it, as they should be.

Mr. S. Smith: You don’t like what he said either.

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t you say yes?

Hon. Mr. Wells: He is part of their Metro campaign.

Mr. Makarchuk: They probably endorse his views.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to say that it was totally wilful or malicious. I might use the word “incompetent”; incompetent might be a better way to describe his sort of instantaneous response yesterday.

Mr. Lewis: I’d accept that, too. Can the Premier be driven further by a further supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if one uses the words “malicious” and “wilful,” it means perhaps that person gave it a great deal of thought before he made that response.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Premier think he is incapable of that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not prepared to give Mr. Gillespie that amount of credit on that particular statement.

Mr. Martel: Might I add a little fuel to the fire, then?

Mr. Makarchuk: The pacific member from Sudbury.

Mr. Martel: Will the province, rather than reducing the resource tax as the feds have asked, suggest to the feds that they get out of the imposition of double taxation, which they brought in several years ago in the field that was the prerogative of the province; that is, the taxing of revenues from the mining industry?

Mr. Lewis: Despite the Supreme Court of Canada.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I might suggest that to them. I might suggest getting out of the 10-cent excise tax on gasoline. I might suggest a lot of things to them; in fact, they have been suggested. Of course their response in this particular area demonstrates their lack of capacity to come to grips with basic economic issues, which lack of capacity I think is being demonstrated conclusively day after day in the House of Commons.

Mr. Nixon: The 10 cent tax is federal but the 19 cents is yours. Do we have to go through that again?

Mr. Yakabuski: Don’t defend them; apologize for them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: If anybody is in bed together, it is the Conservatives and the feds.

Mr. Yakabuski: You’re one and the same.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are running into trouble along with them.

Mr. Yakabuski: They’re afraid of their shadow.

Mr. Speaker: You are wasting the question period.

Mr. Martel: A further supplementary to the Premier: Since the feds have made some suggestion with respect to what the province might do, might the province now ask the feds to stockpile nickel as they stockpiled uranium, wheat and sugar and subsidized gold for many years to keep those industries alive rather than to allow the disaster to occur in Sudbury? Would the province ask the feds to stockpile some nickel?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand that suggestion has been made to the government of Canada. To date, I don’t believe they are considering it, but that suggestion was made some many weeks ago.

Mr. S. Smith: What does Joe Clark recommend?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. Never mind Joe. You guys are defending them again. You made that mistake two years ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to hear the Minister of Education, if I might.

SCHOOL CUTBACKS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Brantford asked me a question, which I must say gave me some concern, concerning fire evacuation in fire drills at the W. Ross Macdonald School in Brantford. I asked for a complete report on this, and I am informed that the evacuation procedures in the W. Ross Macdonald School have been established and reviewed in cooperation with the Ministry of Government Services’ safety branch, and they have been accepted by the fire prevention officers of the Brantford fire department.

A review of the records has established these two things: 1. At no time was the staff unable to get the children out. 2. The range of time for evacuation is from two minutes and 10 seconds to four minutes and 30 seconds, with an average evacuation time of three minutes for both classroom and residence settings. These statistics also included three false alarms which were inadvertently caused during that period when the records were kept. I am further informed that these evacuation times are acceptable to the school fire safety office.

In presenting this report, I would say if the hon. member knows of any other instance that doesn’t conform to what I have been informed and told, I would be happy to have him give me that information. These are the facts I have ascertained from my review of the situation.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Would the minister in that case talk to the staff and the counsellors at the school and particularly investigate the problems they have experienced in evacuating students at night, not during the time when the school was operating and the classes were full?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I particularly asked that question. In fact, I delayed a few days in giving this answer to ask them to be sure there had not been any indications of times when there was a difficulty. As my friend knows, there was the very unfortunate death of the superintendent there and there is now an acting superintendent. However, I think the transition is going well in that regard.

I will be glad to double-check that again because we are certainly concerned about fire safety regulations and the safety of the children, and I want to be sure everything that is possible is done to guarantee that.

Mr. Makarchuk: A further supplementary: The problem arises at night. As I said, the reason for the problem is the lack of staff. As a result, they cannot get the students out of the rooms. I think that is the area the minister should investigate.

