Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

CLASSIFICATION OF NEW DRIVERS

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Most of the members are probably now aware through the media of the announcement that insurance premiums for new drivers will be considerably reduced -- as much as 44 per cent in some instances. We are very pleased that the Insurance Bureau of Canada has seen fit to recommend the programme at this time.

The initial step goes back about a year when officials of my ministry first contacted representatives of the insurance industry with the proposal. I should point out that the Premier had a deep personal interest in the discussions and has participated in many of them.

Statistics indicate clearly that young drivers are involved in a disproportionately high number of accidents and, of course, most new drivers fall into the category of young drivers. Nevertheless, we feel the time has come to give the new driver the opportunity to get behind the wheel without the presumption of guilt currently reflected in the high rates paid by all members of this group. With this in mind, the programme was developed to provide incentives for beginning drivers to establish and maintain a clear driving record.

Without going into the nuts and bolts of the actuarial determinations, the industry has traditionally had five categories -- driving records 0, 1, 2, 3 and 5 -- reflecting the highest through the lowest premiums respectively. A new driver who has completed an approved driver training course will now enter the insurance market at level 3. A driver who has not completed an approved course would enter at level 1. The difference in premiums between levels 5 and 0 could be as high as 44 per cent, while the level 1 driver can expect to save 16 per cent rather than the 10 percent which was originally reported. In either case a new driver involved in an accident, for which he or she is totally or partially at fault, would regress immediately to level 0 and could then progress upwards again based on years of accident-free driving.

Companies belonging to the Association of Independent Insurers plan to adopt the programme immediately and other companies have expressed approval in principle. No doubt, there are many problems to be worked out, such as the definition of an approved driver training course, but we expect, and urge, speedy acceptance by the entire industry. We assume the industry will publicize the programme as it is implemented. We advise the new driver to seek out participating insurers and not to assume the rate quoted to him reflects the new programme.

My officials will continue to work with the industry to develop changes in reporting which will be necessary in order to implement proper monitoring procedures.

PROVINCE-WIDE CONSTRUCTION BARGAINING

Hon. B. Stephenson: Later this afternoon I will be introducing a bill to establish province-wide, single-trade bargaining in the organized industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry. This bill embodies the main recommendations contained in the report of the Construction Industry Bargaining Commission which I tabled in the Legislature on June 4, 1976.

Members will recall that on tabling the report, I announced a number of substantive and technical details required exploration and further study before any portion of the report could be implemented. I, therefore, authorized the inquiry commission to make a detailed assessment of those matters in consultation with all persons potentially affected. The process of assessment and consultation, conducted by the commissioner, Mr. Donald Franks, and senior officials of the Ministry of Labour, has now been completed. I am pleased to report to members of the House that the commissioner advises me the contents of the bill which I shall be introducing today has broad support from both labour and management in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry.

The bill, as I have emphasized, is confined to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry and will result in the reduction of bargaining situations from 205 to approximately 25, as a result of the requirement that bargaining within that sector be conducted on a single-trade, province-wide basis. This is the prime feature of the bill. There are two important related features: First, all collective agreements within that sector will be for two years and will be required to expire on a common date; second, provision is made for the designation of a co-ordinating agency to enable employer bargaining agencies to exchange information and data and to engage in related co-ordinating activities.

The reduction of key bargaining situations to 25 or so recognized trades or crafts in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector should eliminate disruptive intra-trade and inter-regional bargaining rivalries, and thereby bring a greater measure of rationality and stability to that bargaining process. The requirement to bargain by trade on a province-wide basis should encourage the parties to adopt broader perspectives in bargaining, to the benefit of employees, employers and the province as a whole.

Mr. Roy: Thank the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook).

Hon. B. Stephenson: Finally, the resulting concentrated nature of bargaining within the sector should enable the Ministry of Labour to provide even more effective and innovative mediation services to the parties. In the past, with more than 205 key bargaining situations to service, it has been difficult to develop the most effective and systematic approach to dispute resolution in this important sector of the construction industry.

It is also important to stress the need for this bill to be passed during the current session of the Legislature, if it is to be available to the parties for the forthcoming round of negotiations. As hon. members know, approximately 70 per cent of all collective agreements in this sector of the industry expire on April 30, 1977. Therefore, it is essential that the bill be enacted in order to provide sufficient lead time for the parties to form the agencies necessary to conduct the province-wide bargaining which is required under the legislation. I hope all members of this House will appreciate that this bill embodies a unique labour relations concept.

Mr. Roy: That’s right; it’s ours.

Hon. B. Stephenson: In assessing its worth and its practicality, I have relied in considerable measure upon the advice and the assurances of many of the affected parties, employers and trade unions alike. Indeed, the degree of bipartisan support and encouragement has been remarkable. I believe that kind of co-operation and evidence of common purpose between labour and management must be encouraged.

