The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ALGOMA CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege in order to correct the record.

On October 15, I asked the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) a question with respect to the enforcement of supervision orders of the family court during the duration of the strike at the Algoma Children’s Aid Society. The minister replied on the same day that, through his staff, he was monitoring the situation daily. He replied further to my question the following day, October 16, when he said -- and I am quoting from Hansard: “I have made further inquiries through my staff, and I am advised that those orders” -- referring to the supervision orders -- “are, to the best of our knowledge at the moment, being adequately supervised.”

I simply wish to bring to your attention and to the attention of the House that yesterday, during the debate on the estimates of the ministry, the minister reported to us that of 75 supervision orders only 57 are in fact being supervised; and that there are 18 supervision orders which have not been adequately enforced since the beginning of that strike.

I simply wanted to bring that to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, in order to bring the record up to date.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the member for Bellwoods has yet correctly interpreted what I said. I did say, in response to his question at the time it was raised in the House, that we had been monitoring the situation and that it was my advice those orders were being supervised.

Yesterday, during the course of the debate on the estimates, I responded further to him on that subject, indicating there had been subsequent meetings between senior staff of my ministry in that region and representatives of the children’s aid society, at which time there was concern on our part about the effectiveness of the supervision of some 18 of the 75 orders. In the period of time since that meeting, which is now over a week, those 18 orders have been acted upon and I indicated to him yesterday I was again awaiting a further report to reassure me that, in fact, all orders were being appropriately supervised.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to call to the attention of honourable members the presence in our gallery of two young people from the province of Ontario who have gained recognition in the sporting field.

The first one is Ms. Sheila DeZeeuw of Stoney Creek; she is 14 years old. She won a gold medal in the 200 metre breast stroke competition in the Federation Internationale de Natation Amateur world cup championships held in Tokyo, Japan, on September 1, 1979. In winning this gold medal Sheila broke a few records; namely, the Commonwealth record, the Canadian senior record, the national 13- to 14-year-old age group record, as well as the provincial record.

The other young person is Gary Ross Bratty, also of Stoney Creek, who is 23 years of age. Gary won a bronze medal for Canada in weightlifting in the 1979 Pan Am Games in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on July 6, 1979. Would you welcome him also?

[Later (2:23):]

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of the House to yet another distinguished guest and parliamentary colleague in the gallery, the Honourable Ronald Russell, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia. Would you welcome him, please?

Mr. Foulds: I’ll bet he doesn’t have this lot to look after.

Mr. S. Smith: I wonder if it is as bad in Nova Scotia as it is here.

[Reverting (2:06):]

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which arose in committee. I realize such matters should be dealt with in committee but in this event the report has been completed and is now on the order paper of this House for consideration imminently.

On July 4, 1979 a senior official of Ontario Hydro, Mr. P. G. Campbell, was asked by members of the resources development committee -- the members for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) and for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) -- whether any difficulties had been encountered with the boilers at Bruce A generating station. I quote:

“Mr. Riddell: Have you encountered any difficulties with the boilers at Bruce A?”

Mr. Campbell: Yes, we have had two or three or maybe four leaking tubes in the boilers but generally speaking they’ve working quite well.”

The member for Windsor-Sandwich asked questions as well and was told: “We’re very pleased with the way the boilers are functioning. As a matter of fact, we’re very pleased with the whole plant and also the performance of the boilers is very good at Bruce A.” All of that was on July 4.

In today’s Globe and Mail there is an article which says that the boilers at Bruce A are creating problems such that a special task force is meeting almost daily to decide what to do; that the solution may well cost millions of dollars and that the thermal expansion problems in the drums of those boilers -- not the tubes -- were first detected when the Bruce unit was being commissioned.

I would have to ask the Speaker to consider, on behalf of the members of this House, whether seriously inaccurate information was given to the committee by a senior official. Perhaps he might wish to request that the minister look into the matter and possibly report to him for his own edification, and perhaps to us as well, as to how this apparent discrepancy has occurred.

I would ask the Speaker to look into the matter if he would be so inclined.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition was right in his initial assumption. I, as the Speaker, and this House have no control over what happens in a committee. If the committee, through its chairman, feels so disposed that they want to report something to this House, it’s their right to do so, at which time it’s up to the House to take whatever action it deems proper. But an exchange that has taken place in a committee falls strictly within the purview of that committee, and I am not inclined to take any action unless the committee, through its chairman, requests the House to undertake some kind of action.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CEMETERIES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, later today I would like to introduce for first reading the Cemeteries Amendment Act, 1979. It includes several revisions which I believe reflect both the changing needs of the proprietors of this essential service and protect the best interests of the people of Ontario.

Prior to the close of the last session I promised that all interested parties would be given an opportunity to have their ideas considered while the act was still in the draft stage. To accomplish this, my ministry distributed approximately 3,500 copies of a discussion draft of the bill during the summer months to the owners of all operating cemeteries, the Ontario Association of Cemeteries, municipal councils, the heads of native groups, anthropologists, archeologists, trust companies, memorial societies, government ministries, interested federal departments and my colleagues in the House.

Those who responded were given careful consideration, and many of their ideas are incorporated in the bill to be introduced today. By emphasizing the responsibility of the municipalities for approving the establishment or enlargement of cemeteries, the act ensures there will be greater control over the planning process at the local level.

The act will relieve many cemeteries from the requirement to have the Surrogate Court audit cemetery trust accounts and place on my ministry the responsibility for reviewing these accounts. The only exception will be in cases where people with an interest in the cemetery accounts request an audit or violations of the act or regulations have occurred. This change should be a significant cost- saving to the smaller cemeteries.

Provision has also been made for dealing with the discovery of unmarked burial grounds. Regulations developed through consultations with all interested groups will govern the handling of these remains. The act also includes a provision which requires cemetery salesmen to be licensed. However, this section will be proclaimed only if there is evidence of undesirable practices.

DISABLED PERSONS REPORT

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, later today I’ll be tabling the fourth annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped. I would like to compliment the members of the council for their industrious and dedicated efforts. Through their contributions, this council has proved excellent recommendations and advice throughout the year.

Mr. Mancini: Is the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) going to make money available for transportation for the handicapped?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Ordinarily, Jack Longman, chairman of the advisory council, would be in the gallery on this occasion, but today he is in Cambridge participating in the council’s fifth public forum, where a number of briefs are being presented on matters of concern to disabled people. Despite his absence, I would like to take this opportunity to salute Mr. Longman and the 20 members of the council for their work on behalf of disabled persons in Ontario.

Mr. Mancini: How much money is the Minister of Transportation and Communications making available for transportation for the handicapped?

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Premier. Is it not a source of embarrassment to the Premier that after a mere five months in office the federal government of this country has been able to bring in a freedom-of-information bill, while his government under the leadership of the Premier continues to be the world’s most secretive government?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why secretive?

Mr. S. Smith: I will tell the Minister of Education why. I defy the Minister of Education to name another government that assesses the opinion of its citizens at the expense of its citizens and then keeps the results of such polls secret from its citizens and from the opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Hennessy: Smith for Pope.

Mr. Conway: The Honourable BS.

An hon. member: Go back to charm school, Bette.

Mr. Conway: It’s exactly what I heard on the steps the other night.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I won’t comment on the interjection, Mr. Speaker. I’d point out to the Leader of the Opposition that I didn’t sense any singular embarrassment on his part with the lack of motivation of the previous administration in the nation’s capital. He never seemed to urge that at the annual Liberal meetings or anything of that kind.

However, I won’t make that observation. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am quite encouraged that the government of Canada is moving ahead.

[2:15]

We have had some discussion in this House, bills have been introduced by the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), if memory serves me correctly, and we have commissioned a report from the former president of that great university geographically situated not too far distant from the riding of the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne). In fact, I guess it is geographically in that riding. We are anxious to receive his report.

While it is hard to draw distinctions between responsibilities at different levels of government there are some aspects of the administration of affairs in this province that are not similar to that of the government of Canada. There is the question of health records, as an example, where the members opposite have made a point, I think with some legitimacy, that the question of privacy should be respected. I think one can draw many other examples where the responsibilities are not similar.

But not only is this government interested, we have taken the initiative. I expect to have Dr. Williams’ report in the foreseeable future. In fact, I’ve written to him very recently asking him to move ahead as expeditiously as he can. I’ve also asked the new minister of the crown, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), to assume responsibilities in this area in terms of the government’s reaction to it.

When we have Dr. Williams’ report we’ll be delighted to share it with the members opposite. I think one could be relatively confident the government will be acting on Dr. Williams’ report when it is available. It perhaps might find its way into legislation even prior to the suggested dates of an early election as is contained in the new convention issue of Liberal Action where everybody is supposed to go to hear the member for Hamilton West lay out the platform which will be different from the last platform of the Liberal Party of Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: I’m greatly encouraged by two things: that the privacy commission which was set up two and a half years ago and has been meeting since will report in the foreseeable future. I’m even more encouraged that the Premier is finally reading material which will improve his outlook on politics and on matters pertaining to Ontario.

I would ask him by way of supplementary -- I can tell from your puzzled look, Mr. Speaker, that you wondered if I’d get to that --

Mr. Foulds: Don’t we all.

Mr. S. Smith: I would ask the Premier whether it’s his intention to have his members stand to block a vote on the resolution standing in the name of the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) which will be debated later on this afternoon. Or will he permit a free vote on that resolution so we can have the public opinion polls in Ontario made known to the public and to the elected representatives of the public in this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I confess, in that it was part of the supplementary question, which was really an observation, that I do read material from the Liberal Party with some degree of regularity. I do it just to find further inconsistencies in what is said in the publications and what is said here in the House.

Mr. Roy: We don’t go begging for money like you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ve got to warn the Leader of the Opposition, though, the gentleman he would not publicly support has a much larger picture on the front page of the Liberal Action than he has. It’s a very distinguished picture of the former Prime Minister.

I have made it very clear to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, that, unlike himself, I don’t dictate to the private members of our party what they do in private members’ hour.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t participate in private members’ hour. As a matter of fact, when the subject will be debated this afternoon, I will be travelling to the area of Quinte, where I expect this evening to break bread with the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil) and all of the friends of Loyalist College. In fact, I would invite the opposition leader on behalf of the member for Quinte to join us on that very delightful occasion.

An hon. member: While your members are blocking the bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not tell our members how to vote during private members’ hour. They make their determinations as individual members of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. O’Neil: Point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: What could possibly be a point of privilege?

Mr. O’Neil: My point of privilege is that the reason I’m breaking bread with the Premier tonight is so I can keep an eye on him in my riding.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Speaking to the point of privilege, the reason I am going is not to keep an eye on him, it is to find an adequate replacement for him.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege too. There is too much jocularity in this House.

Mr. Roy: You’d better bring the cardinal along.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the two honourable members iron out their differences in Quinte, not here.

Mr. Makarchuk: And don’t come back.

Mr. Lawlor: Isn’t the Premier just a little ashamed --

Interjection.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, get ready to be ashamed. Isn’t the Premier just a little ashamed for the procrastination and the use of the device of the royal commission to put off facing this issue and having the federal government pre-empt him?

Mr. T. P. Reid: To say nothing of the cost.

Mr. Lawlor: I trust the Premier does not intend to use that federal statute as a model statute, particularly in the field of suppression of information in provincial-federal relations in which there is an exemption clause. Has the Premier an approach to the matter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Lakeshore knows me well. I will have several approaches to the matter when the time comes, at least, I hope I have several approaches. I am interested that he doesn’t feel the federal bill should be the model That was the point I was trying to make to the Leader of the Opposition. I think our responsibilities at the provincial level are somewhat different and I am very confident in the capacity of Dr. Williams to come up with recommendations that in fact suit the particular circumstances of a provincial jurisdiction.

I would also add, Mr. Speaker, I just hope this enthusiastic endorsation of the new government of Canada continues into so many other fields they will be dealing with in the future.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Since the Premier won’t be here, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask him if he has had time to review his policy on the matter of making the public opinion poll public and if in fact he can direct his memory, which is always excellent under certain circumstances, to the poll that was taken by Goldfarb Consultants for $60,000 at the behest of the cabinet office, a survey on policy reactions and future needs and also the survey of current problems and issues?

Does he not feel we are entitled to a slight suspicion that these polls are being used for political purposes? He can dispel that skepticism by tabling them here in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure the member for Rainy River knows me well enough that when I tell him categorically these polls are not used for party purposes, he will believe that statement. I confess to him, we do our own polls, as does his party. I happen to know how they do them. I even have some understanding of who does them.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why the secrecy?

Hon Mr. Davis: I also have some indication of just what the polls might show. But I assure him, the poll that was done for Cabinet Office was not of a partisan nature. It does not reflect itself in terms of our party activities and I make that very complete commitment to him.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Table it.

EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS: GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Treasurer, if I might, Mr. Speaker.

I refer to the answer the Treasurer gave in the House on Tuesday regarding Ontario’s position with respect to national equalization payments. He said: “I was quoted last year when I attended the finance ministers’ conference whether Ontario would or would not accept its equalization money if it was entitled to it. My answer was that I would take it so quickly the member’s hair would stand on end.” He would accept it if we were entitled to it.

Does the Treasurer say or does he not say that Ontario is entitled to equalization payments of approximately $105.4 million in the current fiscal year under the federal system as it is now and Ontario is entitled the same as any other province which is found to be eligible? Yes or no?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes.

Mr. S. Smith: If in fact Ontario is entitled, would the Treasurer please explain basically why we don’t have the money and what he has done to get the money? Is it not a fact that the government of Canada had at one point brought in a bill which would have removed Ontario’s entitlement to that money retroactively, and such a policy and such a move had the support at that time of the Treasurer of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In the last discussion we had on this matter the Leader of the Opposition tried to relate the equalization payments to the cash redistribution arising from the increase in oil prices.

Equalization payments, as I think I tried to say the other day, were created within Canada to spread money to other provinces that were less fortunate so that they could provide basic government services. The formula as it now stands would entitle Ontario to get some moneys; therefore my answer of yes.

However, it would not in our opinion be fair to accept those moneys for basic government services as the plan was originally conceived. Therefore, we argued that the whole formula required revision since it no longer was accomplishing those objectives. The very fact that Ontario was eligible proved the formula was wrong.

Mr. S. Smith: What do you want?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Therefore we would say, keep the oil dollars separate; let’s look at the fundamental requirements of equalization payments as they assist governments and look at the factors that now should be built into it to make it representative of the wealth of Canada and the needs of Canada today,

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since I couldn’t get an answer on this from the Treasurer on Tuesday, in view of the fact we now have learned the profits of Gulf Canada for the first nine months of this year rose by 52 per cent to $191 million, and the profits of Texaco Canada rose by 54 per cent to $188 million, will the Treasurer insist that the government of Canada bring in a windfall profits tax on the oil companies so that the federal government is better able to pay the equalization without having to take it from Ontario taxpayers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As an ex Minister of Health I hope the member’s hoarseness is not an illness; I hope he is simply choked up with emotion at the fact that the oil companies are making some money.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think it’s called the Libyan ailment.

Hon. F. S. Miller: As I said the other day, I am sure the federal government will be looking, must be looking, at the distribution of oil revenues between the companies and the governments. I hope we can keep on stressing that a good deal of the increase in oil revenues really isn’t going to anybody but governments. It is a new form of taxation, one I rather envy them because it doesn’t appear to be a tax, it appears to be a commodity price.

I am sure the major interest Ontario has is to see that sufficient moneys are flowed back into reinvestment to guarantee that Ontario and the rest of Canada have a secure oil supply in the future, as well as rewarding the shareholders reasonably for their risks in investment. That is the purpose.

When the government is setting a price, it has a responsibility to see that not all the profits flow to companies, obviously, and to make sure that some of those moneys are used in the common good.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Since the Treasurer is unhappy with the present formula, would he please inform this House when and where he has made suggestions to revise the formula? What is Ontario’s position? When will he table it in this House?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Obviously I can’t give the honourable member a position in detail.

Mr. S. Smith: Why not?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Simply because I don’t have a revised formula to give to the members today. I do see the forum for that discussion as being the finance ministers’ conference. I do see Ontario’s obligation at that time to come forward with good suggestions for a changed formula.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister just said he did.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I said it was one of those matters we discussed. I didn’t say we presented a formula. We didn’t present a formula. We agreed the formula no longer properly represented the needs.

Mr. S. Smith: Does the minister understand the formula?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes. Do you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member doesn’t. That’s the problem.

[2:30]

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer said yesterday, or on Tuesday to be more accurate, when he was asked whether Ontario would accept its equalization money if it were entitled to it, that he would “take it so quickly the member’s hair would stand on end.” He has answered today to say, “Yes, Ontario was entitled to it.” When I asked him why he refused to accept it then and why he endorsed the principle which would remove our entitlement, he said, “Such entitlement is ridiculous. Ontario should under no circumstances be receiving such equalization money.”