LAKESHORE EROSION

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the fact that approximately 30 land owners along the shore of Lake Erie east of Port Burwell are planning a major suit against both the federal government and the government of Ontario for erosion damage to their property which they claim is caused by the construction of a breakwater at Port Burwell; in view of the fact that one farmer by the name of Mr. John Balthes has lost 75 acres to erosion; and in view of the fact that they are planning to spend up to $15,000 on legal fees, I was wondering if the minister has any program that would be of assistance to these farmers? If so, would he consider meeting with them and discussing it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The details have not been brought directly to my attention, although I am sure my staff are aware of them. I will be glad to look at them before I agree to see them, but normally I would be delighted to see people of that nature.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Supplementary: Is there a program available then that the minister is aware of at the present time that would be of assistance?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Since I have been minister this has not been a problem. In other words, as far as I know, we haven’t advanced money. I understand this was a major problem two or three years ago with the high waters in Lake Erie. I believe there was some federal-provincial money for some dike and shoreline protection. Whether this is carrying on, I am not sure; but again I can check.

HERITAGE LANGUAGE PROGRAM

Mr. di Santo: I have a question of the Minister of Education. I would like to ask the minister if he can confirm the report which appeared in the Globe and Mail on December 7 in which he is quoted as saying that the North York Board of Education is charging for heritage language programs and that he is not prepared to change the decision made by the ministry. Is he at this time prepared to give assurance to the House that the ministry is willing to make sure the heritage program will be initiated in the largest board of education in the province?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am informed from my discussions with the North York board that the program will be instituted but that they do intend to charge a $25 fee. There is no legislation that prohibits that at the present time. Therefore, the decision as to whether that course of action is taken really rests with the North York board. As the member knows, this program is under the continuing education program. There are boards across this province -- in fact, probably North York and many of the Metro boards -- that do charge certain fees, but certainly not the full cost of the program for various programs.

We really have nothing except persuasive powers. As I said in that article in the paper, I don’t agree with the fee. I would hope the North York board might consider not charging it, but we have to recognize they are an elected board, just as we are elected, and we have given them the ground rules under which to bring in this program. They then have a certain leeway and, as elected members, have to make their decisions. I think the proper place for the people who feel the fee should not be charged to direct their attention to is the elected trustees of the board of education in North York.

[10:45]

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: Wouldn’t the minister have the power to finance directly the total cost of the courses? Doesn’t the minister realize that by charging $25 since the institution of the heritage language program, the board of education of North York is charging more than what private groups were charging last year, which was $15? And doesn’t he think this is a shame and the program a failure?

Hon. Mr. Wells: As I said a few minutes ago, I don’t agree with the $25. I would be quite pleased if they did not charge for the program, which is the case in most of the other boards in this province. But the residents who feel that policy is wrong should direct their attention to the duly elected trustees of the North York board.

Mr. Warner: Surely you can pay more than 28 per cent.

Mr. Turner: Why don’t you take him on?

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Is there not a limitation within the Education Act as to how much a board can charge a parent for any program that it offers? It’s my understanding that the limitation would not go as high as $25, but I stand to be corrected on that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be glad if my friend would show me the section. I asked our lawyers whether there was anything that, first of all, prevented boards from charging for a continuing education program. They tell me there is nothing in the Act that prevents boards from charging. It was not drawn to my attention that there was anything that set a limit. Certainly the boards could not charge above what the program was costing, but most of the charges on the continuing education programs are nominal charges, sometimes for supplies and equipment used, and so forth. But I would be glad to look at it.

TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry and Tourism: I would like to ask the minister what action he took in response to a brief, presented by the Sudbury chapter of the Ontario Motor League in 1973, wherein it was predicted that the greater Sudbury area would be faced with extreme financial hardship in the near future because of the decline in the mining operations; and that, because of this fact, the minister could and should effect improvements that would establish tourism more firmly as a major northern Ontario industry in order to compensate for this anticipated loss of revenue. What action was taken on the part of the minister?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in trying to recall what action was taken on a memo that came into existence in November 1973, I could not be sure at this particular moment what our discussions happened to be at the time.

However, as a result of the input, not only by the group from the Sudbury area but from across this province, there were changes made by this government in various tourism programs to assist the local organizations on a direct funding basis to help them establish their advertising promotion operations in a more concrete way. Indeed, some of the areas of the development corporation were changed to afford greater opportunity for the private sector to upgrade and improve the facilities in the tourist industry and to give a greater number of people the opportunity to become involved in the tourist industry in a very direct way.