However, it is, as I have said, a new departure in the structure of collective bargaining, and therefore the government must carefully monitor the new process as it evolves. As the monitoring proceeds, I will not hesitate to recommend changes as circumstances may require.

The last point I should wish to make is this: Since the imposition of economic controls by the federal government, my ministry has been searching for ways in which the free collective bargaining process can be improved, in order to operate effectively and reasonably in the post-control economy. I sincerely believe this bill is one important step toward that goal.

Mr. Roy: Are you going to thank the member for Sarnia?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’ve already done it.

Mr. Roy: No, you haven’t. Publicly you didn’t.

CURRENT SALARY NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. Mr. Auld: On October 28, I advised the House that tentative settlements within the guidelines had been reached at the bargaining table in two of our eight salary categories. At that time, I expressed the hope that a pattern was developing which would result in similar settlements in all the other categories.

I am delighted to report, therefore, that not only have we reached tentative agreement on all salary categories but we have as well tentative agreement on a one-year employee benefits contract and a two-year contract with respect to the classification system.

I would like to say that union officials and other employee representatives on the bargaining committees are to be commended for the realistic position they have adopted in this year’s negotiations. In recognizing the existence of the wage and price guidelines and agreeing to settle within those guidelines, they have shown a sincere desire to represent the best interests of the members at large.

All tentative agreements are, of course, subject to ratification by the membership and approval by the Anti-Inflation Board, and I hope I will soon be able to report affirmative responses in both areas.

HYDRO POWER REDUCTION

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As members are no doubt aware, some technical difficulties at the Nanticoke coal-fired generating station have resulted in Ontario Hydro taking 500-megawatt units out of service for repairs and testing. As a result, Ontario Hydro advises me that the province would face the possibility of incurring brownouts during the period necessary to make those repairs.

A brownout is a planned reduction in power which is implemented to avoid a breakdown in the electrical supply system. To consumers, a brownout means lower voltage and consequently dimmer lights in the initial stage and, if necessary, a second stage of rotating cuts in power supplies to selected areas while ensuring there is no interruption to essential services such as hospitals.

[2:15]

In addition to the technical difficulties at the coal-fired Nanticoke generating station, the current situation has been caused by low water levels supplying Ontario’s hydraulic generating stations and --

Mr. Haggerty: Not on Lake Erie.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- an unusually high demand for electricity by Ontario consumers, no doubt caused by the cold weather.

Fortunately, Ontario Hydro’s reserve margin in generating capacity of 28 per cent is just able to cope with the problem, barring unforeseen circumstances. However, that reserve margin has been cut to six per cent, which by anyone’s standards is too close for comfort.

Because of the situation, Hydro has cut all exports of interruptible power to interconnected utilities and in fact is purchasing electricity from New York State. In addition, cuts have been made to industrial customers with interruptible service. Hydro is examining the possibility of purchasing power from Michigan, Manitoba and Quebec but their utilities are also facing tight supply situations.

Energy conservation is essential at all times, but it is particularly important now until such time as the Nanticoke station has been returned to full service. This is unlikely to take place until after Christmas. Therefore I am asking all consumers -- residential, commercial and industrial -- to curtail their use of electricity as much as possible --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- in the next while, especially during the peak period from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. when the most electricity is used each day.

I would like to emphasize that this is not a crisis but that the situation does necessitate more prudent use of electricity. I would like especially to suggest that people eliminate all non-essential uses of electricity, including decorative lighting, during the peak period.

Mr. Breithaupt: Cut off that microphone.

Mr. Cassidy: You should have adopted my bill about daylight saving.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: Turn off your shredders between 4 and 7.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Lewis: A question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Are we right in assuming that the appeal cases on the closing of the various hospitals are not likely to occur until well into the year 1977 -- that is perhaps February or March? Is the minister then in a position to guarantee continued funding for another period of time beyond December 31, 1976? Has he communicated that to the hospitals involved?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not aware of any change in the court. I was just going to ask the Attorney General that same thing. I had heard a rumour through one of the members of the press --

Mr. Roy: Just make sure he doesn’t argue your case.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- that there was a delay until February, but I have not been able to confirm that. On the other hand, I stand by my original statement that the hospitals will be funded until such time as the matter is resolved, either in the courts or in this Legislature.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps I could redirect. Has the Attorney General an agenda or a timetable? Does he know when the case is likely to be heard?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I had expected the case would have been heard in December; it might be heard in December but there is a very strong likelihood it may not be heard until January. That’s my present information. If I have any better information, I will report to the House.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the Attorney General might advise whether the Minister of Health has asked him to argue the case on the government’s behalf?

Mr. Sargent: He’s booked to take them.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Roy: He has a date; you know why.

Mr. Breaugh: He is just trying to make some money.

Mr. Stokes: Did he ask you, Albert?