Would the minister please tell us what the position of Ontario is; why it is that he’s not accepting $105 million that’s coming to us under the present formula; and why, if Ontario has this money coming to it, it seems to be voluntarily giving it up at this time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Now, me Tarzan, you Jane.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That means in a language you can understand.

Mr. S. Smith: Now I know why we don’t get anything done --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I wish Tarzan and Jane would both stop swinging and get back to the question period.

Interjections.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think it’s a jungle out there.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I realize there’s a jungle in here. There’s a bunch of monkeys over there.

I am trying very hard to maintain my decorum, Mr. Speaker. Basically, we are trying to say that if Ontario were entitled to “under the philosophy of the original equalization factors” it would take its money. Ontario probably has, with the possible exception of Alberta, the highest standard of government services in all of Canada. It is paid for out of the tax base of this province. It has in addition given a great deal of money through the federal government’s taxing powers to less fortunate provinces across 100 years or thereabouts.

We simply say we do not need equalization money to provide the basic services of government and the very fact that the formula now says we are entitled to those dollars by the old calculations tells us the world has changed since 1962 when it was last reformed. Therefore, the time for reform has come.

Mr. S. Smith: You are entitled but you don’t think you should be entitled.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier say what action Ontario intends to take, now that the federal Conservative government has raised interest rates to the highest levels in Canadian history and in view of the devastating impact that this interest-rate increase is going to have on Ontario home owners, small-business people and consumers? Will the Premier ensure that the subject of interest rates is put on the agenda of the first ministers’ conference in December, so that the first ministers can devise a policy that does not do such appalling damage to the economies of Ontario and of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t guarantee that that will in fact be an item on the agenda of the first ministers. I can’t give that sort of commitment. My guess is --

Mr. Makarchuk: You always guess --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mac, let me finish. I know you love to talk, and you love to interject.

Mr. Makarchuk: What do you talk about when you go there? Tell funny stories all the time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is my expectation at least that the primary item on the agenda for the first ministers’ meeting will be that of energy.

I would point out to the leader of the New Democratic Party that this government is as concerned as anyone about the increase in the prime rate. It is a decision that was not made by this government, as the honourable member is fully aware. There is, I think, a commitment by the Prime Minister that members of the House of Commons themselves will have an opportunity to discuss this with the head of the Bank of Canada and perhaps some useful discussion will emerge from that.

Certainly from our standpoint we would be quite prepared to see it discussed. In spite of the fact that some people might like to see provincial involvement in the setting of interest rates or the prime rate, and whatever discussion may take place. I think ultimately the decision, and the decision-making power, will be that it should still be a function of the Bank of Canada, and where then it should be dealt with is by the Parliament of Canada, not by individual provincial jurisdictions.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the Premier didn’t mention any action that he intended to take as part of action by the government of Ontario, is the Premier aware that home owners whose mortgages were sold by the Ontario Mortgage Corporation in August of this year will face, in a few months, an increase in their mortgage rates from the present 8.75 per cent to a level of around 14.75 per cent? Will the Premier undertake to have the government stop the sell-off of mortgages by the Ontario Mortgage Corporation? Will the Premier also undertake to have the mortgage corporation get back into the business of providing housing finance at reasonable costs to Ontario home buyers with modest incomes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That really is a question that should be more properly directed to the Minister of Housing, and I am sure he would be delighted to answer it.

An hon. member: He just left.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would redirect that question to the Treasurer in the absence of the Minister of Housing.

An hon. member: Oh, here he is. He’s back,

Mr. Speaker: Did the Minister of Housing hear that question?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: The Minister of Housing was absent when I directed that question to the Premier. I had asked the Premier what action the government of Ontario intended to take. Since he didn’t respond specifically, I asked whether the government was aware that home owners whose mortgages were sold by the Ontario Mortgage Corporation in August will face in a few months an increase in the mortgage rate from the current 8.75 per cent that they had been paying to OMC, to 14.75 per cent when they renegotiate. Will the government undertake to stop any further sales of mortgages by the OMC from its portfolio and get the OMC back into the business of providing housing finance for people on modest incomes in this province at reasonable rates?

Mr. Peterson: A point of order: The Premier was asked a question here that has been redirected. It seems to me he should stay in the House until the end of the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of privilege: I would be delighted to stay in the House, but I really do have a bit of an obligation to head east towards a riding represented by the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil),

I endeavour to stay here for most of the question period, unlike some who wander out to the television sets or cameras just prior to the conclusion of question period. I really do make an effort.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier is in the middle of a question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not a question to me; it is a question to the Minister of Housing, who is quite capable of answering it.

If there is some question the honourable member feels has not been dealt with properly, if he is here at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning, I assure him I will be here and I will be delighted to try to get any additional information for him.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am well aware of the fact that at this very time there are a number of mortgages held by the Ontario Mortgage Corporation --

Mr. S. Smith: A point of order: Since the original question was directed to the Premier, it does seem --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The person who posed the supplementary asked specifically that it be redirected to the Minister of Housing. We have done that. Will the honourable minister continue?

Mr. S. Smith: There is another supplementary coming, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am aware of the fact that at this very time there are a number of mortgages at present held by the Ontario Mortgage Corporation that will come up for renewal in the next number of months.

There are a large number scattered throughout the metropolitan and surrounding areas of Toronto. They were written originally at somewhat of a subsidized rate, to encourage home ownership at that time. There was no indication by the government nor the Ontario Mortgage Corporation that after the first five years of the mortgage there would be any extended privilege or reduction in mortgage rates.

The answer to the second portion of the question from the leader of the third party --

Mr. Warner: You’re going to abandon the home owners.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- if they want to hear it, is very simply that a year ago the Ontario Mortgage Corporation had the opportunity of disposing of roughly $122 million worth of mortgages back into the private sector at somewhat of a discount to the province. Some of those mortgages have already been up for renewal, others will come on to the renewal market.

To further answer the second part, as a result of the interest rates rising in this province regarding mortgages and so on, in relationship to the interest rates at present being paid on the mortgages we have in the portfolio, it would not be advantageous at this time for the Ontario Mortgage Corporation to try to dispose of any further mortgages back into the private sector.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to redirect this to the Treasurer since we are altering the rules, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier to whom the original question was addressed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just so that the wrong impression will not be given, we’ve often, on many occasions, redirected questions on the request of certain members. Don’t create the impression we’re establishing a precedent here.

Mr. Peterson: I respect that, Mr. Speaker. I was concerned only that the Premier -- to whom the original question was addressed and to whom I’d like to address a supplementary question is now not here, having left in the middle.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: If I may, I’d like to redirect to the Treasurer. Has his ministry prepared any studies to date on the impact of a 15 per cent or higher prime rate on the economy of this province? Has he a position on that? Is he prepared to take that position and forcefully express it on behalf of the people of this province, to the parliamentary committee investigating interest rates in Ottawa at this time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Is that a supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It’s part of the original question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can’t say there is any study. I have been discussing interest rates regularly, including this morning. My senior advisers -- a group of people who advise Ontario from the investment community --

Mr. Mackenzie: At 20 per cent, you’ll still be discussing it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am extremely concerned, as I said the other day, about the impact. It is interesting. The impact on the business sector appears not to be too grave in spite of my concerns. The real impact is on the consumer and perhaps the smaller businessman whose profitability is more hazardous than that of the large corporations.

Large corporations in a time of inflation appear to be discounting inflation from the interest rate and are concluding, in effect, that in many cases the interest rate they are paying is negative because the net cost after taxes is less than the inflation rate within the economy. Therefore investments made with borrowed money are, in fact, not really costing them as much as if they had delayed that investment decision for a year. This does not apply to human beings who are paying off their homes and other assets for consumer use. That’s the field I’m concerned about.

The other field I worry about is those companies that fight to make a profit and whose prices can’t simply be raised because the cost of doing business has been raised; farmers, for example --

Mr. Nixon: Exactly.

Mr. Peterson: What are you doing about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- and generally the small business community that is extremely competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I would that I could tell you I could do something about it. All I can do, and interestingly enough, I will tomorrow morning be meeting with the Minister of Finance of Canada to discuss the matter.

The other day I said to you my own beliefs --

Mr. Peterson: What’s your position? What are you going to tell him?

Hon. F. S. Miller: For one thing, I’m not necessarily going to tell. I’m going to listen.

Mr. Peterson: You listen to economists on both sides, and end up doing nothing. When are you going to make up your mind?

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question of the Minister of Labour. In the light of the bitter disputes at Radio Shack in Barrie, at Canadian Gypsum in Hagersville, at Blue Cross here in Metropolitan Toronto, and at Butcher Engineering in Brampton can the minister say if it is the government’s policy to aid and to abet anti-union companies by the government’s failure to bring in legislation to provide for union security and to assure the workers the right to a first contract?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think the member for Ottawa Centre would be misleading the House and anyone who is listening if he suggests this government is aiding and abetting in any activities such as the ones he has referred to.

Mr. McClellan: Bring in legislation.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I don’t think anyone should be deceived about that.

At the end of last week, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) both raised this very same question and indicated their concern about the same issue. At that time, I indicated very clearly this was a subject which was disturbing me and disturbing many people greatly; that this issue --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The members should be quiet for a minute and listen.

It was said this issue was the single issue in so many strikes going on throughout the province at the present time. I indicated to the members that the Ontario Federation, of Labour would be presenting a brief to the Premier and me early in November and that I expected discussions would follow as a result of that meeting. I have no further comment to make at this time.

Mr. Warner: No legislation.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the minister knows perfectly well that the federation of labour and the major trade unions in this province all want to see legislation for union security and the guarantee of first contract; since the amendments that are required are perfectly simple amendments; and since the Radio Shack strike has now had to go on for two and a half months and the workers at Butcher have had to be out for three and a half months in a simple quest for union security, would the minister undertake to bring legislation into this House this fall to meet both of these requirements? Will he also undertake that the legislation will cover the four disputes I just mentioned?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member well knows I can give no such commitment. I think it is important he and other members of this House, speaking on behalf of both opposition parties, have indicated publicly in this Legislature their support for the principle he has raised today.

Ms. Gigantes: What about your side?

Mr. McClellan: What about your cabinet?

Mr. Mackenzie: As a supplementary to the minister, can the minister tell the House when we can expect more effective enforcement of the present Labour Relations Act, so that companies like Radio Shack can’t thumb their nose at the law and ignore reinstatement orders? Is he not aware that during the course of organizing the union brought 25 charges against Radio Shack and won all of them? Does he not realize this is breeding disrespect for the law in this province and could darn well leave the minister a eunuch in terms of labour respect?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have been called many things but there was never a suggestion that I was a eunuch.

Mr. Warner: You are in labour matters.

Ms. Gigantes: Wait for it; it’s coming.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I don’t suspect the member meant that either. If he did, I’ll talk to him outside afterwards.

I think the member will have to agree that the labour relations board has responded very actively and effectively to the problems that are presented at Radio Shack. As he knows very well, the chairman of the labour relations board is now considering a decision as a result of many problems that were presented to him in an extensive hearing. That decision is expected shortly. I would prefer not to comment further at this time.

USE OF SULPHURIC ACID

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. What progress has been made by the minister in providing the analysis requested in the final report of the standing resources development committee of how sulphuric acid, once it has been scrubbed from Inco’s stacks, could be combined with phosphate rock for the manufacture of fertilizer?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think tonight would be a great time to get the answer. I am not trying to duck the question --

Mr. Riddell: Tonight we’re dealing with acid rain.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- but I think that will be the appropriate vote tonight. I will be glad to let the staff answer that question tonight.

Mr. Gaunt: Am I to take it there has been some progress made in this respect, or is one to assume the opposite?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The member will have to assume, until this evening, that I don’t know the answer.

An hon. member: Honesty is the best policy.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I don’t believe it.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Does the minister not agree that the solutions, such as using the byproduct sulphuric acid to combine with phosphate rock to create fertilizer or other new markets for sulphuric acid, are not going to come unless the government makes it very clear to Inco it is going to pay a very heavy penalty for pollution and that it is not going to be permitted to continue? Does he not agree this will force them to put some money into these alternative solutions?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I know there’s been a lot of thought on the use of sulphuric acid and the byproducts of the smelting process. I don’t think we’re yet ready to agree that that is just the natural answer. It is unrelated to the more important and more immediate problem. I don’t think one can use that as an answer to the emission problem. I think the member will find the vast amount of sulphuric acid that would be used for sulphate in fertilizer is likely to create other problems equally as large in both storage and use.

Mr. Laughren: That’s a lot of nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think that’s the approach we would use at this time because of the volumes involved.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: At the very least, will the minister give us an assurance that a new control order with specified tons of emissions as applying to the Inco super-stack will be levied against Inco before the end of the year?

Mr. Foulds: Do that much.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think so.

ALGOMA CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the minister’s response with respect to negotiations in the private sector, how does the minister respond to the statement by Ken Delvecchio, president of the Sault Ste. Marie and District Labour Council, that the provincial government itself is participating fully in strikebreaking in the labour dispute between CUPE Local 1880 and the Algoma Children’s Aid Society and to Mr. Delvecchio’s call for the government to cease to be actively involved in strikebreaking?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member has written me about that. We’ve had several conversations about it. He knows full well my view that this government does not participate in any strikebreaking activities. Also, he’s already spoken to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) about it.

Ms. Gigantes: Do you think speaking to you guys does anything?

An hon. member: It doesn’t do a thing.

Mr. Wildman: In view of the minister’s response here and his statement to me that his government is not interested in advocating strikebreaking, how can he continue to acquiesce in the actions of his colleague, the Minister of Community and Social Services, in requesting the Sault Ste. Marie Children’s Aid Society to hire additional staff and in actively recruiting a total of up to 20 outside social workers to work at various times during the last three months of this strike at tremendous cost to the local society?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Once again I say to the member I have responded to him in great detail by correspondence, and the Minister of Community and Social Services has assured him that he has not been involved in any activities such as the member referred to, other than in those he is obliged to because of the statute under which he operates.

That’s very clear, and don’t play around with it.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, in his response to me the Minister of Labour indicated that I was playing around with this issue. If he is really serious about this, he would know I’m not playing around with this serious problem.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a point of privilege.

Mr. Wildman: If the government would give them the money they need to solve this dispute, we wouldn’t have it.

Mr. McClellan: It is a $30,000 strike for four months. That’s what you’ve got over there. You could settle it for $20,000.

REGISTRY OFFICES

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister still considering doing away with the land registrar position in the various registry offices across the province of Ontario, including the registry office in Bowmanville?

Hon. Mr. Drea: In a number of areas where the volume of business does not dictate having both a land registrar and a deputy land registrar, we are retaining the post by attrition of the deputy land registrar. If the office picks up in volume so as to warrant the additional cost of a senior registrar, we will do so.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that this move could very well be seen as another means of lessening the importance of the small communities of Ontario which have always had a resident registrar and where the caseload is increasing? Could this not be seen as a wedge to remove the small town registry offices, which was planned by his predecessor?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I don’t know how many times across Ontario, how many times in this Legislature, how many times in my estimates, I have to say that no registry office in this province is being closed.

Mr. Bradley: The former minister used to close them. Does that mean this minister disagrees with the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Furthermore, in a year from now or whenever the building is available, a new and additional registry office will be opened for the region of York.

Mr. Bradley: Larry closes them and you open them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What we are doing -- and we have an obligation to the public in this regard -- is where there is an office that can be very admirably supervised by a person with the position of deputy registrar, or perhaps even a junior grade registrar, rather than the traditional practice of always having a senior registrar and deputy, we are going to do that. It will save funds and it will enable people, particularly the legal profession, to transact land transfers much more equitably and without additional cost.

To leave a full staff -- a full staff being defined as what was there 100 years ago -- in a registry office that is not doing volume today, I will tell the member, in this economy and with the budget with which I have to operate, would be a mortal sin.

An hon. member: What about a cardinal sin?

MIGRATION OF SKILLED WORKERS

Mr. Peterson: I have a question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. Is the Treasurer concerned about recent stories that some 30,000 Ontarians are migrating westward, principally to Alberta, a high percentage of them skilled tradesmen? Is he concerned about this? How does he feel it bodes for the future industrial strength of this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Each month I get a demographic report from Statistics Canada. I pay quite close attention to it. I would have to go back and check them, but it seems to me the first month we had a net deficit on Canadian migration --

Mr. Peterson: Of skilled workers.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- was during the month just past, or the latest month recorded which, I believe, was August. Looking at that month, it struck me that the migration, which is generally from the east to the west right across Canada, to date has been in Ontario’s favour. The migration out of Quebec to Ontario and out of the Maritimes to Ontario generally has exceeded the migration from Ontario westward. In the latest report, that was not so. There was a net deficit in that figure, if I recall correctly, of about 1,000 people in that one time period. If I recall, the figures were about 8,100 to 6,800 or 6,900. Does that ring a bell with the member?