ALUMINUM WIRING

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. With the knowledge of the tragic death of a baby resulting from a fire in Gleneaden Court in Bramalea, as well as of three house fires in Oakville and a house fire in Milton, where in each case Ontario Hydro had inspected the homes and discovered illegal receptacles hooked up to aluminum wiring, will the minister demand that Ontario Hydro stop its cover-up of this situation and begin helping citizens by replacing the illegal receptacles?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that a royal commissioner currently is studying this whole matter, reviewing it, hearing evidence in an open and objective way, to determine whether there is any such relationship. I don’t think the member can conclude that, merely because there was aluminum wiring, the accidents, death or fires were attributable to its existence. That is the function of the royal commission that has been set up.

When those recommendations are in, they will be given very close consideration by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Grossman), who is responsible in terms of the building code -- I hope the member appreciates that -- and not my ministry. But Hydro, I can assure the hon. member, will take note of those recommendations.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that Ontario Hydro had banned the steel screw receptacles for aluminum wiring in 1974, had examined homes in 1976 finding the illegal receptacles but has never reported the same back to the owners, nor have they presented such evidence to the public inquiry on aluminum wiring?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: These are matters that surely should be dealt with by the royal commission. Ontario Hydro inspects wiring in this province; there’s no question about that. If there isn’t proper inspection, then I would assume they wouldn’t get the service hookup. But what happens after that inspection, I suppose, is something else again. I certainly am not going to be drawn into some false conclusion just because of an allegation that the hon. member may make or he may have read.

Mr. Warner: Is the minister not aware that instead of presenting the evidence which it has, Ontario Hydro has spent its time in the inquiry cross-examining witnesses and having foreknowledge of the submissions made by witnesses before those submissions were made to the inquiry? They’ve been busying themselves with cross-examining people instead of presenting evidence which they have themselves.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a question. That’s a statement.

Mr. Warner: No, I asked him if he was aware of that.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Ontario Hydro is not on trial in connection with that hearing.

Mr. Warner: Maybe they should be.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Ontario Hydro is there to be helpful in every way that it can be.

HIGHWAY SIGNS

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications --

Mr. Reed: Oh, this may be a tough one.

Mr. G. Taylor: In view of the fact that I have a community in my riding known as Penetanguishene, and in view of the fact that we have road signs indicating the distance to get there, could I ask the minister -- not that I want a select committee on the matter -- to have somebody from his ministry investigate why the signs giving directions to that community say “Penetang” and not “Penetanguishene,” even though I understand there is a restraint program on?

Mr. Foulds: They can’t spell it.

An hon. member: They can’t get it all on the sign.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of this particular problem, but since the hon. member has brought it to my attention, I’ll see if we can’t find a little longer board and a few more letters to put the full name on.

ALUMINUM WIRING

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It has to do with the lack of response to the known fact that houses in several areas have been inspected and these homes have been found to have steel screw receptacles. Ontario Hydro inspected these homes in 1976 and has known about it.

My question to the minister is, in view of the fact that the hearing on aluminum wiring will not be reporting until the fall, is he content to let this known hazard in these homes go untouched or unreplaced until next fall, in view of the fact that we now have already one death caused by that particular cause?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m very concerned about the possibility that there may be a dangerous situation continuing while we await the outcome of the aluminum wiring inquiry. Of course, my responsibility through my ministry is only to see that the inquiry proceeds and reports. The action to be taken either before or after that time is a matter for the government at large and some other ministries specifically.

Because of my very great concern with regard to the passage of time, I will be making some further inquiries in the next day or two, in addition to some I have already made to Dr. Wilson, with regard to seeing if he can report earlier than the member has anticipated.

I might say, as a result of some of our earlier inquiries, he will find the hearing will be reporting something some time earlier than next fall. I’m now working on having them report at the earliest possible date and I may be able to report to the hon. member further on my success in those endeavours.

Mr. Blundy: I do not understand whether the minister is suggesting an interim report when he refers to an earlier report than the final report. I would like to ask him, because of the known problem and because of the recent death and the possibility of others, would it not be right to have an interim report on this particular aspect?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To the best of my information, I think they only have half a dozen or a dozen hearing days left before they sit down to write their report. So while the commission is well on its way towards the stage at which they’ll be writing their report, hearings will be finished by the end of this year -- by the end of this month -- and then they’ll be sitting down to write the report. Hence my suggestion to Dr. Wilson that the writing of the report be undertaken and completed at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Kerrio: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We’ve had five questions on this already.