Obviously we’re losing some skilled workers to the west. Obviously that is of concern to Ontario. At the same time, I would hazard a guess that we’re also picking up skilled workers, as we always have, from the rest of Canada, particularly recently from the province of Quebec. We’ve had a great influx of people from Quebec with skills of all types.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer would hazard a guess. I say, respectfully, those are things we should probably know.

Supplementary: Wouldn’t the Treasurer say that evidence of a recent change in the net migration of skilled workers, in addition to the recent reports of about $3 billion of Ontario-based money being invested in Alberta and his own assertion that the proposed federal energy package could cost Ontario 20,000 jobs and $1.2 billion, with Alberta actively -- or at least subtly actively -- luring businesses west with better tax rates and many other kinds of incentives -- doesn’t he feel now, given all of that evidence and much more which I would bring before this Legislature, that it is time to introduce a comprehensive industrial strategy to fight back for the economic health of this province?

[3:00]

Hon. F. S. Miller: A good part of our attitude has been to maintain the oil price where it is. We believe that’s one of the major protections one can give the workers and industries in this province.

At the same time, let us be honest. There are certain kinds of skills which have traditionally been mobile. I would suggest to you that when the Bruce and Pickering nuclear plants were being built, we depended very heavily upon skilled labour from Quebec. It was not necessarily permanently resident in Ontario. Skilled labour has a tendency to go where large construction projects are under way. Obviously that is happening out west because of the great growth.

Secondly, it always seems implicit in the statement the west is doing well that the east is doing poorly. That does not necessarily follow. Canada is suddenly richer. I think that needs to be stated. Again, I’d state that I’m delighted that Canada is richer, and I trust the members are.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And everything is fine in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The real issue is, are the western provinces going to start some kind of a war or some kind of an incentive plan that pits province against province for industries that should not, through natural economic reasons, move away from the industrial base of Ontario?

I think Ontario would argue, as it did a year ago at the first ministers’ meeting, that regions should build upon strengths. They should not create artificially-supported industries that cannot sustain themselves once the support is withdrawn. For example, if you had a steel industry fragmented by putting part of it out west -- and rumours indicate there are pressures in that direction -- I would say that is not in the interests of Canada, not in the interests of Ontario, not oven in the interests of Alberta.

Mr. Laughren: Would the Treasurer tell us if he has commissioned a study, either at the Ontario Economic Council or elsewhere, to indicate precisely what the effect on the Ontario economy will be of the increased interest rates, of the oil price increases that are to come, and of the unusual growth in the western provinces? Has he commissioned any study to indicate what lies ahead for the province of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If the member asks if I’ve personally commissioned such a study, the answer would be no. I have, on the other hand, a very active, intelligent economics department which in most cases hardly needs to be commissioned to start feeding me that kind of information.

I get a fair amount of information. People have, for example, challenged our statements about the loss of jobs when the oil prices go up. It’s easy to challenge them because it’s very difficult to prove them.

Mr. Laughren: I’m not challenging them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I know the member is not. I’m just saying people have; I’m not saying he has. I think he tends to agree with me on that one. I think for a change we’re on the same side. Others have challenged me and we can only say that our basis for that kind of thing has been historical. A review of what happened in 1973-74 gave us certain measures of the effect on the labour force, job opportunities in Ontario, which we’ve extrapolated to the present time. That’s all an economist can do.

Mr. Roy: May I ask a supplementary on the Treasurer’s answer about other provinces luring business or corporations away from Ontario? What does he say to the statement printed in the Toronto Star yesterday? The Premier of Alberta said he was perfectly justified in having special incentives in Alberta under his Corporations Tax Act, which I understand is to come into force in 1980-81, because Ontario had created a fund whereby corporations were paid to establish here. Therefore, he was justified in having special incentives in Alberta to lure companies there.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I tried to make the distinction. First, Ontario’s Employment Development Fund has studiously and carefully avoided giving a grant, to the best of its knowledge, ever to anyone who had a choice between Ontario and another Canadian province. As a matter of fact, we have flatly turned down at least two I recall, that wanted us to do that. One existed in British Columbia and wanted to come to Ontario. Our answer was, “No, if Ontario wins because of natural reasons, please come. We cannot give you a grant to come.”

Mr. Roy: We’re only fighting the Americans.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, we’re only fighting the Americans on that issue.

Again, I would hope to see the industrial base of Alberta grow. I would hope that there are industries which legitimately can flourish in that area. I don’t blame the Premier for using whatever leverage he might have, but I think he should be careful not to try to establish hot-house flowers that do not survive once the sunlight is withdrawn.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Did you think that up all by yourself?

HYDRO SAFETY INSPECTIONS

Mr. Philip: A question of the Minister of Energy. Has the minister had a chance to review the report of the inquest of July 19, into the death of Paul Dutcher, a child resident in Etobicoke, who died as a result of placing both hands on bared wires carrying 800 volts on the roof of a building on Kipling Avenue?

Is the minister aware of the grave concern of the Etobicoke council that four months have passed since the death of this child and no action has been taken by Ontario Hydro to correct the problem that resulted in this child’s tragic and untimely death?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the inquest, but will make it my business to become familiar with this issue and report back to the honourable member.

Mr. Philip: By way of supplementary, since one of the recommendations in the coroner’s report is there should be safety inspections by Hydro authorities carried out every five years, and Ontario Hydro has expressed the opinion that it does not have the staff to carry out these inspections, would the minister tell us whether he agrees with Ontario Hydro’s position on this? And would the minister take whatever action is necessary to see that the recommendations of the coroner’s report are implemented by Ontario Hydro, either by his direction or by whatever changes are necessary in the Power Corporations Act?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I will include these questions and those concerns in my review.

DEER HUNT

Hon. Mr. Auld: Last Friday the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) asked a question about the Ontario deer hunt schedule for November in Simcoe county.

I want to tell him I would not propose, on the basis of potential trespass problems, the cancellation of that deer hunt, but I would like to point out why not.

First of all, the hunt will be the most closely controlled big-game hunt ever held in Ontario. The number and distribution of hunters will be controlled. Each hunter who is allowed to participate, and there was a draw, has been informed at least twice in writing that charges will be laid for trespass offences; extra enforcement staff and vehicles will be patrolling the county to ensure compliance. All police forces in the county have indicated they will respond, if required. A helicopter will be used to ensure prompt response to trespass complaints.

Approximately 80 per cent of the hunters reside in Simcoe county and, as I recall, some 100 of them are farmers. We anticipate the above-mentioned precautions are more than will be required. However, if a difficulty arises, we will have the resources available to deal with it.

Mr. Riddell: My question would be, why is the minister so determined to allow this hunt to go on when the county council has definitely indicated to him they do not want it, for reasons of their own, I suppose? The Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the local township federation of agriculture have all passed resolutions saying they want the minister to cancel it for this year. They must have reasons for so asking. Why doesn’t the minister simply comply with it?

What is the cost, by the way?

Hon. Mr. Auld: There is a problem there, because of the excessive deer population for one thing. There have been some fields where 30 or 40 deer have been seen trying to find food. There were a number which didn’t survive last winter, but now there are more deer available.

There have been almost 100 collisions reported between automobiles and deer. There have been complaints from farmers.

I am told that originally when our staff approached the county federation there was no objection. Then there was a gentleman who appeared before the county federation. Our staff was not there at the time. They had not been invited. That was when the federation apparently changed its mind.

However, there are 17 townships in the county. Eleven townships have indicated they are in favour, three townships are opposed. They haven’t expressed their opposition to us, but we understand they are opposed and three townships haven’t expressed acception or rejection.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Has the minister sold the deer-hunting licences yet?

Hon. Mr. Auld: We have had the draw and about 1,600 validation stamps have been issued. Whether all those people have bought their licences yet I don’t know.

Mr. Riddell: I have a point of privilege. In my supplementary question to the minister, I asked what was the cost of his program to patrol these areas. He didn’t give me a cost; I wonder if he could.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Riddell: Are we going to get answers or not in the House?

Mr. Speaker: The minister can answer in any way he deems proper.

STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware that at the present time in the city of St. Catharines, the Niagara regional police force is looking for some dangerous chemicals which were stolen from a refrigeration repair truck? Those chemicals include several kinds of acids and cyanide. If he is aware of it, is he not concerned these kinds of chemicals are available, are being stored in a place which is a place of easy access to potential thieves? Is he contemplating any regulations that would prevent this from happening in the future?

Hon. Mr. Parrots: Obviously the honourable member is concerned. I don’t think the bill on spill legislation specifically addresses the question but it goes a long way towards it. I think now the onus is clearly on those who own or are in control of dangerous substances. It would put all the responsibility on the individual or the company.

With that legislation which will soon be in place, it would be easy to prosecute. More particularly it would protect anyone who suffered damage -- that complemented by the fund in case the law was never able to find the responsible people. We can at least say any damage would be cleaned up and compensation paid to those who were insured.

It doesn’t quite say we can protect everyone from that danger, but I think that’s a problem so large the law can’t protect us from a lot of things. It can set up the right conditions and I think we have. But as long as there are people prepared to deal in illegal activities we’ll always need law enforcement obviously.

So the combination is one of concern and one of action in the sense of having the appropriate legislation to address any harms that might result from illegal actions.

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

REPORTS

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

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

That supply in the amount of $4,172,000 to defray the expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980.

ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Hon. Mrs. Birch presented the fourth annual report of the advisory council on the physically handicapped for the period April 1, 1978 to March 31, 1979.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CEMETERIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 157, An Act to revise the Cemeteries Act.

Motion agreed to.

[3:15]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the interim answers to questions 277 to 281, and the answers to questions 282 to 284, 285 to 298, 300 to 303 and 320 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr. T. P. Reid moved resolution 22:

That an order of the House do issue for the production of all public opinion polls commissioned by the Ontario government from April 1, 1974 to April 1, 1979:

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes and if he wishes to reserve some of that time for a reply or windup, he should notify the table officers. The member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will reserve the last five minutes as a rebuttal and as a windup regarding my resolution.

The resolution asks that the government table in this Legislature all of the public opinion polls done between 1974 and 1979. The reasons are obvious but I will go over them point by point. The Premier’s words here this afternoon were he would not restrict his members and they would vote their conscience and they would vote as individuals. I presume if that in fact takes place, Mr. Speaker, this resolution will have the support of all members on all sides of the House.

I have been raising this matter for three or four years in the Legislature, asking that public opinion polls commissioned by this government and paid for by the taxpayers of the province of Ontario be tabled in this Legislature so the members of the Legislature as a whole may have access to that information, so the taxpayers generally and the citizens of Ontario may see what their money is being spent on.

It’s strange, quite frankly, for us to use private members’ hour to ask for something that should automatically be forthcoming from any government in Canada, any government that holds itself out as democratic. I would say I find it of the greatest hypocrisy -- the greatest -- and I say this sincerely, that the people opposite who in March 1977 set up an expensive royal commission to study the availability of information, the freedom of information and privacy of the individual, should at the same time block in this Legislature repeated demands by both of the opposition parties to access to information to which the people of Ontario are entitled, just because it is what the government chooses to call open government and because they have footed the bill for these.

I would like to quote, if I may, from the March 29, 1977, speech from the throne. I say to the former House leader and the emanation of whatever he is now, I hope it rings rather hollow. The speech from the throne reads thusly:

“In order that further progress might be made in broadening the processes of government and information-sharing and in order that this progress might be pursued with a proper concern for personal privacy, a commission on freedom of information and individual privacy will be named to study…” and so on and so on.

They say that on the one hand and they completely deny to the members of this Legislature and to the public information they say is used for what? That is the next question we will get to.

Further on in the speech from the throne: “As citizens have a right to open and responsive government, they also have a right to due process of law.”

Imagine the Premier and his counsel sitting down and writing those words and then coming in this Legislature and refusing information to the members of this Legislature and the province at large.

Let’s get to those occasions when the matter has been raised by myself and others in the Legislature. I won’t quote everything from Hansard because it would take too long, but in response to questions from myself the answers have run rather in three ways. The Premier has stated that in one sense the government will not allow this information to be made public because it is of a sensitive nature, but he says that this information from these public opinion polls is not used to direct government policy or in the preparation of legislation. That’s what the Premier says.

The member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), in response to a further question of mine, said, “We use this information as a guideline and as an input for public policy and public legislation.” He says he calls it “people participation.”

You have the Premier saying one thing and a cabinet minister saying the other. Who are we to believe? Those two statements are contradictory.

The Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) -- and the member for Leeds (Mr. Auld) as well -- in reply to one of my written questions said simply, “The polls in question constitute working documents for the development of policy and it is not the practice of the government to release material of this nature.”

Obviously the Premier is wrong. Obviously, the Premier has misled the Legislature. Or, obviously, the Premier doesn’t know what he is talking about. In the last few days, in talking about provincial-federal affairs, oil policy and so on, I am almost inclined to believe that the Premier doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Mr. Williams: Point of order: I believe the member suggested that the Premier, in speaking on this issue before the House, has misled the Legislature. Is that not unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, and if you deem so, should he not withdraw that statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not fully aware of the way the honourable member used that term. I would ask the honourable member to reconsider, if that is so.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t say that --

Mr. Foulds: I believe the member for Rainy River was entirely in order. He made no allegations of the Premier misleading the House. He just indicated that the Premier didn’t know what he was talking about, which is in fact very common.

Mr. Williams: The member for Port Arthur clearly was not listening to the debate because the member for Rainy River clearly and unequivocally said that the Premier misled the members of this House. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is unparliamentary and he should withdraw the remark. Clearly, he made that statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Rainy River, would you clarify?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, you have been sitting here through the debate. I am sure if I had said the Premier was misleading the House and made that statement unequivocally, you would have brought it to my attention.

What I did say was that there were three possibilities in regard to the evidence before us; namely, that the Premier might have been misleading; the Premier might not know what he is talking about; or the Premier might be contradicting the member for Scarborough North and it has to fall in one of those categories. At no time did I say the Premier was misleading the House.

I appreciate the intervention of the member, but it won’t deter me or throw me off from my pursuit of this.

Obviously the member for Scarborough North who was then the Minister of Education, indicated that these polls are used in the formation of public policy and legislation in the province of Ontario.

I am going to bring up that in our standing rules, that have been accepted on all sides of the House, section 26(c) provides that background material, a compendium of background information, should be tabled in the House with every policy statement and every piece of legislation. Obviously that information, those public opinion polls that have gone into public policy direction and into the legislation should be tabled. Section 33(e) of the standing orders also provides that for legislation a compendium of information should be tabled in this Legislature.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the government is in complete violation of the standing orders of this House. I raise this with your eminence, if I may use that term after last Monday night. Quite frankly, it’s not a term of approbation as far as I’m concerned, but regardless of that --

Mr. Van Horne: It has to do with apoplexy.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s right.

I say to you, sir, that the government is not living up to either the rules or the spirit of the Legislature in this regard. I can well understand why the government refuses to table the public opinion polls that are paid for with public money. I don’t have the dates for two instances because that information was not supplied when I asked the question, but let me just read a couple of the public opinion polls that were commissioned, who did them, and what they cost.

Treasury and Economics’ Life in Ontario, which certainly covers a wide section, was a poll to establish current views of the people of Ontario on such matters as inflation, employment, taxes and other economic issues. It cost $60,000, paid to Goldfarb Consultants.

The Premier stood in his place and said today in answer to questions by myself and my leader that those things were never used by the Conservative Party, as distinct from the government of Ontario, for any partisan political purposes.

I ask the member who is here from that beautiful area of the province, does he really expect us on this side to believe that you can read these public opinion polls and not sort of translate it into something like, “Well boys, now’s the time to go,” or, “Oh, oh, everybody’s finally finding out how rotten and incompetent we are. We had better not have an election”? For the member to expect us or anybody in the province to believe that is asking for a naivety that may have been shown over the past 36 years, but it’s now catching up to the member.

But I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, it’s because of polls like this and the information contained therein that the government won’t table these polls. They’re afraid of the information that’s in them. They’re afraid we’ll find out the uses to which that information has been put. As somebody said, “If you have nothing to hide, why hide it?”

It’s interesting, and the timing couldn’t be more interesting, that the federal government has just come down with a Freedom of Information Act. I’d like to read you some extracts from a couple of things that I think you may find of interest.

There is an article by Geoffrey Stevens in today’s Globe and Mail which includes: “No legislation can force a government to present its policies and decisions in an unfavourable light. But a freedom of information law discourages managing, manipulating, and orchestrating. Without making government operate in a fishbowl, it adds a new factor to the decision-making process, the knowledge the public has or can obtain, the information to assess and judge government actions.”

That’s what it’s all about. We want to be able to judge the government on the policies. We want to know and have that same information the government is making its decisions on. My leader said today there is no other government, certainly in Canada, that’s more secret than this one. I would add to that there’s no other government more hypocritical when they talk about the Freedom of Information Act then stand in their places and stonewall the legitimate concerns of the opposition and the people of Ontario in this regard.