Mr. Kerrio: We’ve only had one supplementary on this question.

Mr. Speaker: The two were related -- the question by the member for Sarnia and the question by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Kerrio: We have to ban aluminum wiring while this is going on to make some sense out of this deal.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has the answer to a question asked previously.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was a question asked by the member for Sudbury East of the Premier. If it would be satisfactory to him, perhaps I could respond to that question. Would that be all right?

Mr. Martel: Yes.

ROSS SHOULDICE

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Sudbury East asked the Premier on Tuesday what I and my ministry were going to do with respect to Ross Shouldice who, according to the member for Sudbury East, is now operating again without a real estate licence in the Sudbury area. He wanted to know whether we would reconvene the Horowitz inquiry into the conduct, both past and present, of Mr. Shouldice.

As the members are aware, Mr. Shouldice was the subject of an extensive investigation by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations some years ago. The investigation culminated in a proposal by the registrar under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act to revoke his registration as a real estate broker.

Mr. Shouldice requested a hearing before the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal, of which J. C. Horowitz is the chairman. However, Mr. Shouldice subsequently withdrew his request for the hearing and, in view of a divisional court ruling in a similar case, this left the tribunal with no status to proceed. No new application for registration under the Act has been received since that time from Mr. Shouldice.

Dealing with the first part of the question, in a letter which the member for Sudbury East sent to the Premier on October 13, the member asked the same questions. We investigated to determine whether Mr. Shouldice is acting as an unlicensed real estate broker. Our investigation indicates that Mr. Shouldice is active on the business scene, but so far there are no indications that he has contravened the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

I have, however, asked the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada and the home warranty plan to review the registration and activities of Conservative Construction Company, also referred to. I would invite the hon. member or anyone else who has some concrete information which may further assist us to step forward and provide us with those details so that we can continue to look into the matter.

Mr. Martel: I have a very brief supplementary. Is the minister not aware that Ross Shouldice does the negotiations for the sale of real estate and simply has his brother Bev sign the agreement of the sale and uses that vehicle for transacting his business?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As the member will be aware, an employee of a company, or a principal of a company in fact, may operate in that fashion -- that is, in the sale of real estate -- without a licence.

Mr. Deans: What’s the point of having the whole proceeding then?

[11:00]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The question is whether he is acting as an independent agent or a broker not related to the vendor company, in which case he would require a licence. But if he is operating as an employee of the building company then he, like anyone else acting for any building construction company, can, as an employee, operate in the sale end of the transaction.

Mr. Martel: You have no control over them, then?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member quite properly asks the question as to whether we have any control over it. The control over it, I suppose, would be through the registered company, the builder, which is selling --

Mr. Martel: It is his brother.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, it would be the brother if the member’s information is correct. It would be through the company that is registered, and hiring Mr. Shouldice or whomever as an employee to assist in sales. The practice of employing in-house people to sell property is very common. In fact, builders don’t like to build subdivisions and then pay a five per cent commission to independent brokers on every sale. So the common practice is to use employees.

Because of the concerns raised by the member, and our concerns, we are looking at the activities of the registered company involved. That is why we are going at it through that vehicle, to see what the details of the registration are, what information has been disclosed, and how the registered builder has operated.

CLIMATE STUDY

Ms. Bryden: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. In his briefing material for his estimates issued this week, the provincial secretary tells us that his secretariat is engaged in a research project to examine the economic and social impact of the extremes in climate on a few selected parts of Ontario; and it plans to devise a number of scenarios for study.

I would like to ask the provincial secretary, has he included the current Toronto weather scenario in his study? But, more seriously, how can he justify spending money on this kind of research when we apparently don’t have enough money to increase day-care places or to look after children with learning disabilities?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I have difficulty understanding the member’s question; there’s a bit of noise going on. Did she refer to scenarios about the weather?

Ms. Bryden: Page 8 of the minister’s briefing book says: “The secretariat is currently co-ordinating a study group to devise a number of scenarios which will attempt to show the economic and social impact of extremes in climate on a few selected parts of Ontario.”