I understand why they’re doing it. They’re doing it because they’re using those polls, at least to some extent, for political purposes. They are afraid to admit it. And they should be, because they’re using public funds to maintain themselves -- at least they think so -- in office.

I have already read you one example, Mr. Speaker, and I will read you some more: The Cabinet Office, as distinct from Treasury and Economics, Survey of Policy Perspectives, $8,200, Complan Research Associates Limited; Survey on Political Reactions and Future News, $60,000, Goldfarb Consultants Limited; and Survey of Current Problems and Issues, $10,900, Complan Research Associates Limited.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you as an objective person, as I know you are, went through this list you would find in one year alone -- 1978-79 -- almost a half a million dollars worth of polls. If you went through those with an objective viewpoint, you would say those were polls for the political use of the Conservative Party in the province of Ontario.

I have a great deal more to say but I am going to save the last five minutes for the end of the debate.

Mr. Kerrio: The time to resolve is at confession.

Mr. Lawlor: The introduction of this resolution at this time is both auspicious and inauspicious, as are the usual ambiguities inherent in the Liberal mentality.

Mr. Roy: Explain yourself please.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s a step in the right direction.

Mr. Lawlor: It is auspicious because, precisely as the last member who spoke has mentioned --

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is going to be another one of those speeches where we don’t know where the NDP stands.

Mr. Lawlor: I think you will find that out quickly enough.

Mr. Kerrio: Tell us now and save the suspense.

Mr. Haggerty: You do know what the resolution is about.

Mr. Lawlor: The Legislation was introduced in Ottawa yesterday afternoon, somewhat to our surprise. I had expected Jed Baldwin would have had to make as much a crusade against his own party and was threatening to do so. He had actually started to do so, as he had against the previous self-enclosed government, about which the Geoffrey Stevens’ article is largely concerned, particularly with some quotations from Pierre Trudeau.

An hon. member: Just one.

Mr. Lawlor: It is kind of an indication, with that legislation coming down, as to the regard that the federal Conservative Party has for, or pays to, the Ontario bunch. The moot question at the time when Ontario launched a major investigation into this whole field was its particular hang-up over the American legislation and the way in which the Freedom of Information Act, which is far more elaborate, operates in Washington, which entails the preparation of the lists, et cetera. In the American case, a very considerable cost is involved in bringing out what is available quarterly so people may select what it is they want to know.

Our legislation and the bill I brought before this House earlier do not get into all those ramifications. It would be most interesting to learn just exactly what it is intended to do, as this legislation is developed, with regard to making informed choices and selecting that which the individual wishes to know in this regard.

As I mentioned, the Americans have now come to publishing quarterly reports at very great expense. I know the Liberal Party and our party have both appeared before the Carlton Williams commission to give testimony in this particular regard, although I am convinced at this time that it was a stratagem used by the Attorney General of this province simply to procrastinate and put off the day. The federal Conservatives simply ignore whatever is being done here. The amount of bearing you have on the direction of events there -- they have in effect pre-empted you and made you look foolish in the introduction of the legislation.

That was one of the reasons I felt, apart from some other matters in detail in that legislation, it ought not to be considered a model for the basis of devising our own legislation. I would very much trust that this government does not send counsel or any representative from the present royal commission investigation in order to interrogate and to sit in on and to become involved in the federal legislation coming through. That may foreclose a good deal of any original thinking that may be forthcoming in this regard and cloak and swaddle the issue.

It was auspicious it should come at this time, but it was also inauspicious in so far as I can think of very few subjects I would rather have less information on. It is strange that public opinion polls should be the nub in this debate in the first attempt to extract information from the government. It’s strange the resolution should be directed to right on that end.

On the whole, from my own point of view, I would be more inclined to suppress the information -- to ban the polls themselves. I think they are manipulative in the extreme and that people are contorted over the operations. They are not simply informative; they are persuasive devices, et cetera. A lot of people watching the polls, in the conformist fashion, are inclined to get on the side of the big battalions and go along and be one of the majority on many things. It’s not helpful for a democracy to have such a widespread and deepseated use of these polling devices. From that point of view I have some hesitation over the matter. But in the final analysis, one can’t help but support a resolution of this kind.

If 20 members of the government stand up to block this matter, which I believe they’re quite likely to do, based on past performance, there will come a day in this House when one or the other opposition parties is almost certain to boycott this private members’ hour, which is being made a farce of, or alternatively will echo the government in kind -- which either party is capable of doing. On a general and rather irrational overall principle they might block every Conservative motion that comes before the House until the government learns its lesson.

Mr. Roy: Right on.

Mr. Lawlor: We’re not prepared to put up with this very much longer. Private members’ hour was supposed to be given a prominence so that back bench members of this House would have a role to play and the role of the House would be heightened in comparison with the old days. It’s quite the contrary, because that hasn’t happened at all. All Thursday afternoons are used up when in my opinion they could be very well used for legislation and for more central purposes than a kind of vacuous debate which one knows in advance is going to lead to absolutely nothing.

If that’s the way the game is going to be played, then I don’t want to play the game. I am sure there are many members over here, particularly, who feel the same way, and increasingly so Thursday afternoon after Thursday afternoon.

I put that bug in the government’s ear. The members over here, on both sides of this little fence, almost invariably take a diversity of positions on these issues.

An hon. member: Very seldom.

Mr. Lawlor: On no occasions to my knowledge, have we stood up to block the government’s resolutions.

Mr. Kerrio: Very responsible, Pat, very responsible.

Mr. Roy: Even when you vote for it your leader sometimes will veto it.

Mr. Lawlor: I would ask them, on their kinship and tribal practices over there, between their kissing cousins upstairs and us here, that they too give the first niggling or beginning of a gesture towards recognizing the principle of freedom of information and disclose the information being asked for by the honourable member.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to participate in the debate on the resolution before us this afternoon from the member for Rainy River.

First and foremost, I want to make it abundantly clear that this government is well aware of the real purpose and nature of the marketing surveys and opinion polls that are conducted by its ministries. I stress the word ministries. In fact, they are quite important in the development and implementation of some programs. They help make the programs cost effective; they help ministry officials avoid pitfalls in the application of policy.

Mr. Foulds: How does the member know all this without having seen them?

Mr. Williams: They have maximized the efficiency of operations generally, but, Mr. Speaker, they achieve all these positive ends within a context. That context is in no way partisan, I assure you.

Mr. Samis: It never is.

Mr. Williams: It is the quite legitimate managerial prerogative of ministry officials charged with the responsibility of putting into practice the express will of this House. The polls we are considering on this ballot item are conducted within the context of the decision authority of the officials involved in specific programs.

It is absolutely untrue to say the results of these polls serve, in any way, the specific interests of this party. They serve the people of Ontario.

Mr. Samis: Yes, but the government won’t tell them.

Mr. Foulds: How can the member say that with a straight face?

Mr. Williams: I repeat, it is absolutely not true that the results of these surveys are used in the political process.

Mr. Foulds: That’s simply not true.

Mr. Williams: The polls done within government ministries are, in fact, quite limited in scope as a rule.

Mr. Foulds: Good, publish them and make them public.

Mr. Williams: This becomes obvious from merely reviewing their titles as tabled in this House last May 31. They are designed and conducted entirely within the parameters --

Mr. Foulds: What parameters?

An hon. member: Too big a word, eh? Try again.

Mr. Williams: -- of specific programs. I consider it wholly responsible for ministries to conduct such activities --

Mr. Foulds: Make them public.

Mr. Kerrio: Why can’t the government make them public?

Mr. Williams: -- particularly if, as I am persuaded is the case, they result in savings of taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, but the member is missing the point.

Mr. Williams: That is a very commendable thing to do at a time when we must all tighten our belts a little bit.

Mr. Foulds: The government won’t publish them though.

Mr. Williams: Some members of this House would insist the data collected in the polls conducted by ministries should be released to the Legislature. It is claimed they compose part of the background information to bills.

Mr. Samis: So is your federal party.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The member wants to block it, eh?

Mr. Williams: As I have said, and my colleagues have said in the Legislature on more than one occasion --

Mr. Wildman: Did the member check with Jed Baldwin about this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Williams: -- they are not done for the purposes of framing legislation. They are done only as an adjunct to the implementation of programs.

Mr. Wildman: The member is an adjunct to history.

Mr. Williams: Therefore, neither I nor other members of this government could, in any way, condone or accept the idea of releasing data from such surveys.

Mr. Samis: What idiocy.

Mr. Williams: To do so would be to release out of context a welter of figures and isolated facts that could be used, and no doubt would be used, in the political process and, in particular, by those whose purpose it is to try to embarrass this government.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Wouldn’t that be terrible? Don’t let democracy work.

Mr. Williams: There is no way I could possibly condone the release of statistical material of this nature out of context when I know it would simply serve to become grist in the mill of the manipulation of public opinion.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Oh, my God.

Interjections.

[3:45]

Mr. Williams: This is an attempt to embarrass this government --

An hon. member: You’re to the right of Mussolini.

Mr. Williams: -- at the expense of the fine men and women who serve in the public service.

An hon. member: Watergate’s alive and well in Oriole.

Mr. Williams: I can assure --

Mr. T. P. Reid: You’re smiling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Williams: I can assure --

Mr. T. P. Reid: You should have read it before you came here.

Mr. Williams: I can assure the members opposite that there has been no misuse of public funds. I can assure the citizens of this province that their government is acting in the public interest by not disclosing the results of polls that were in many cases conducted on a confidential basis and that were in all cases geared to very specific non-political ends.

An hon. member: Who wrote that for you?

Mr. Riddell: How do you know that? You don’t even know what’s in the polls.

Mr. Foulds: Your assurance isn’t good enough.

Mr. Williams: I suspect that one of the ulterior motives behind this resolution is to increase the influence of the mass media on policy-making in Ontario.

Mr. Samis: How many polls do you take a month?

Mr. Williams: I honour the role of a responsible free press which is essentially one of information dissemination, not manipulation.

Mr. T. P. Reid: As long as you don’t tell them anything.

Mr. Williams: I suppose this is an area of contention, but my feeling is that basically the men and women of this province are perfectly capable of making their own decisions when presented with the facts.

Mr. Bradley: You don’t trust the media, John.

Mr. Wildman: Williams, the member for San Clemente.

Mr. Bradley: You don’t trust the media, we know.

Mr. Philip: Even H. R. Haldeman wouldn’t say that.

Mr. Williams: I respect the fine, responsible work done by the journalists in the press gallery of this assembly.

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Have you seen the press releases about it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Williams: Their work is very important indeed. I respect honest, full, accurate reporting and I respect a judicious editorial interpretation which we are fortunate to find in our papers far more often than not.

Mr. Foulds: One speech a week from you is too much.

Mr. Williams: I cannot conceive of even the most rabidly partisan member of the press arguing that he or she ought, by some sort of mandate, be given an increased role in government policy-making.

Mr. Bradley: Just the Tory hacks.

Mr. Williams: The very basis of our system lies in the voters’ free choice of candidates, to whom they will entrust the job of governing, of managing the affairs of this province.

Mr. T. P. Reid: As long as they don’t have any information, eh?

Mr. Williams: It is we, the elected representatives, who have been given the public trust as governors. I cannot accept the idea of bartering and jockeying for isolated facts and opinions in a game of information politics. That would represent a very serious deterioration in the quality of government that the people of Ontario have come to expect, and have every right to continue to expect.

Mr. Wildman: Even Coulson repented. Come on, you too.

Mr. Williams: Also, I would caution the men and women of the press to be wary of being used as tools, in the debate and the discussion surrounding the issue we face.

An hon. member: I hope Hansard picked up that chuckle.

An hon. member: You should be on the Gong Show. Get the hook.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You should have read this before you came in today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Williams: This is precisely what I am afraid could happen were we to accept the resolution before us at the moment. I must confess that I detect a very typical Liberal attitude or philosophy lurking behind this resolution.

Interjections.

Mr. Williams: I think it is an attempt to lead Ontario in a direction that is all too common today. I cannot help but wonder whether the members opposite are not trying to encourage the idea of managing the affairs of this province on the basis of trying to outguess that which the public will approve.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You’re the one with the polls.

Mr. Samis: How many polls has your party taken this fall already?

Mr. Williams: The next step, as history will tell us over and over again, will be to recommend measures that will have the effect of trying to mould and manipulate that opinion, though of course they won’t admit it.

It’s easy for the opposition to promise this type of thing. Since they were unable to succeed in convincing the public that they would provide good government in the last election in this province --

Mr. Bradley: I thought General Franco was deceased.

Mr. Williams: -- they try to flatter it now in any way they can.

Mr. Philip: Didn’t you support Joe Clark?

Mr. Williams: They have not had to implement difficult decisions. They’re not caught between taxpayers, who legitimately question the extent of their contribution to the general welfare on the one hand, and those who legitimately seek increased social services, health care, educational facilities and so on on the other.

They are not entrusted with the responsibility of finding a manageable track through the complex jungle of today’s energy prices, inflation or unemployment.

Mr. Bradley: I wondered who they would get to make this speech.

Mr. Williams: In essence, I am afraid that I cannot relate to the motives of the members opposite, in presenting this resolution.

Interjections.

Mr. Williams: They seem to feel they are serving the public interest by attempting to chisel away at the operational efficiency of this government’s various ministries.

An hon. member: What a joke.

Mr. Williams: With this, I cannot agree.

Mr. Roy: Because of the limited time we have, as one member of the Legislature I would like to underline and compliment my colleague from Rainy River who for these many years has doggedly followed this issue.

It is ironic that the previous speaker talked about this as a Liberal conspiracy to get certain information. Sure it is. There is nothing about having a policy. There is nothing about my colleague having a purpose as a member elected in Ontario to have open government and freedom of information. What is wrong with that? I think my colleague should be congratulated. I think he deserves the applause and support of all members.

As my leader has pointed out, the irony is that we have had a Conservative government in Ottawa for some five months which just yesterday brought forward a freedom of information bill. On the other side in this Legislature we have a government which, after some 37 years, professes to be an open government. It established a royal commission in 1977 really just to avoid making a decision on the issue.

The issue is not freedom of information, getting information; that is a step further in these polls. What my friend is talking about are public surveys made by a government, paid for at public expense, apparently for the benefit of Ontario, as the member for Oriole said. If that is the case, why doesn’t the government release them? It is public information. What are you afraid of?

It is ironic when one looks at what has happened. As my colleague for Lakeshore said, it is ironic to have the member for Oriole in his Pavlovian --

Mr. Nixon: It means drooling.

Mr. Roy: -- have that member lead off in the debate. What is sadder about the process is that he gets up there and reads out a statement someone has prepared for him. We could expect it of that member, but it was too much for him. He was smiling and laughing throughout his speech. He didn’t have the guts to tell us that his members on the other side were going to stand up -- he didn’t have the guts to tell us.

Mr. Williams: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. At no time was I taking the remarks I made in this House frivolously or lightly. I was making them in all seriousness. What gave me cause for some --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Roy: As one who has been around this place since 1971, the attitude of the government on this issue follows the attitude we have experienced.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, we were trying to obtain information a few years ago about Ontario Housing -- what they were paying for land, what the rationale was behind the decision. You will recall the somersaults on the part of ministers to avoid responding to our questions; to avoid giving us answers on such issues.

And it is part of the process of this government that goes a step further. Not only do they avoid giving us information, information paid for by the taxpayers of this province, but they advertise at the expense of the taxpayers. We keep hearing the jingles right now, “Larry Grossman, Larry Grossman.” He is just like the president of Loblaws. He comes on and says, “Buy Ontario. Buy Canadian.”

There is another practice on the part of this government and I think the member for Oriole said it well when he said it serves the interests of Ontario. That government over there has come to the conclusion that what is good for the PCs is good for Ontario. That is the approach of the government. That is the type of arrogance that is going to come back and haunt them.

They would not even move a step. The nerve! The member says all of these polls are within specific programs. All of these polls, he said, serve and achieve positive ends. Well, the first point is if that is the case, tell us about it. Let us have the information.

Mr. Bradley: Share and share alike.

Mr. Roy: But, for instance, how can a poll called Survey on Political Reactions and Future Needs possibly be restricted to one specific program or one specific piece of legislation? These are the things we would like to know. The honourable member has come to the conclusion -- and I quote the member -- that “It serves the interests of Ontario.”

The part that is the funniest -- and today I thought the Premier fell right into it. He said, “We as bureaucrats, we as the executive in the government, are able to make a distinction.” Once the poll comes in we say, “This is for the workings of the executive branch; we as Progressive Conservatives are not going to use this information.”

Who are they kidding? When the government is prepared to hide information, when the government is prepared to use public funds to advertise, to try to make politics at the taxpayers’ expense, is he trying to tell me they are not using these polls for the benefit of the PC Party in Ontario? Who is he kidding?