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Was the question, would we include Toronto?

Ms. Bryden: My main question -- the Toronto one was perhaps a facetious one; we do have a scenario in Toronto right now. My main question is, how can the minister justify spending money on this kind of research when we don’t appear to have enough money to increase day-care places or look after children with learning disabilities?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We think it is of some importance. The work is being done by an interministerial task force, and we think this is an important part of our work. I would be pleased to send more information to the member on the work being done by the task force.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: Could the minister indicate how much money is being spent on this project?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: To my knowledge, none so far.

MILITIA OPERATION

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Solicitor General: Now that the militia has slapped the wrists of those youthful, high-spirited militiamen who allegedly pointed weapons at women, could the Solicitor General tell me what the police in this city are doing to investigate that incident?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We are aware of it. The police did do some investigation. It was a militia operation. The militia did carry out an investigation, and it has been reported upon. I think there was concern about the youth of the people involved. They were under some colour of right -- at least they thought they were -- in carrying out this operation.

There is no question they should not have done what they did. I am not trying to defend them in any way. At the same time, as far as criminal action against these young people is concerned, I don’t think we want to do anything that would leave these people with any kind of a criminal record. They’ve been reprimanded, as I understand it, by the military authorities. Their officer in charge was reprimanded. To take criminal action against them at this time would not be warranted.

Mr. Samis: Whitewash.

Mrs. Campbell: Are we then to take it that undisciplined young people in uniform now have carte blanche to go out and terrorize people in this community? Is that the minister’s position?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Absolutely no. There was no suggestion in my reply that this was the case. That’s a ridiculous question and the answer is certainly no.

PIPE PRODUCTION

Mr. Swart: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism, if I could have his attention. Since Monday I have had the opportunity to look at the statement which he tabled. Though I welcome the final total capitulation of the minister in admitting that we do have the capacity and the technology to produce the pipe for the Alaska pipeline in Canada, the basic question is left unanswered by that statement.

May I put it to the minister in specific terms? What specific measures is the minister insisting be included in the terms and conditions of the United States-Canada agreement now being negotiated to guarantee the use of Canadian pipe, compressors and other equipment in the Alaska pipeline?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I think if the member has really read over the statement, he would see on page 3 that the specifications for the pipeline, the size of pipe, the compressors and other valves and so on that will be used in the construction will ultimately be the decision of the National Energy Board of Canada. We have made our position very clear, as have the president and chairman of Stelco and the president of Foothills Pine Lines (Yukon) Limited, to the National Energy Board through the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce of Canada.

I am not sure we can go a great deal further, other than having made our position clear and having indicated the capabilities of the province of Ontario and its industry in all aspects of the pipeline. The National Energy Board is aware of it. We hope they will, within a realistic period of time -- and that’s within the next year -- come out with the full specifications that will afford Canadians -- rather than being parochial -- the opportunity to bid on the various components of this pipeline.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Isn’t there something more involved in this than just the opportunity of bidding? Would the minister not agree that the present agreement gives no guarantee whatsoever -- even no priority -- for the use of Canadian pipe? Secondly, is it not true that a bill will be introduced into the federal House before Christmas relating to the pipeline? So doesn’t the minister think now is the critical time for him to make representation and propose specific clauses in that bill to assure the use of Canadian pipe?

Hon. Mr Bennett: I have mentioned in this House on more than one occasion, and I have mentioned in the estimates of my ministry to this very member and to other members of his party and of the Liberal Party, that we have indicated as a ministry, through the deputy minister and through various specific areas of the ministry, to the federal department which has an input to the National Energy Board, which has an input to whatever conditions will be included in some of the terms of reference to the contract, exactly what the capabilities are in this province in producing it.

The Prime Minister of this country, the minister at the federal level and others have very carefully and precisely explained that there is not the opportunity of writing into the contract that exclusive use will be made of Canadian products. They have said clearly and distinctly, both from a government point of view and from the point of view of Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Limited -- and the Stelco president, I might say, has indicated this -- that they believe Canadians can be competitive with anybody that will quote on this contract.

We have put our position as Canadians and as Ontarians very clearly to the federal government. I believe the competence and the capabilities of the Canadians and the Ontarians to compete on the contract stands there without having specific terms, which are not possible to put into a contract, entered into the contract.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: The minister has made the point very clearly that we can and will be very competitive. I would ask him one question that I think is very important.