We can only come to that conclusion in view of the fact that they resist giving us the information. The only conclusion that is reasonable in the circumstances, protest as he will, is that they are using the information not for the best interests of the people of Ontario but for the best interests of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario. That is the only conclusion at which we can arrive.

I want to say I wonder when I look at the list, and I would say to my colleague from Rainy River that I saw it again -- the initiative he has taken here to show that this government, during the period of time in question, spent half a million dollars for polls, polls that talk about surveys on current problems and issues. How well does that fit into a specific program? Polls such as Life in Ontario, as he has pointed out -- where does that fit in within a specific program? They spent $60,000 on that poll.

Doesn’t this government communicate sometimes with Joe Clark and the federal boys? They would be ashamed of him. He is making these people up in Ottawa ashamed. They are prepared to go a step further and release all sorts of public information which is used by government.

The part that is most frustrating, and I think it has been mentioned by my colleague from Lakeshore, is that here is a positive type of resolution. We talk about the democratic process. We talk about open government. The sad part of it is that if the members on that side, the individual members of this assembly, the members of the Conservative Party of Ontario, get up and block this motion again they will put another nail in the coffin of the private members’ hour, of the supposedly open and democratic process of discussion in this House. Listening to the member for Oriole -- that was the saddest part of all -- it is obvious the word is out to block this resolution.

I think we should heed the call of the member for Lakeshore and say we will not participate in this process any longer. If they want to play it that way, we are going to block every motion. We are going to block every bill and every resolution that emanates from that side of the House. They are making a farce of the whole process by refusing to give us the information.

The government goes a step further. That is what is more insidious about its approach. It goes one step further. Not only will it not release the information, but it won’t even allow an open and public debate and let all members vote according to their consciences on this issue. They should be ashamed of themselves if that is their strategy. I trust it is not, but I am afraid it is.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker let me say at the outset that I share that same intense sense of frustration about what is happening to this private members’ hour and the way all these bills are being hatcheted week by week on a continuous basis by the same side, when we try to have a free and open discussion when this was a major reform introduced to give back-benchers a chance to select and propose ideas for consideration that would be to the general benefit of the province. It has become a farce.

[4:00]

Listening to the arguments defending the position of the government by the member for Oriole, it reminded me of some of the idiotic and inane arguments offered by that gang of four that has been totally discredited -- some of them have been in prison; all of them have been thrown out of office. I am referring to the Watergate crew of Nixon, Agnew, Haldeman and Erlichman. They had the same concept of defensive rights of the executive to have cold power -- not to have anything available to the public. It was their sense of almost a divine right. We found out the reason they were doing it. It was because they had something to hide and the truth did come out eventually.

In this situation I think we are talking about a most fundamental right in democracy -- freedom of speech, freedom to know. I want to compliment the member for Rainy River on his bill. I know he has been fighting for the past three years on this item. I give him full marks for his dedication to the principle. I think the bill is one that deserves the support of every member in this House and I would suspect if we had a genuine free vote it would get unanimous support in this House. But obviously we won’t get a free vote -- the Premier possibly excepted.

As the member for Lakeshore has already outlined, we live in a society that is becoming saturated, if not over-saturated, with polls, possibly to the extent that democracy is being corrupted by the polls. But being as they are today, when a government is using taxpayers’ money to take polls on people’s attitudes, if the public is paying for the poll, the public has a right to know the results of the poll, via the Legislature, via the media. There should be no compromise on that principle whatsoever.

Who is kidding who? The government takes a poll on people’s attitudes toward curriculum development, on any form of taxation, on health cutbacks, on government priorities, who is trying to kid who it isn’t used for partisan political purposes by the people who take the polls? Obviously, the policies are tailored to suit the mood of the times. Obviously those polls suit and benefit the party in power. Obviously the opposition parties are being deprived of that. Obviously the people of Ontario are being deprived of the results of those polls and they have the right to know.

They say we don’t have the right to know. We would be somehow interfering with the executive process. We would be interfering with the whole process of decision-making if we know those same facts. What a farce. What a travesty. What an insult to the people of Ontario. What an insult to every member of this Legislature.

And those government members have the gall to go out campaigning all winter and spring, defending Joe Clark and his program. They knew his predecessor, Stanfield. They knew that Jed Baldwin had been campaigning for the right in Parliament for the last five to seven years and they went out before the public and said, “This is our platform. Elect us and we will implement it.” I give Clark credit and I give Baker credit. They have implemented freedom of information. Yet these members have the gall to stand up here and say they are opposed to that.

Who are they kidding when they say they are for it at the federal level but are totally against it at the provincial level? What hypocrites. What an insult to the voters, when they go before them and say it’s okay for the feds to do it but we can’t have it at Queen’s Park. Oh, no, it would upset the whole legislative process. What a farce.

This bill speaks for itself in terms of its own logic and merit. I think the members on the other side are actually insulting the people who voted Progressive Conservative five months ago by refuting the principle they fought for -- namely, freedom of information; namely, the principle that was introduced yesterday in the House of Commons by the leader and House leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Northumberland.

Mr. Wildman: Did you check this speech with Jed Baldwin?

Mr. Rowe: I don’t know Jed.

Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the resolution we are considering today on the question of whether it would be a desirable move to publish the entire contents of various polls that have been conducted by the ministries -- and I stress that word ministries -- of this government, I should first of all like to address a note of congratulations to the government in Ottawa on the introduction yesterday of its freedom of information legislation. We have referred to this legislation earlier in the question period and since in this debate this afternoon.

I have not had the opportunity to examine the bill in detail, but to judge on the basis of news reports it appears to be well thought over. I think it represents a courageous and responsible stand for the new government to take.

Mr. T. P. Reid: One that we are not prepared to take in Ontario.

Mr. Rowe: This issue is a big one for nearly all governments in today’s so-called wired world. On the one hand, we hear about the public’s right to know and, on the other, we are warned that people are over-saturated with information.

An hon. member: We are wired?

Mr. Rowe: I didn’t say that. I said we are warned.

People are said by some to be bombarded with so many facts and so much persuasive advertising and propaganda that they can no longer absorb it all.

An hon. member: Tory campaign literature.

Mr. Warner: You are talking about your propaganda.

Mr. Rowe: Some would claim that the independent judgement of many of our citizens is perhaps impaired by the constant stream of messages and, in particular, by subliminal signals and signs.

I am not an expert in this area, but it doesn’t take expert knowledge for me or anyone else to see that there must be some truth in these generalizations. I am thinking in particular of our young people, those who are now absorbing ideas and forming their principles and values. I support very strongly indeed the recent statements made by the Premier, encouraging parents, teachers and, indeed, everyone in this province to inculcate a sense of moral responsibility in our youth. It is a very old idea and a very crucial one to our civilization.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You are supposed to wring your hands when you say that.

Mr. Rowe: Any discussion on the release of government information to the public must be conducted with such principles in mind. The whole area of the public’s right to know and freedom of government information is a complex issue and one in which some of the basic ideals of democracy come into direct interface with such notions as responsibility and discretion. That is why I am pleased to see the federal government measure. It appears that they are acting from a perspective which attempts to balance the two ideals of freedom and responsibility. That is what I would urge upon all the members of this House as well.

I honestly believe that we have a solemn duty to our electors and to the generations to come in Ontario to move very carefully and thoughtfully indeed in considering any motions or resolutions on the release of information that may be subject to misinterpretation or misuse.

This government is not opposed to the release of information as a general rule and I believe our record indicates that very clearly.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Specifically; you know specifically.

Mr. Rowe: As a matter of fact, I might refer the House to the work of the Ontario Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy which has been referred to. This commission has been considering these questions for about two years and has heard briefs and representations from a broad range of interested individuals, expert and non-expert alike.

The commission has been operating under the capable chairmanship of Dr. D. Carlton Williams. I understand that Dr. Williams is presently preparing his report on the commission’s hearings, which will be presented in the relatively near future. I would urge the House to wait until we have been able to consider Dr. Williams’ report before acting on any resolution to publish information which the government has deemed it in the public interest to keep confidential.

I must concur with my colleague from Oriole that the resolution we are considering at the moment presents a number of serious problems. If this assembly moves to order the release of the data from polls undertaken by ministries in the discharge of their duties, every shortcoming of the well-known problem of statistics quoted out of context will probably become manifest --

Mr. T. P. Reid: You shouldn’t table anything according to that kind of logic.

Mr. Rowe: -- and in a way that would not only be unfortunate for this government, but for the citizens of the province as well.

My colleague has patiently and thoroughly explained some of the consequences of such irresponsible action and I will not burden you with repetition, but I certainly want to underscore what the gentleman said. I absolutely cannot condone any measures urged upon this government which would have the effect of manipulating public opinion.

An hon. member: That is incredible.

Mr. Rowe: It is a basic tenet of my philosophy that the free individual operating on the basis of his or her independent and considered judgement is the cornerstone of our democratic system.

We, as leaders in and servants of our society, must try in every possible way to foster thought, not confusion and not manipulation. The public’s right to know must be tempered by the necessity of confidentiality. We have a duty to respect the confidence not only of the government, but of those individuals and organizations that may be quoted or referred to in a survey.

As everyone in this House fully realizes, many surveys need expert analysis and interpretation.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Table the analysis with them then.

Mr. Rowe: A survey composed of statistics can be misinterpreted by uninformed or biased individuals for their own political ends.

Interjections.

Mr. Rowe: I think I have seen some of that.

Mr. Warner: You would put Richard Nixon in charge of the crown jewels.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Did you read that before yon came in?

Mr. Rowe: Oh yes. Would you agree with that?

In many cases -- and I share the concern of other members of my party that this may very well be one of them -- the opposite of secrecy I point out is not publicity or public information but rather propaganda.

Mr. Roy: You people are experts on that -- propaganda.

Mr. Rowe: While fully recognizing the people’s right to know, we must act on the public interest, as our voters have entrusted to us to do, and avoid this type of situation at all costs.

Just for the record, I would like to repeat an important point that was emphasized by the Premier when this question of releasing information from polls was raised last spring. The charge made by the opposition that our party has used information obtained in polls conducted by ministries is totally untrue.

Mr. Wildman: Prove it.

Mr. Rowe: We conduct our own opinion polls when required for political purposes. This operation is completely separated from the operations of government. While I am sure the officials of this government make wise use of the material obtained in surveys and polls conducted with respect to programs, partisan activities are entirely separate and apart.

The whole insinuation we are somehow conducting the business of government by polling and second-guessing the public consensus on any given issue is an entirely repugnant idea. It is perfectly responsible for ministry officials to try to gauge what measures will be necessary to ensure programs will effectively serve the people for whom they are intended.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You’re contradicting what Williams said.

Mr. Rowe: It is a desirable thing for them to measure how well they are doing, but it would be quite irresponsible for this government to base policies and bills on whether or not they are judged to be likely to win public approval. There is such a thing as right and wrong. I take pride in this government’s decisions. I believe we have served the people of Ontario faithfully, not by attempting to out-guess the public at every turn, but by heeding the mandate given to us at the time of the election.

In keeping with that trust, Mr. Speaker, I’m afraid I must exercise my judgement on behalf of those who elected me to serve in this assembly and reject the resolution before us as an attempt to solve a complex problem on a piecemeal basis, as a potentially harmful move to promote.

I conclude my remarks by inviting all the honourable members to consider the reasons, conclusions, and recommendations I am sure we can expect from the Williams commission.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, it seems whenever I have the opportunity to speak in private members’ hour I preface my remarks by underlining my feeling of absolute disgust with the way in which private members’ hour is treated by the government.

Mr. Sweeney: Mistreated.

Mr. Van Horne: Time and time again we are either stonewalled or blocked. The member for Lakeshore made reference to this. The member for Cornwall made reference to this. The member for Ottawa East made reference to this. I really think it’s time we considered doing away with this charade, because it is nothing more or less than that.

Now having prefaced my remarks with that terribly sad observation, let me say a few words in support of my colleague’s resolution. We have heard from practically everyone in here about the rights or lack of them that citizens have and the duties and obligations ministries have, but let me ask one question of those who would dare to block this: What about members’ rights?

Do the members of this Legislature have no rights any more? Why did we go through that exercise, in 1977, 1975, and 1971, and earlier on, to be elected when we have no rights unless we’re members of the government?

Mr. Riddell: Davis never did believe in the parliamentary process.

Mr. Van Horne: The question that begs asking further to that is: How heavy is the mantle of government? Is the mantle of government so heavy that government has lost sight of its prime function? Is it not to govern for the people? Is it not accountable for its actions through the parliamentary process? How is it, then, that we are here today, as we have been on earlier occasions, discussing resolutions relating to freedom of information or disclosure of information?

[4:15]

My colleague the member for Rainy River suggested there was some reference to this theme in the speech from the throne. There was reference there too to citizens’ rights. Again, I have to ask you, what about members’ rights? That’s why we keep harping away at this theme. For the government to have the audacity to suggest, through the Premier or through the member for Northumberland, that we can’t act on this because the Williams commission is going to report is nothing less than absolute hypocrisy.

Don’t we have the obligation and duty as members to take some action? Don’t use the Williams commission as an excuse for inaction.

This isn’t the first time, as I suggested earlier, that we have asked for some kind of disclosure. I had the pleasure of presenting a private member’s bill in the springtime seeking disclosure of information on cost of government programs; it was, of course, naivety on my part to think it would go any further, because it was blocked. We have seen this happen time and time again.

Mr. Roy: They blocked it, eh? They systematically undermine democracy.

Mr. Van Horne: The member for Oriole made the observation that it would seem we are chiselling away at the authority of government. I would submit to you that comments like that make Idi Amin look like a rank amateur. In fact, what we are doing, it seems, is nothing more than trying to chisel away at the cloak of government secrecy. That’s exactly what we are trying to do. Isn’t it a shame that we have to chisel away so that we might be better legislators, so that we might know?

In the government’s opinion, haven’t we got the ability to consider facts and make some decisions? The obvious answer from those in government is, “No; we’ll get it, we’ll consider it and we’ll tell you what to do.” If that’s the case, this resolution has all the merit in the world. I hope my few words will underline this one thought: that we do have some rights as members and it’s darn near time the government remembered that; because quite frankly we aren’t going to stay in the dark forever. We, too, are prepared to revolt; and we will. Take that under advisement, because it is important that we know so we can properly govern.

Mr. Williams: Point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Williams: I was misquoted by the last speaker. He stated that I was critical of the opposition for suggesting they were attempting to chisel away at the operation of government. I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. I said it seemed they feel they are serving the public interest by attempting to chisel away at the operational efficiency of this government’s various ministries.

Mr. T. P. Reid: There’s no such thing, to begin with.

Mr. Williams: That is substantially different and importantly different, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has made his point.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ballot item put forward by our colleague from Rainy River. I reflect back on two instances in this House, two of the very few instances in this House quite frankly, which I felt were dealt with by the members with the most pure integrity.

One was over a bill -- I think it was the first private member’s bill put forward by the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck) dealing with what was called the right to die.

If I recall the debate clearly, it was a heated debate and an intelligent discussion. There was a three-way split on the vote. Each of the parties split as to how they were going to vote on the bill.

It was probably the most open kind of vote we’ve had around here. It clearly expressed the intentions of individual members. I appreciated the entire exercise.

The second instance I recall was over the seatbelt legislation. I would think if someone had run a public opinion poll it would have suggested that 125 members would vote against the bill. Yet the members had the courage to put forward their own thoughts, which I think is an integral part of representative government. The members had done the research necessary. We had an intelligent debate on the seatbelt legislation and when it came to the final crunch, again there was a three-way split. Each of the members voted according to his or her conscience and did so in good faith.

Those were two instances I recall in which I think this Legislature rose to a height it is not accustomed to.

I contrast that with the remarks made by the member for Oriole and I’m appalled; quite frankly, I’m appalled. I think the member is misguided. The government can run all the public opinion polls it wants. I hope they would have the courage to introduce legislation and to set policy based on their principles, based on the kinds of things they believe in, and which may or may not coincide with public opinion. I would hope they have the courage to do that.

Of what consequence could it possibly be to the government to release the information that was garnered at public expense? I think the member for Oriole misses the basic point brought forward by my colleague from Rainy River. Public money was used to survey the public. Surely, then, the public is entitled to know the results of that survey. That seems to be a pretty basic democratic principle.

The government then is quite free to either accept or reject the opinion of the public and set its policy in conjunction with the principles it believes in. I would hope any other party in power would do the same thing.

I am appalled by the attitude of the member for Oriole, who completely disregards this kind of principle; who would turn his back on the kind of elevated discussion we had here over the right to die bill, the seatbelt legislation and other items. I’ll serve notice that I intend, within my caucus, to enter into a discussion as to how we proceed with the private members’ hour. If it’s going to be a charade, I don’t intend to participate in it. I don’t need to waste my time putting forward and participating in intelligent discussion if the end result, week after week, is simply to have the government guillotine every opposition bill. That’s nonsense.