In view of the fact that there are many companies with the capability of producing the pipe worldwide--Japanese, German, Italian--that are without work and much interested in this line, and since they may well get supplementary funds from their governments to bring it to our shores, would the minister see to it that we are kept in a very competitive position and that we will not be bidding against foreign producers who have been helped by their governments to bring their pipe to Canada?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, I cannot say that we will not be bidding against foreign pipe suppliers; that will come in due course. To assure the member and the House, both this government and the government in Ottawa will keep a very close eye on what is happening in relationship to pricing and special treatments which may be afforded companies of various countries in bidding on this contract.

We will keep a very close eye on how it relates to existing world tariff agreements, so there is not a subsidization, a non-tariff position, or grant of capital being given to a company that affords them an opportunity to dump, in a sense, pipe made by companies in other countries of the world on the Canadian market. We will keep a very close eye on it.

We have a rough idea, both federally and provincially -- through Stelco and others -- of what it costs to produce pipe in this country and in other areas of the world. Those prices will be kept very closely under observation as the tenders are brought forward.

Mr. Deans: What possible good will that do? It will have happened by then.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It won’t happen.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Now that the minister has explained to the senior government his views on the pipe, can he explain why he hasn’t discussed compressors and compressor components? Second, now that it has been brought to the minister’s attention, would he assure us that he will also express our views on producing compressors and compressor components to the senior levels of government?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the members in that party happen to be listening --

Mr. Ruston: They don’t listen.

Mr. Swart: They don’t hear anything.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s right, they don’t. I said earlier today, and at the time the member attended my estimates session, that we weren’t only looking at the pipe supply of this contract, which is large and very important to the economy of Ontario and Canada. I answered -- I think to the member for Welland-Thorold -- that we were also looking at and making representation on component parts of the pipeline installation in Canada.

That includes compressors, valves, welding and all the other things that go to make a fine and effective pipeline.

I say very carefully and clearly to the House: While the pipe is the principal item, there are a great number of other components that we have been discussing with federal representatives and other people in relation to our capacity to produce for that pipeline.

Mr. Swart: Another short supplementary: Is it not true that President Carter has placed a tariff, based on a trigger price, on the importation of steel into the United States? Would this not be one of the options we should be considering here in Canada with regard to the pipeline? Would the minister make some such proposal to Mr. Homer?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Without trying to get deeply into what Mr. Carter and the US government have done relating to steel, I think his remarks and his restrictions relate to some very specific flat steel being supplied to the American market by foreign companies.

Mr. Swart: It is pipe steel we are concerned about here.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As to whether we could implement the same type of action on the pipeline without infringing upon tariff arrangements, that is something we can look at. I wouldn’t be sure of it at this moment.

FISHING LICENCES

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the minister of natural disasters. Now that the minister has floated his balloons about imposing another tax on the people of Ontario -- to wit, a fishing licence -- can he tell us whether in the spring he is going to impose a fishing licence on the people of Ontario and still do nothing about the fishing?

Mr. Nixon: It depends on whether there is going to be an election or not.

Hon. F. S. Miller: One of my primary natural disasters appears this morning to be speaking more through his nose than usual. I think the member has a little infection somewhere in the upper respiratory tract.

An hon. member: He’s been eating too many fish.

An hon. member: You’re no longer the Minister of Health.

[11:15]

Mr. Speaker: What about an answer to the question that dealt specifically with fish and fishing licences?

Hon. F. S. Miller: He is a bit of a hypochondriac, Mr. Speaker. You have to help him any time you can.

With the co-operation of the federal government, we have been looking at the problems of both commercial and sport fishing in Ontario for some years.

Mr. Kerrio: “With the co-operation of the federal government?” You haven’t been talking to the Premier.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Through that, we have had a proposal called the strategic plan for Ontario fisheries. My staff has been going around the province for several months showing this to interested groups, anglers and hunters and so on. It is the result of years of work and volumes of material. One of the suggestions was a four-point program under which there would have to be some kind of revenue for an improvement in the fishery management system. In their opinion, this revenue most likely could come from the user-pays principle.

It is interesting that those trial balloons the member talks about received very favourable comment from people like NOTOA and from most press people, provided any moneys were used to improve fishing.