The government may as well understand now that we will have a full discussion in our caucus. I assume the same will occur in the Liberal caucus Then we’ll see whether private members’ hour will be continued or not.

In conclusion; as the Speaker knows, this bill is going to be guillotined. I would like to express my personal wishes to the member for Rainy River, who has spent a great deal of time over the past several years in pursuing this topic. I applaud him for his efforts and I only wish his bill would be passed so we could get our hands on those public opinion polls and be better informed members as to what the public thinks about various policies that are brought forward by this government.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I can’t believe the fatuous comments made by the member for Oriole. His comments, and those of the member for Northumberland, completely dismayed me, although no one on this side is surprised that the government is going to block this resolution.

I can’t say the Premier misled us this afternoon during question period, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask you to cast your mind back to his answer to the question of the leader of the Liberal Party when he asked, “Are you going to allow this to be a free vote? Are you going to allow this to be a private members’ hour? Will everybody express their opinion by standing in his or her place?” The Premier said, “We always do that, certainly.” And yet the member for Oriole comes in with a speech written by his researchers; the member for Northumberland comes in with a speech written by his researchers -- I might add, speeches that neither of them bothered to read before they came in here.

It is obvious to all of us that, in fact, this vote is orchestrated by the government and we’re not having a free vote. I can only say shame on the member, shame on the government and shame on the party he represents.

I couldn’t believe the comments of the member for Oriole when he said, “We can’t give the members that information. They wouldn’t know what to do with the facts and figures. They would just confuse them. They might know what we’re doing over here. The public has too much information now; my God, we don’t want to add to that. There is just a barrage of information and the public isn’t able to sort it out.”

I have seldom ever heard a speech, certainly not in my 12 years here, so completely opposite to the principles of democracy. It’s just incredible.

I say this most sincerely to the member, that he reread those words he just read that were written for him, and I hope that tomorrow he will get up and apologize for them.

The silly things the member said, Mr. Speaker. He said: “You can see the subject matter of the polls. You can tell what’s in them by the subject matter.” It’s like saying here’s a book, the title of which is Gone with the Wind. I suggest the member might pursue that particular topic, take advice from that and be gone with the wind. To say you can tell by the title what’s in it is fatuous nonsense.

He talked with great glowing comments about the freedom of the press, and the freedom of the opposition, except he doesn’t give us the tools to do the job.

On the freedom of the press, Jonathan Manthorpe, a well-respected columnist now in London with the Star, wrote. “Davis Waffles on Polls.” I won’t tell you what he said. In the Globe and Mail, “MPP Urges Forcing Disclosure Polls,” Hugh Winsor, respected columnist for the Globe and Mail wrote, “Wobbly Stance on Polls.” And an- other Hugh Winsor column, “Suspicion about Polls.” I want to read you what he said:

“Until the Ontario government decides to release the results of a half million dollars worth of public opinion polls it has done, we are left with no other conclusion than that the Conservative Party is using taxpayers’ money to do what political parties should pay for themselves.”

That’s not a member of the opposition speaking. I would think, and I hope the member would agree with me, that Mr. Winsor is as objective a columnist as we have in this institution; and that is his opinion, not mine; and not that of a member of the NDP.

I read some of the polls that have been taken. I want to read some more. Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs -- this goes back a few years: Ontario Economy and Development: A Quantitative Consumer Perspective, Phase I, August 1975 -- the cost $50,000 paid to Goldfarb Consultants;

Ontario Economy and Development: A Quantitative Consumer Perspective, February 1976 -- $89,000 to Goldfarb Consultants.

[4:30]

If I was really suspicious I would think that was taken just before the 1977 election. I recall one of my constituents coming to me and saying, “I’m doing this survey for the government. It must be being done by the Conservative Party because the questions are very political.”

I say to you that we’re trying to focus in on one aspect of freedom of information and full disclosure; that happens to be these government opinion polls.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If I may conclude, obviously the government is going to block this. I can tell members that in my position as chairman of the public accounts committee, I’m going to put to that committee the resolution that we drag every cabinet minister who’s responsible for any of these polls before that public accounts committee and make him justify those expenditures of the taxpayers’ money in Ontario.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That completes the allotted time for debate on ballot item 29; it will be dealt with further at 5:50.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Germa moved second reading of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Mr. Germa: I’ll leave five minutes for a rebuttal at the end, Mr. Speaker.

The bill I’ve presented to the Legislature can hardly be refused by any member of this Legislature if he appreciates a good, clean, cold drink of water. That’s what the bill is about.

Mr. Kerrio: Don’t you believe that.

Mr. Germa: Anyone who can answer yes to the question -- “Do you appreciate that?” -- has to vote for this bill. There are serious discrepancies in the present legislation which might preclude us, in the future, from being able to enjoy a simple thing like a good, clean, drink of water.

Mr. Roy: I’ll tell you, Bud, I wouldn’t put my money on the Tories.

Mr. Germa: The bill is a very simple piece of legislation. All it asks the government of Ontario to do is identify sources of municipal water supply as they presently exist, as well as those which might come on stream, and identify them by name; and secondly, ensure that no mining or staking takes place in those water bodies which would be designated on that list.

It’s not as though we’re going to wipe out many bodies of water. I’m sure there are only 500 or 600 lakes out of the hundreds of thousands of lakes that we have in Ontario which would be affected, because there are not that many municipalities in Sudbury to use up all of the lakes available to us.

That’s what the bill asks for; protection from the activities of mining companies when they attack a municipality.

The government’s response to this question has been that there is plenty of legislation on the books; in the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act. I’m going to present a case which will prove to members, without doubt, that that is not correct. The experience of one municipality will show you, Mr. Speaker. I intend to give you the experience of the municipality of Sudbury.

Sudbury has long had a problem with water supply. There was one point in time when we used Lake Ramsay. But due to the lack of control by this government on that part of the lake which was not in the regional municipality, the nutrient level came up too high, with the result that every summer the lake would bloom. We would have to dump chemicals into the lake to kill the algae and consequently we ended up with water that no one could drink.

After much serious consideration, a lot of studies and expenditure of a lot of money, we did put in a municipal water supply system to draw from Lake Wanapitei. Lake Wanapitei is located about 28 kilometres north of the city of Sudbury. We spent about $9 million to $12 million putting in a pipeline, pumping stations and plants to clean the water up. We just got the system completed when, lo and behold, a dark cloud appears on the horizon, the government of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Leo Bernier.

Mr. Germa: Led by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier).

If there is a hero in this story, I have to give credit to Mike Solski, the vice-chairman of the regional municipality of Sudbury and a former Liberal candidate. There is no partisanship here in giving him credit. It was Mike Solski who, as vice-chairman of the region and as mayor of Nickel Centre, heard that a mining company was nibbling around Lake Wanapitei. They wanted to drill for uranium in the bottom of this lake which we had just tapped into. Some geological survey showed them a strip of uranium-bearing ore which runs from Elliot Lake, 110 miles, right through the bottom of Lake Wanapitei.

They have not yet drilled the first 100 miles, but this mining company wanted to drill right in the bottom of our water supply, Lake Wanapitei. Consequently, the vice-chairman was quite concerned. He alerted the Ontario cabinet and the cabinet reacted. They said there was a freeze on Lake Wanapitei and in fact they were going to appoint a committee; the odd ruse this government uses. When you don’t have an answer, appoint a committee.

The committee sat. It was appointed by the Ontario government. It included governmental officials from the Ministry of the Environment. It included the regional chairman, the vice-chairman, the mayor of Sudbury and a couple of citizens of Sudbury. They made a recommendation to cabinet that there should not be any development, commercial or industrial, in the Lake Wanapitei watershed without the full benefit of the Environmental Assessment Act.

That recommendation went to the cabinet in December of 1977. This argument has been going on now for some three years now. They got the recommendation in 1977, the cabinet hurled it in the garbage can and issued permits to drill in Lake Wanapitei. After sitting for a year, and with this committee making such clear recommendations, the cabinet approved the drilling permit.

Every member of this House doesn’t understand how they do this in northern Ontario. The drilling is done during the wintertime because the mining companies use the ice layer as their platform. The drilling then has to be done between January, February and March when the ice is at its strongest. So we are running into time here.

In December 1977 the cabinet said to go ahead and drill. In January 1978 Hollinger Mines announced plans to drill in Massey Bay in Maclennan township on Lake Wanapitei. They were going to drill that section of the lake.

In January 1978, shortly after that announcement by Hollinger, the regional council of Sudbury was very perturbed. It came to the council for their consideration and they voted 19-nothing to fight the cabinet of Ontario. That is how the resolution was worded. Support for that position came from a bunch of people -- the Lake Wanapitei Home and Campers Association; Raeside-Balfour council; Nickel Centre council; the Indian Reserve No. 11, which is on the lake; the anglers and hunters associations; and the Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario.

The regional council was very concerned that they received no response from cabinet so they decided to hire a lawyer to speak to the government of Ontario. He spoke to the deputy minister, Dr. Reynolds, with no results.

A citizens committee was formed. We tried to get in to see the Premier (Mr. Davis). He closed the door in our face. The people of Sudbury then had no recourse. They had no place to go except to the courts. That is just not satisfactory.

They went to the courts on February 17, 1978. An eight-day injunction was obtained from Judge Smith to protect the lake from Hollinger Mines.

The interveners in the case were the regional municipality of Sudbury on behalf of the 160,000 citizens in the region; Norman Recollet, the chief of Indian Reserve No. 11, who was protecting his riparian rights; Laurie St. Jean, a citizen of Sudbury and a consumer of water; and Garry Larrett, an owner of land on the lake who also has rights to the shoreline. The defendants in the action were Hollinger Mines Limited and their contractor Bradley Brothers Limited.

This was only an eight-day injunction. They went back to the Supreme Court of Ontario on February 25, and the Honourable Mr. Justice Garrett at that time agreed to continue the injunction to a further hearing date some time in April. His statement at the time, and the reason he granted the extension of the injunction, was there was a real hazard of irreparable damage if the mining company was allowed to explore Lake Wanapitei.

The legal points used in getting this extension of the injunction were that Hollinger Mines Limited has determined there is an ore body in the bottom of the lake and consequently, the drilling is just the thin edge of the wedge.

It’s something like the Arab and the camel thing. Once they drill and determine there is an ore body, their full intention is to exploit it and consequently ruin the water supply. We know you cannot develop an uranium mine in a watershed without wrecking the watershed. We have ample experience from the Elliot Lake area where the uranium mining companies have destroyed the whole Serpent River water system for 110 miles from Elliot Lake right into Georgian Bay. We know that; we know you can’t go near uranium without ruining everything.

The second point used, and the responsibility for this is imposed by this government, is under the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act the council of that region is responsible for supplying potable water to the citizens thereof. Conversely, each citizen who uses the water is in contract with the municipality. If the municipality, the region, fails to supply and meet that contract, then every citizen in the region could, in fact, sue the regional corporation for not supplying them with the water and living up to the contract.

The region had a real stake in it. If the region delivered poisoned water to them, they could sue the regional municipality. That motivated the regional council to go for the injunction.

Not only that, but the year was moving on, and if we could hold them in the courts until the ice went out we were going to beat them. This is how you run this railway. You go to the court and you drag your feet until the ice goes out.

Why are we so concerned about uranium mining in this water body? First of all, we all know uranium can break down into 14 elements. Three of them are very dangerous; they are toxic and radioactive: Radon gas, we know what that is; radium 226; and thorium. All three of these elements are soluable and dispersable in water. We also know none can be ingested safely.

Thanks to the weather -- as we know, in northern Ontario spring comes in March -- the ice started to rot and they could no longer use this ice as their platform for drilling. So lo and behold, Hollinger Mines said, “We quit; we’ve been beaten by the weather and we’ve been beaten by the foot dragging in the courts.” Everybody was pleased Hollinger quit.

At that point in time the regional chairman, in a public statement to the council, said, “We must press this government to take action so this will never happen again, because every time the ice freezes we are under pressure from mining companies, or we could be.” Even to this day we have no protection, except to hold them in the court and hope the ice goes out.

It was at this time I formulated the bill that is being presently considered. I circulated it to almost every municipality in northern Ontario. One municipality rejected it -- I still haven’t figured out why -- and that is the municipality of Timmins. Those municipalities that supported it represent a large area of northern Ontario. Each and every one of their councils passed a resolution in support; such as councils in; Foley township, Temagami, Elliot Lake, Macdonald, Meredith, Onaping Falls, Assiginack, Balfour, Armour, Parry Sound, Kirkland Lake and Kapuskasing. It goes on and on. Everybody agrees; they are afraid of the mining companies when their municipality comes under attack.

[4:45]

Does anyone think it has died down? It hasn’t died down. We started this boondoggle in 1976, and as late as March 1979 the council of Nickel Centre passed the following motion: “The town of Nickel Centre urges the Ministry of Environment to pursue legislation prohibiting mining and/or any type of industrial activity in or on Lake Wanapitei which would jeopardize the quality of the lake as a source of potable water for the town of Nickel Centre and the city of Sudbury.”

They sent that to our friend, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott). What does Hopeless Harry do about this? He goes right back to the statement of 1976 when they said: “We have plenty of legislation on the books in the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act.” All of those acts were in place prior to 1976, before this thing started. The loopholes in those acts are so big that Hollinger mine got right in and almost got into our water supply. We have a hazard in northern Ontario which this bill, I believe, would protect us from. I don’t know how any member can rationalize staying away from it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 125. I am familiar with the incident that I knew the honourable member for Sudbury would raise. He lays the strength of his case fully on one incident that occurred in his riding.

The problems at Wanapitei, as the honourable member indicated, were a political issue at that time. It’s a very emotional issue, there’s no question about it. I don’t think there’s a member in this Legislature who would not support the member for Sudbury in his efforts to have a good water supply for any community in this province; not only a good water supply but an abundant one.

The thrust of that effort is commendable and certainly I want to support him in that. However, I think there is sufficient legislation in the statutes of this province to deal with the matter to which he refers.

One can list a number of arguments why this happened at Wanapitei. The honourable member did it very well. But not only do we have the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act, but there is another act. He made no mention of the Public Lands Act which is administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Under it, mining exploration or things of that nature can be controlled through conditions stated on the work permit.

The protection is there for the public of the province, not only in northern Ontario, an area where we have something like 250,000 lakes, but throughout Ontario. The bill itself is something that, in my opinion, is redundant and would not be workable. When one moves into southern Ontario, with such lakes as Lake Erie, where we do a lot of mineral exploration, gas exploration and that type of thing, this bill is not worded in a way that would protect against those kinds of things.

I think the thrust of the bill itself may in some instances curtail mineral exploration. Because we explore for minerals in some of these areas doesn’t necessarily mean there will be a mine in the middle of Lake Wanapitei. That’s the inference some would leave.

There are a number of sections in these various acts. I am going to put on the record the thrust of those sections, providing a very detailed explanation of the various sections of those acts, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act.

Under the Ontario Water Resources Act we have three sections that should be referred to. The public will be reading these comments in the debates of the Legislature so I would like to put them on record in a very formal way to make sure there is no misunderstanding.

Section 32 of the Ontario Water Resources Act deals with water quality. It makes it an offence for any person or municipality to discharge or deposit any material of any kind in the water or on the shore or bank of a watercourse or waterbed or in any place that may impair the quality of the water. On summary conviction, the offender is liable to a fine on first conviction of not more than $5,000 and on each subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than $10,000. Each day of contravention constitutes a separate offence.

Section 36 allows a regional director to define an area that includes a source of public water supply to provide protection for it. This section can be used to prohibit swimming or even bathing, or the deposit or discharge of any material that may impair the quality of water, or any acts that would reduce the amount of water available unduly within the public water supply system. On summary conviction a person guilty of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both. Section 36 could be used at the request of a municipality to protect its source of water supply. It is a very important section.

Mr. McClellan: Was Hollinger exempted from all these acts?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Section 37 of the Ontario Water Resources Act states very clearly that this regulates the taking of water and, except for the exclusion of domestic or farm uses, requires any person taking more than 10,000 gallons of water in a day to obtain a permit issued by the director of the ministry.

Mr. Wildman: They are not taking water, they are drilling through it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The director may issue, refuse to issue or cancel a permit, and may impose such terms and conditions in the issuing of a permit as he considers proper.

This section also covers the taking of water by means of wells, surface source of supply; and structures or work constructed for the diversion and storage of water. It allows the ministry to regulate water use and prevent interference with community water supplies. I repeat that it prevents interference with the community source of water supply.

Mr. Wildman: That’s irrelevant; they do it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Under the Environmental Protection Act, which is complementary legislation, protection is provided here to preserve environmental quality and to provide for the control of operations which may present a hazard from contaminants added to, or emitted or discharged into any part of the natural environment by any person or from any source.

A director of the ministry may issue a control order, in accordance with section 6 or section 70, to limit or control the discharge of the contaminant or stop the addition, emission or discharge. The control order can set out procedures to be followed in the control or elimination of the contaminant or call for the installation, replacement or alteration of equipment designed to control or eliminate the contaminant.

There we have some examples of sections of certain acts; three acts in particular, the Public Lands Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act. I think something the members of this House would not want to do is to add further to the confusion of having duplicate legislation, contradicting legislation or overlapping legislation when trying to correct and prevent the things to which the honourable member for Sudbury has made reference.

In essence, the acts we have there are very appropriate. They have the teeth the honourable member wants our control measures to have. They provide the necessary controls with regard to conviction. It is well spelled out: it is as clear as anyone would want, in this province, to make sure the water supply is adequate and is protected. That is what all of us want to assure the people of the province is correct, and it is.

So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this bill is redundant. It is certainly not necessary and I will find some difficulty in supporting it, having in mind the fact that we have sufficient legislation on the statute books now to look after the fears the member for Sudbury may have.

Certainly I share his concern, but I have to say to him that I think he should be commended for bringing a very important issue to light, because it gives us an opportunity to clear the record once and for all, to put on the record the fact that the protection that the people of Ontario really want is there, in place, and certainly will be administered having those fears in mind.

Mr. Bolan: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that I and my party will be supporting this bill for reasons I will outline in a few moments.

However, before speaking on the reasons for endorsing this bill, I would like to mention that I noticed a feeling of unease in the Legislature this afternoon. It’s sort of like a festering sore. I think it emanates from the fact that this particular government is once again demonstrating what is happening to private members’ day.

Mr. Kerrio: They’re phasing it out.

Mr. Bolan: If a government is going to set up the ability of individual members of this House to bring forward bills to be debated, to bring to the attention of the public things that are very much in issue in the province today, then the least the government of the day can do is to consider these bills properly and not to do what it is going to do this afternoon, which is to bring out the 20 right guards to stand up and block the legislation.

I merely say this because, as I say, I was sitting on the other side with some friends of mine and I noticed an uneasiness in the Legislature, a feeling that the members on the opposition side are getting fed up with the attitude of the government towards private members’ bills.

With respect to this particular act, I might say also I am disgusted by the fact that it has to be left to the opposition to bring forward a bill to point out to the government what it is doing wrong. This type of legislation should have been in place a long time ago.

We know, although the intentions are very good, that nothing is going to come of it. I’ll tell you why nothing will come of it, Mr. Speaker. There are two reasons: They won’t support it because, one, it’s going to work and, two, it doesn’t cost anything. Those two features alone are enough for that government to defeat anything that has any type of common sense.

Incidentally, I might point out to the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) that North Bay did support the resolution. Something else about North Bay, which really is unique in the province, is that it is one of a handful of lakes that do not have filtration systems for their water. The only thing that is added to Trout Lake, which is our main source of water, is fluoride for dental care. We have one of the very few lakes in Ontario with pure water, and it is because of the good management of the city of North Bay itself that this has taken place.

As far as the bill itself goes, reference has been made by the Minister of Northern Affairs to the fact that three other acts are supposedly in place in Ontario to control this situation. Obviously they don’t work, because, if the three acts referred to by the Minister of Northern Affairs did work, then the situation which we saw develop with respect to Hollinger Mines would not have taken place at all. If ever there was proof that it didn’t work, that’s it.

With respect to the first act mentioned by the Minister of Northern Affairs, the one called the Ontario Water Resources Act, he referred to section 32. Now, as the minister knows, section 32 refers to the discharge of polluting material. What we’re trying to do is to prevent the pollutant from getting into the water. We’re not just interested in chasing some poor driller who may be 2,000 miles away after the deed has been committed. We’re trying to prevent the pollution from taking place.

[5:00]

I remember reading in our local newspaper about the situation which developed in Wanapitei. I remember the action of the government -- or the inaction of the government. I don’t blame the member for Sudbury for standing up in this House and presenting this bill because I think above everything else that demonstrates this government has no intention of going beyond its present moribund acts to try to improve the lot of many people in the province of Ontario.

You know, water is getting more expensive. What may be a good body of drinking water today may not be so tomorrow if some of the things we are trying to prevent do in fact happen. If we destroy these bodies of water which are adjacent to our municipalities, we will have to go further and further to get our water. The Minister of Northern Affairs knows full well the high cost of transporting water; so all the more reason we should look very closely at this type of legislation, at this proposed bill.

As I said earlier, I am sure it is not going to take place; the Minister of Northern Affairs has already let it be known what the intentions of his government are. As I said earlier also, it is indeed a sad day.

The one shortcoming I see in the bill is that it refers only to the actual exploration of minerals through that body of water. I am sure when we form the government similar legislation will be introduced, but it will also address the situation where development is taking place on the shores of a lake and try to prevent the pollution from the drills themselves getting into the lake.

I don’t know how many here have ever worked on drills before; I am sure the member for Sudbury has and I am sure some of the other members have as well. The pollution that comes from a drill is quite excessive, particularly when the work is being done on the ice. We know what that can do to the lakes and to our water. This is all the more reason for this type of legislation to be put into place.

As I said earlier, it would be so simple. You go to the existing municipalities and ask, “What are the bodies of water you use for your consumption?” The lakes are identified; they go into a schedule. Then for a Hollinger, an Inco, or whatever company may come along and wish to drill on that lake, it is a very simple thing to turn a page and find out whether or not that lake is listed in the schedule. The next thing to do, even if it is listed in the schedule, would be to have a director to whom the matter could be referred.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this appeal to the jury is falling on deaf ears. However, members can surely realize how, with the help of a director, those interested could find out just what would happen. What are they drilling for? How long are they going to be there? There can be all kinds of things that can be done by a director to determine the feasibility of the case. It is not a question of trying to block it; it’s a question of trying to determine whether or not it can be done safely.

I as an individual support the bill, as does our party. However, I am afraid it will die the same unfortunate death we have seen so many other bills die in this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Wildman: I rise in support of this bill, presented by my colleague the member for Sudbury. I want to congratulate him for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and for having been able to garner as much support from as many municipalities across the north as he has. It is obvious that the present government is unwilling to deal with this problem.

I would like to make some comments in response to remarks made by the Minister for Northern Affairs when he was speaking on this bill. He went to some length to talk about the Water Resources Act and the Environmental Assessment Act and indicated that they were effective, that there were effective controls under those acts that would make this bill redundant.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s why we’re drinking bottled water.

Mr. Wildman: If that were the case, we wouldn’t have the problems we’ve got in Serpent River area right now.

The minister during his statement said that this was really just a response to a local matter relating to Sudbury and Lake Wanapitei. I need only remind the minister that at the time of the latest debate and controversy over Lake Wanapitei there was a similar debate going on in Elliot Lake. There was a company that wished to drill in Elliot Lake, through the ice. That body of water produces the drinking water for the town of Elliot Lake.

Again, it was only the opposition of local people that prevented it. I want to pay tribute especially to the United Steel Workers of America and their staff rep, Homer Seguin, for his work in preventing this government from allowing at Elliot Lake the same kind of drilling as was proposed at Lake Wanapitei, and which was also opposed by the people there.

The minister says the pollution of the Serpent River system which has meant that the native people in the community of Serpent Lake cannot use their water is not the result of drilling. I’ll accept that. It’s the result of the mining operations and the tailings and so on.

But I should remind the minister that at the time of the so-called experimental drilling at Elliot Lake there was oil pollution in that water. That was brought to the attention of the provincial government. I’m talking about very recently.

The minister’s reference to lakes in southern Ontario like Lake Erie, where there are drilling operations going on, is evidence that he hasn’t really read the bill.

Mr. Kerrio: They didn’t have to wait until winter, they could stand right on the water.

Mr. Wildman: Section 2(3) states very clearly: “The director may, in his discretion, refuse to issue or cancel a permit, may impose such terms and conditions in issuing a permit as he considers proper and may alter the term and conditions of a permit after it is issued.”

According to this bill it would be quite possible, if considered in the public interest, for drilling to take place as long as the company lived by the terms and conditions given by the director as set forth in the bill.

I submit that if we had all of the protection the minister claims we have in the Public Lands Act, the Water Resources Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, we wouldn’t have the problems we face right now in Elliot Lake.

I want to refer to the Environmental Assessment Board’s report. In that report they stated it was a result of the dumping of radioactive wastes. I remind the minister this is done under the aegis of the Environmental Assessment Act.

They state: “Too much radioactive waste is going to be produced with the expansion” -- they’re talking about the expansion of Elliot Lake as, a result of the Hydro contracts -- “and no one is planning to do enough about it. The mines should be compelled to experiment with backfilling, literally dumping their hazardous wastes back underground in mine tunnels that have been worked out.” This is the important point. “Runoff from the ponds and the gradual escape of dangerous wastes under the ground has polluted nearby streams and lakes and threatens the town’s water supply.”

I submit that if the bills are as effective as the minister indicated we wouldn’t be faced with this kind of proposition where mining operations can threaten water supplies. If we get that from the storage of wastes left over from mining operations, what on earth could happen if there was an accident at the time of drilling and mining through the ice? The fact is we’re dealing with very radioactive material, as the member for Sudbury mentioned. At this time the companies aren’t removing radium or thorium, which are the two radioactive ingredients in the ore they would be mining out. We’d face a very serious situation if there was inadequate protection in terms of water supply.

The minister indicated the present legislation has enough teeth. If that’s the case, I would like to know why the town of Elliot Lake passed a resolution supporting my colleague’s bill? Why is it the Association of Counties and Regions in Ontario passed a resolution in which they said: “Whereas potable drinking water is a precious natural resource and whereas the quality of this resource on many occasions has been impaired by human negligence and lack of legislative protection -- ” I wonder if the minister is aware of the opinion of the counties and region about his laws which he says are so effective?

They go on: “ -- and whereas recent activities by mining exploration companies in the Lake Wanapitei area in the Sudbury region and in Elliot Lake caused great concern to these communities because of the danger to the water supply by drilling into beds of those lakes; and whereas the withdrawal of those companies’ activities in these lakes in 1978 is not a guarantee that this cannot be attempted again in the future anywhere in the province -- ” again, they don’t trust the present legislation as any guarantee, “ -- and whereas present legislation is inadequate and confusing in dealing with the protection of primary sources of water supply; therefore be it resolved that we call on the provincial government to investigate and analyse all present legislation that permits staking, drilling and exploration for minerals in the beds of any water bodies; and further be it resolved that we ask the provincial government to so designate all lakes that are potential sources of community drinking water in the province; and further that we call on the government to introduce legislation which will prevent the staking, drilling and exploring in beds of any water bodies that are sources of water supply to a community.”

I submit that the bill presented by my friend from Sudbury is an exact response to the request of the counties and regions of this province for protection of bodies of water that are producing water supplies for communities. It’s because the government did not respond to this very legitimate request that we had to go the route of the member for Sudbury in presenting a private member’s bill in this House.

It’s only because the government is irresponsible in dealing with mining companies and protecting the water supply of the communities that we have to give a rational response to a very legitimate need.

The member for Sudbury mentioned Mr. Solski. I remember the time when the injunction was being sought and was granted to stop drilling in Wanapitei. Mr. Solski was very happy, of course, but he stated: “The entire situation points out the need for legislation protecting water bodies that are sources of drinking water. There is legislation preventing the staking of claims in provincial parks and there should be similar legislation protecting water bodies that are sources of municipal drinking water.”

I couldn’t agree more. I agree we should he protecting our provincial parks and not have mining operations take place in them; but surely if we’re going to give that kind of protection for the aesthetics of this province, we can give the same kind of protection to protect the health of our communities.

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

Mr. Wildman: I reiterate that one cannot put jobs ahead of health. If one is drilling they’re drilling for a purpose, not because they’re testing drills but because they want to mine the ore out from the bottom of the lake.

I think we should all support this legislation to protect our drinking water.

Mr. Havrot: Mr. Speaker, there is no more laudable an act by government than ensuring a clean environment.

Mr. Bolan: When is the government going to start?

Mr. Havrot: The intent of the member for Sudbury’s amendment is of a noble nature, which I’m sure is held in high regard on all sides of the House. It springs from a philosophy which the government of Ontario has held for many years. Yet herein lies the difficulty I have with this particular piece of legislation.

[5:15]

Although noble in spirit, this bill has the effect of duplicating existing legislation. It merely seconds legislation which has protected the people of Ontario for many years. I am somewhat surprised a fellow member from the north is not more familiar with the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act. Both these acts provide excellent protection for the people of this province.

I have grave misgivings about creating unneeded legislation. On most occasions it does nothing more than provide excess red tape. An overabundance of red tape is the quickest way I know to kill the effectiveness of any legislation, and I am afraid this would be the end result of Bill 125.

The Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act already provide all the legislative muscle needed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to carry out the very basic job of ensuring good water supplies for municipal, community and private use.

Mr. Laughren: You’re smirking. Why are you smirking when you are reading this?

Mr. Havrot: Maintaining both the quality of the water and the quality of the supply are integral parts of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Mr. Breaugh: He is smirking at the speech writer.

Mr. Havrot: Why don’t you listen for a while. You might learn something. Your tongue keeps flapping. Why don’t you put it in low gear?

It is an objective the Ministry of the Environment has worked long and hard to preserve. I would like to take a moment to comment on two sections of the Ontario Water Resources Act. Section 32 was created to preserve water quality. it is presently an offence for a person or municipality to discharge or deposit material of any kind into water or onto the shore or bank of a watercourse --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Your point of order?

Mr. Breaugh: A point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is the member reading a speech in this House?

Mr. Havrot: I suppose you don’t read speeches in the House?

It is at present an offence for any person or municipality to discharge or deposit material of any kind into water or onto the shore or bank of a watercourse or water body, or into any place that may impair the quality of the water. There is no doubt in my mind a discharge of effluent from a mine would be covered under this section of the legislation. Thus this bill would prove to be redundant.

The member for Sudbury also recommends in his bill that any person guilty of an offence or summary conviction should be liable to a fine of not more than $200 for every day the contravention occurs. This does not even come close to meeting penalties already established under section 32 of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Presently, upon a summary conviction, the offender is liable to a fine on first conviction, as was pointed out earlier, of not more than $5,000 and on each subsequent conviction of not more than $10,000.

Mr. Laughren: Why do you let them drill?

Mr. Havrot: I might also point out that because each day of contravention is considered a separate offence these penalties can prove to be a very stiff reminder to the offender. I would suggest the penalties included in Bill 125 are probably not of sufficient severity to provide any added incentive for the guilty party to clean up his or her act. I wish members opposite would clean up their act.

Interjection.

Mr. Mackenzie: Don’t look up, you might miss a sentence.

Mr. Havrot: Boy, your tongues are sure wagging this afternoon.

Mr. Breaugh: Maybe if the honourable member would follow the rules they wouldn’t have to wag so much.

Mr. Havrot: I must be getting across to you because you won’t let me present it.

Mr. Breaugh: Why don’t you make your own speech instead of reading somebody else’s?

Mr. Havrot: This portion requires any person taking more than 10,000 gallons of water in a day from a source to obtain a permit issued by a director of the Ministry of the Environment. Only domestic and farm uses are excluded from this permit requirement.

The issuing of such a permit provides the means for the Ontario government to control water consumption. This section also gives the director the power to cancel such a permit and to impose terms and conditions which he deems appropriate. This act is very comprehensive in that it covers the removal of water by means of wells, surface supply, inlets and diversion and storage structure. Because of this particular section, the ministry can ably regulate and prevent interference of community water supply sources.

Complementary protection is also provided by the Environmental Protection Act. Under section 6 and section 70, a director of the ministry may issue a control order to limit or control the discharge of contaminants.

This order can set out procedures to be followed in the elimination or control of these contaminants. The director can also order the installation, replacement or alteration of equipment designed to control and eliminate these contaminants.

It seems to me a mining operation discharging effluent into any water source, whether it be a community water source or not, would be charged under this present legislation. I firmly believe the laws now in place are of a stiffer nature than what the member for Sudbury is now proposing.

Mr. Kerrio: When was the last time somebody was charged under that act? Explain that to me.

Mr. Havrot: If the ministry feels there is any imminent or immediate danger to human life or the health of any person, officials can issue a stop order to the responsible party and put an end to the release of contaminants into the natural environment. If the ministry feels there is any threat or danger to a piece of property, another stop order can also be issued.

Mr. Kerrio: When are we going to do that?

Mr. Havrot: This is all covered in the Environmental Protection Act under section 7 and 74, and provides the government of Ontario with the necessary legislation to act quickly and expeditiously in the case of an emergency.

We feel on this side of the House this is more than adequate and enables the Ministry of the Environment to deal with any problem that may arise, not just with those limited few covered in this amendment.

I would also like to mention that the same stiff penalties covered in the Ontario Water Resources Act are also included in the Environmental Protection Act. Under section 102, upon summary conviction, a person is liable to a fine on a first conviction of not more than $5,000 and on each subsequent conviction of not more than $10,000 for every day an offence occurs.