One of these days, shortly, I will announce my decision, because my staff has finished this week and come to me and said: “We are now ready to present this to you, Mr. Minister, and have you make your mind up as to whether it should proceed further to cabinet.” I am in the process of making a decision as to whether to make that recommendation, and because of cabinet secrecy, until such time as I have done so I am not prepared to say what I am going to do.

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

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might allow me to use this point in the proceedings, while we have most of the members here, to make an amendment to the order of business for next week which I announced yesterday. Would you allow that?

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed?

Agreed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Under the provision of rules, we announce the order of business for the next week on Thursdays. I just wanted to make known a change that has been arranged. The estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations apparently will be finished in committee of supply on Monday afternoon at 6 o’clock. Therefore, at 8 o’clock on Monday evening we will be able to devote some time to legislation. I wanted to serve that notice now, that we will have some time Monday evening. We will start with Bill 98, the Municipal Elections Act, hopefully to complete it on Monday night next. Then, if time remains after that bill is completed, we will turn to Bills 112, 113 and 114 standing in the name of the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) as time will allow and, if there were still time, to Bill 115, the amendment to the Condominium Act standing in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Grossman). In fairness I thought we should indicate that change.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there is one correction with that order of business. The bills that will be proceeded with by the Solicitor General are Bills 112 and 113. Bill 114 is only on the order paper for information. We are not calling it for second reading on Monday.

BURNING PCBS

Ms. Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning what appears to be incorrect or unclear information which the Minister of the Environment gave to the resources development committee this week.

On December 7 in the resources development committee, when the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment were being considered, I asked the minister if the certificate of approval for burning PCBs at the St. Lawrence Cement Company in Mississauga had been withdrawn or was still in effect. He replied, “No, it is not in effect.” This morning I read in the Globe and Mail that, in fact, it has not been withdrawn and there appear to be some legal difficulties in cancelling it.

I think the resources development committee has been given unclear information on whether this order is still in effect legally or not. I would request an explanation from the minister on this matter.

Mr. Lewis: Do you want to speak to the point of order? Defend yourself?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes. Of course, the story this morning, particularly the headline, is a distortion. Certainly to the question of whether or not something is withdrawn, if one uses its literal meaning -- in other words, have I in my hand or has the ministry in its possession the actual certificate? -- the answer is no.

But what I said in the estimates is, as the hon. member has said, that the certificate is not in effect. In other words, the company does not have the right to burn PCB-contaminate material at this point. As I have indicated over and over again, there has not been any burning of PCB-contaminated material since last April.

If the member wants to use the literal meaning of the word “withdrawn” then she is right. It hasn’t been withdrawn, but it certainly has been cancelled and, as the story indicates, there are two or three ways in which we can formally withdraw that particular certificate, which we intend to do.

As a matter of fact, we still expect the certificate will be voluntarily surrendered by the company. It is a matter of getting it in the mail. But if there is any problem with that, we can issue a condition, or an order, or a direction, to the company indicating that as of a certain date, that certificate no longer is in effect. So there is no problem, there is no confusion nor is there any --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, yes.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- error or confliction in what I have said.

Mr. Lewis: You are guilty of a clear case of acute imprecision.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, could I have a word, please? I, too, saw the article in the Globe and Mail and the fact is that, certificate or no certificate -- I spoke to the manager, and the minister has confirmed it -- certificate, licence, whatever, there is no burning of PCBs going on at that plant nor will there be. The manager told us this and in this respect the article does imply it is taking place, because it says a number of other options are open to stop the burning of waste oils containing PCBs. The fact is, they are not being burned.

REPORTS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Havrot from the standing resources development committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill 102, An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Bill 103, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

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

Resolved: That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Resources Development policy secretariat be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978: Resources Development policy program, $3,126,000.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 102, An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Bill 103, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resolutions for supply for the following ministries were concurred in by the House:

Ministry of Health;

Ministry of Agriculture and Food;

Office of the Ombudsman;

Office of the Ombudsman (supplementary);

Office of the Assembly (supplementary);

Ministry of the Environment;

Ministry of the Environment (supplementary);

Ministry of Culture and Recreation;

Ministry of Culture and Recreation (supplementary);

Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development.

COUNTY OF PETERBOROUGH ACT

Mr. Hodgson, on behalf of Mr. Turner, moved second reading of Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the County of Peterborough.

Motion agreed to.