I have two main difficulties with this bill. First, as I have outlined, it seems to be redundant and unnecessary. The Ontario Water Resources Act and Environmental Protection Act provide a sufficiently strong basis for the Ministry of the Environment to protect the water supplies of municipalities, communities and individuals.

This protection does not just cover interference from prospecting or mining activities, but also includes other intrusions upon the natural environment.

The second problem in Bill 125 is one of confusion in definition and in enforcement.

Mr. Mackenzie: We now know the honourable member can read.

Mr. Havrot: The bill defines a source of community drinking water.

I haven’t got a wagging tongue like the honourable member has that can wag on for hours in perpetual motion.

Mr. Mackenzie: We know you can read.

Mr. Havrot: Yes, and maybe better than the honourable member can.

Mr. Breaugh: Are you reading a speech?

Mr. Havrot: Doesn’t the honourable member ever read a speech? He is so bright.

Mr. Breaugh: Are you reading a speech?

Mr. Havrot: Yes I am, for his information.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The rules of this House are quite clear that members may not read speeches. This member has just said he is reading a speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think if the honourable member reads the rule correctly, it says “must not read extensively.”

Mr. Breaugh: If I might, for your information, simply point out that under the rules of debate, in section 19, it says, “ ... or read unnecessarily from verbatim reports of the legislated debates or any other document.” Unnecessarily from verbatim reports, Mr. Speaker, precludes the members reading speeches in the House. They are certainly allowed to quote at some length, but they are not allowed under these rules to read a speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Havrot: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kerrio: Put it in your pocket.

Mr. Havrot: The second problem in Bill 125 is one of confusion in definition and enforcement. The bill defines a source of community drinking water as, “any body of water that is used or is likely to be used as a public source of drinking water by any municipality or other community in Ontario.”

The phrase, “or is likely to be used,” could include almost any body of water in Ontario and might preclude that we ever have another mining operations started in this province. That seems to me to be more than a little shortsighted.

I also puzzled over the section which says the ministry, “shall prepare and publish in the Ontario Gazette a list of names of all sources of community drinking water in Ontario.” Should that list include all services serving two or more residences? Should it include all industries? Should it include a farmer’s privately-owned well? Should potential water resources be included?

Mr. Wildman: Are they going to drill for uranium in a well?

Mr. Havrot: It is not difficult to imagine the length of such a list nor to imagine the problems that would occur when trying to compile such a list. What is difficult to imagine is why anyone would want to tamper with this solid base of existing legislation and add to it a confused and cumbersome amendment. Should we risk altering a successful and effective tool?

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer should be no.

Mr. M. Davidson: A point of order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What’s your point of order?

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is very similar to the one raised by the member of Oshawa, but I will raise it now when no one is speaking. You have allowed the member to continue and finish his speech, but I would like you to get a ruling from the Clerk of this Legislature as to exactly what section 19(d)(4) means. “Not necessarily from verbatim reports of the Legislative debates or any other documents,” means to me that you cannot make a speech by reading it in the House.

Mr. Havrot: They do it in Washington every day.

Mr. M. Davidson: Well we are not in Washington, we are in the province of Ontario; and I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that 10 minutes is excessive or unnecessary reading, particularly when the member probably did not write the speech himself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will not be reading a speech.

It’s right off the top of my head and it will become very obvious as time goes on I am sure. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate.

I just want to make a few very brief comments. One has to respond to the comments of the member for Timiskaming. He made the point that the existing legislation, in his view, would cover the situation. I beg to differ on that point. I think there are some weaknesses in the existing legislation which would be covered by this particular act. In that regard, I think the act does deserve support.

The Ontario Water Resources Act was mentioned as a possible legislation vehicle through which drilling in a lake or body of water, if it was a source of drinking water, as Lake Wanapitei is, could be checked and used as a protection for that body of water. I suggest that the Ontario Water Resources Act would not give the kind of protection we are seeking in this instance. The Ontario Water Resources Act would only protect after the fact. It would only protect the source of drinking water after the drilling has been done and after the damage has been done. There would be certain conditions under the Water Resources Act which could be violated and then subject to some prosecution if the violation was flagrant.

But that doesn’t solve the problem of protecting the water. What does the city of Sudbury do, for instance, in the event of a spill or serious damage to that body of water? What do the people of Sudbury do in the meantime, while the ministry is trying to prosecute under the terms of the Ontario Water Resources Act? Do they go without water? Do they try and find another source of drinking water? What do they do?

So I say to my friend, the protection under the Ontario Water Resources Act for this kind of situation is totally inadequate and should not be used under any circumstance.

In terms of the Environmental Protection Act I think the protection is very minimal at best. It’s not the kind of adequate protection the people of Sudbury or Elliot Lake or anywhere else need to ensure their continuous water supply when they are confronted with this kind of situation.

[5:30]

The Environmental Protection Act is strictly permissive in this regard. The minister may do certain things, he may take certain action, but that is solely discretionary and is not adequate protection in the circumstances and conditions we are talking about. There again I don’t think we have adequate legislative backup to prevent the problem that arose in regard to Lake Wanapitei.

The Ministry of Natural Resources wrote a letter a number of months ago indicating it would give a permit to drill in Lake Wanapitei, albeit with certain conditions -- I believe there were 12 conditions set out, indicating it would permit drilling provided those 12 conditions were met. That is an indication that the present legislation infringing on this particular matter is not adequate. If the drilling is allowed with certain conditions, and even one of those conditions is violated, then it is going to cause a problem with respect to the supply of drinking water, in this case the supply of drinking water to the city of Sudbury.

In the final analysis it comes down to the fact that the legislative authority to cope with this particular situation is not adequate. For that reason, I think we need this type of legislation and, therefore, I would support it.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. Perhaps it is worth noting that I don’t live in northern Ontario, but I think the people of southern Ontario are equally interested in this kind of legislation because it indicates there is a very serious weakness in the government’s fulfilling of its obligation to provide the people of the province with a clean drinking water supply everywhere in this province. When it has failed to fulfil that duty, we need legislation of this sort. I think we can expect other bills of this type if the government continues to let our water supply be degraded in any way or not be adequately protected.

We have had some incidents in southern Ontario. The town of Chesterville was forced to boil its water, under ministry order, for almost a month this fall because they hadn’t been able to find the cause of some contaminants in it.

In the cities of Toronto and Brantford they discovered worms in the water supply, and we discovered that the Ministry of the Environment has no standard for the number of worms that you can have in the water supply and it still to be safe.

The US public health agency does have a standard: You can’t have more than 20 worms per litre. One of the researchers, a biologist from the University of Waterloo, found 43 worms per litre in the samples he checked from Brantford. Obviously the government is not fulfilling its responsibility regarding standards about the number of worms in the water supply.

This responsibility used to be fairly easy for governments to fulfil. You simply had to locate a lake or river that had a relatively clean supply and build a pipeline to connect with the householders’ taps. But now it is a much more serious responsibility because there are so many toxic and polluting substances getting into water. We don’t know how much Mirex, PCBs or dioxin is getting into our Great Lakes. We don’t know the effects on the water supply of a great many industrial developments. Certainly mining developments -- which are dealt with in this bill -- should be assessed very carefully under environmental assessment rules before they are allowed to proceed in any water body and they should certainly not be allowed to proceed in a water body that is supplying a community water supply.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have suggested that the present legislation is adequate to deal with the problem of protecting the people of Sudbury and others who use the water from Lake Wanapitei. As the member for Huron-Bruce has pointed out, it’s like bolting the stable door after the horse has gone. Under both the Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act action is taken after the contaminant has been put into the water supply, lake, river, or environment.

There are other weaknesses in the present legislation. For example, the Water Resources Act requires that contractors who drill water wells for people or communities served by wells must be licensed. But the act does not provide that people who drill in lakes for minerals should be licensed. There is a great gap there.

The Water Resources Act also provides for the regional director to designate or define areas which are a source of public water and apply restrictions, but this is only a permissive clause in the act. It does not require him to designate such and to apply restriction. If he thinks that a water supply might have an undue number of swimmers in it, he can, designate it and ban swimming, but this bill makes it much more strict in that any water supply must be listed in the Ontario Gazette and therefore designated for a prohibition of mining activity, drilling, and other activities that may degrade the quality of the water.

But also, the members opposite did not seem to put very much stress on the Environment Assessment Act as one of the government’s pieces of existing legislation that could protect the residents against degradation of their water supply. I can understand perhaps why they didn’t stress that act very much because it’s one of the most unused acts on the statute books.

Even the Elliot Lake inquiry -- which was a very extensive inquiry into both the health and economic and social conditions up there -- was actually done under a special order in council and not under the Environmental Assessment Act, although they did have the equivalent of environmental assessment in a lot of ways.

For rather unknown reasons the government doesn’t seem to be using the Environmental Assessment Act in very many instances. It holds most of its hearings under orders in council or the Water Resources Act or the Environmental Protection Act. This means that we can’t rely on the government to use that act to insist that there will be an environmental assessment before any drilling is allowed in Lake Wanapitei or any other lake that might be used for a water supply.

The past record of the ministry seems to indicate that it will not use that act to protect the residents. Lately the Minister of the Environment has been taking the attitude that he will designate projects to come under the act if he gets a request from the local government people. The regional municipality of Sudbury and a good many other municipalities in that area requested an environmental assessment of the proposed drilling at Lake Wanapitei and they didn’t get it. It was not designated.

In fact, the number of projects the minister has designated as subject to environmental assessment under that act could be counted on the fingers of one hand. That’s another reason this kind of legislation has to be brought in -- as long as the minister is not using the piece of legislation that was brought in, presumably to ensure that no project in this province goes ahead without a proper environmental assessment.

I might also say the ministry’s obligation to protect the water supply of the citizens of this province throughout the province should include a lot of other actions besides this bill, which will at least see that there is an environmental assessment and that a permit must be issued before anything can go ahead, presumably after an environmental assessment.

The government should also be taking action to ensure a clean water supply by enforcing our water quality standards much more strictly to eliminate toxic substances from all our lakes and rivers, especially those that are used for water supplies. This, of course, includes cleanup of the serious pollution from the pulp and paper industry and stronger control orders, and setting maximum tolerance levels for toxic substances which industry is dumping into our waterways. That is additional action. If that sort of step were taken, we would not have as much need for special legislation to keep our water clean.

The minister could also be developing a wetlands preservation program in recognition of the fact that wetlands play an important role in the maintenance of groundwater levels and also have a cleansing effect on many streams that pass through them. So far, we don’t have a wetlands preservation policy.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired. The honourable member for Sudbury has reserved five minutes, if he would care to use them now.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the member for Sudbury getting that feeling?

Mr. Stong: Give it to them.

Mr. Germa: I think I got from this government what I expected -- just total and absolute arrogance and insensitivity to the needs of the people of northern Ontario and what they deem to be in their best interest.

This bill is not coming from one source only; it was not my idea. It was the idea of hundreds of thousands of people, as represented by the endorsation of their various councils which know what is in the bill. The bill was widely distributed to them with a letter of explanation as to why it was necessary. They, in full conscience, endorsed it -- council after council after council, right across northern Ontario as far south as Parry Sound and right into the Ottawa Valley where mining takes place.

Yet this government just keeps repeating, “We have plenty of legislation under all of these acts.” But the evidence is in and the jury is in. They didn’t work in this instance. The Minister of Northern Affairs says, “This is only one instance.”

We had another case in Elliot Lake that the member for Algoma recited where they wanted to drill through the ice on Elliot Lake as well. What we have to consider is why a mining company wants to drill a hole in the bottom of a lake. It doesn’t do it because it likes the sound of a drill or is having fun drilling; it wants to exploit the ore body under that lake. There might be some validity to say that drilling is not harmful. It is the secondary step. When the company finds out there is an ore body there, what is going to happen to our source of water then?

There is no force and there is not enough intestinal fortitude in this government to hold up against Hollinger Mines if it says it has found a uranium body under Lake Wanapitei. That would be game over.

[5:45]

Hollinger Mines Limited came in with a ruse. They said, “If we do find a uranium body and if we know we can’t exploit it within the watershed without routing the watershed, we will go over the height of land and we will approach it from the other side. We will pull the ore out of the bottom of the lake without you even knowing it.” That meant they would have to run in a drift probably about four miles.

We have information from a mining engineer who said that would not be a viable ore body because the ore body was just not that rich. It would not be a viable operation to sink a shaft four miles from the lake and drift in from beyond the height of land or from outside the catchment area of the lake.

We have to assume then that if Hollinger had been allowed to do this, that would have been the end of the watershed known as the Lake Wanapitei watershed, and the city of Sudbury’s water supply. There are 150,000 people who depend on this water supply. When the day comes that Hollinger Mines attacks the water source for Hudson, I’m going to tell the minister, “Go cry in your own beer. You didn’t help me when I needed it, so let Hollinger attack your water supply if they want to.” I would say the same to the member for Timiskaming. He’s never been under pressure from a mining company the way we have.

When the ice comes back this winter we’re going to be under pressure again, because there are still some outstanding mining claims there, as indicated in a letter. This is the latest communication I have from the government. It’s signed by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld). I would like to put this on the record:

“As a result of concerns expressed by local residents about drilling on Lake Wanapitei, a committee was formed in February 1977 and given the responsibility of reporting directly to the Minister of Natural Resources, recommending a strategy for development and use of Lake Wanapitei. This study included a review of exploratory drilling.

“In December 1977 the minister tabled the committee report. Subsequently, a decision was made by cabinet on December 16, 1977, to permit drilling on the lake, subject to 12 conditions.”

Those 12 conditions have been examined and they are not adequate. In the 12 conditions imposed on the drilling permit by the government, there is no direction as to how those limitations are to be implemented. It says the holes in the bottom of the lake must be plugged. It doesn’t say what you plug them with or how you plug them or how durable they have to be.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak?

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I think a very important subject has been raised today as it relates to these particular discussions and debates. It’s very discouraging that it has come to the point where the government stands 20 strong and blocks a bill where it feels there’s going to be any kind of consensus among the rest of the legislators. I don’t think that was the intention in the first place, and it’s very discouraging to see them carry on in that vein.

In dealing with Bill 125, which I am going to support, the government is standing and suggesting there are regulations in place which see to it that the public’s right to clean water is protected. Such is not the case. We’ve witnessed many instances of this, not only in northern Ontario but in all other parts of Ontario. The minister himself is aware of what has happened in the English-Wabigoon system and in other systems in northern Ontario, where one should expect clean water.

We say it’s time there were regulations that do not allow drilling in the water supplies of those great northern cities and that the government protect that environment at all costs. I’m suggesting the arguments put forward by the government certainly have not been good arguments. The record speaks for itself: They have not protected the environment. What we’re asking for in the future is a dedication that they will make those people who want to drill responsible for the environment and its integrity.

We say it’s time such bills were put to the Legislature and voted on in a free way, so that if the bill has merit it can pass.

Mr. Eakins: Now we’ll see what they think about freedom of information over there.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If the member can say something in 20 seconds, he’s welcome to try.

Mr. Laughren: I rise in support of the member for Sudbury who is attempting to protect the water supply for the city of Sudbury. I would ask members to think about how often it is that we in this chamber have to rise in defiance of this government and its complicity with the mining industry and what it does to the environment in the Sudbury basin.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on resolution 22:

Ashe, Baetz, Bernier, Brunelle, Cureatz, Drea, Eaton, Gregory, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J., Kennedy, Leluk, Maeck, McCague, Newman, W., Norton, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Rowe, Scrivener, Villeneuve, Wells, Williams -- 25.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on second reading of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act:

Ashe, Baetz, Bernier, Brunelle, Cureatz, Drea, Eaton, Gregory, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J., Kennedy, Leluk, Maeck, McCague, Newman, W., Norton, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Rowe, Scrivener, Villeneuve, Wells, Williams -- 25.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate to the House the business for tomorrow and next week.

Tomorrow morning the committee of supply will be meeting to conclude the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. That will be followed by the estimates of Management Board of Cabinet.

On Monday the committee of supply will be meeting to consider the estimates of Management Board of Cabinet. On Tuesday, October 30, we will be doing legislation in the afternoon and evening on Bill 77, followed by Bill 127 for second readings and then followed by Bill 122. If any time remains after that, we’ll move to the budget debate.

On Wednesday, October 31, the justice, general government and resources development committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday afternoon, November 1, in private members’ public business will be, first, ballot item 1 standing in the name of the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), followed by ballot item 2 standing in the name of the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne).

In the evening we will be debating two reports. First, the debate on the motion for adoption of the report of the standing social development committee, dated June 19, 1979, concerning the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital. This will be followed by debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the seventh report of the select committee on the Ombudsman.

On Friday, November 2, the committee of supply will be considering the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, Cabinet Office and Office of the Premier.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.