TRAINING SCHOOL DEATH

Mr. Lewis: A further question if I may for the Minister of Health: Has the Minister of Health yet had the opportunity to look at the inquest recommendations in the case of Norma Dean and the specific recommendation or request for the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Correctional Services to work out some kind of relationship whereby information can be passed and after-care can be maintained? Is he able to indicate to the House what he might do in relation to this particular recommendation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I received the very brief copy, as I am sure the member did, just within the last short while. I don’t know how quickly he had his but mine came to me within the last 30 minutes. I did read it. I wasn’t quite sure what they meant by a yearly orientation programme between the two ministries.

Certainly I am sure both myself and my colleague, the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. J. R. Smith), will be glad to look into it and perhaps also find out a little more clearly what the coroner’s jury had in mind when it made that recommendation.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, without wishing to provoke argument: Can I ask the minister on the basis of some of the evidence that was provided at the inquest that he have a further discussion with Thistletown in an attempt to persuade this premier centre of government treatment centres that it should stop charging as many adolescents as it does before the courts as a way of showing them the fashion in which the law functions, and perhaps seek other therapeutic alternatives?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t even need to talk in the future tense. I can talk in the past tense. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition I have met with the director and with the administrator. I can tell him I have issued a written order --

Mr. Lewis: Have you?

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- that no child may be sent before the courts without my personally reviewing the case first.

Mr. Lewis: That is excellent.

Mr. Shore: Didn’t you get that piece of paper?

Mr. Lewis: I would trust the minister’s lay sensitivities over their professional expertise three out of five times.

Mr. Breithaupt: Four out of seven at worst.

Mr. Lewis: Look, 60 per cent for a Tory seems pretty generous to me. I’ll leave it at that.

INCREASE IN ELECTRICITY USE

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, for the Minister of Energy: Can the minister explain why the megawatt demand has jumped from 14,500 in February 1976 to 15,500 in December 1976, a jump of 1,000 megawatts in that period of time, which doesn’t seem to be accounted for by simple residential use? Has the minister made a breakdown of this unusual jump?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The breakdown by region --

[Failure of sound system]

Mr. Roy: We are saving on the power.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- type of use would not be available for a number of months, but the main thing is the unusually cold weather for this time of year that we are experiencing in some parts.

Mr. Lewis: Cold in February, too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Christmas too.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In terms of degree-days and impact, I think it is worse right now than it was then.

Mr. Ruston: It is cold in the banana belt right now.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy whether the kind of breakdown that we are experiencing at Nanticoke would lead him to reconsider the kind of centralized generation system that Hydro has been building and the danger that puts us in, in terms of --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not supplementary to the intent of the first question, which had to do with the jump in demand. There could be a new question later.

Mr. Reid: It’s better than most.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, to the Minister of the Environment: Can the minister table with the Legislature the final report, if such exists, on the levels of mercury found in the soil in the vicinity of the American Can company in Marathon, and indicate to us what action his ministry intends to take?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, if such information exists, I will be happy to table it in the Legislature.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister not aware that such information exists?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, I am aware of a report that deals mainly with the receiving stream at Marathon and an assessment that was made prior to a prosecution. I haven’t had a chance to look at the details of that report. If it includes soil, the report will be tabled.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, I have a memo from within his ministry from December 1975; I gather it was further pursued in 1976. Can the minister go back to look at and explain the assessment surveys in the vicinity of the pulp and paper mill in Marathon, showing what they describe as “very high levels of mercury found at three sites to the south of the plant. Very high levels were found to the south of the chloralkali plant and concentrations therewith.”? How is this mercury getting into the soil? Is there any danger since local inhabitants and kids use it? What kind of procedures is the minister taking?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As American Can is using mercury in its process, particularly at its chemical chloralkali plant, there are bound to be emissions from the stack at that plant. As well as loss of mercury in its effluent, about which we are concerned, there is also a loss by way of emissions that would contaminate the soil surrounding the plant.

OHTB BUS LICENCE

Mr. Lewis: My last question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications before he leaves. Is the minister willing to bring together the Resources Development secretariat, of which he is a part, to hear submissions from the various aggrieved groups involved in the Greyhound-Gray Coach controversy before a cabinet decision is made?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think that question should more appropriately be answered by the chairman of the Resources policy field rather than myself. Before I would answer it in any case, I would like to give consideration to it and get some advice as to whether that would be appropriate.

Mr. Lewis: Now that the Minister of Transportation and Communications has given the cue to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development as to how he might respond, perhaps I could ask that minister, in view of the growing agitation around the Gray Coach-Greyhound controversy, would he consider, as part of the decision process, having his committee hear submissions from the Toronto Transit Commission, the unions involved, and interested citizens, since that seems not to have been available in total to Mr. Shoniker when he made his decision?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I certainly would consider it. I don’t know all the legalities of the case. I’ve listened to my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, in the last few days answering questions. As far as we are concerned, in our policy field we meet with as many delegations as we feel we possibly can. I have no reason to say I wouldn’t meet with the people the member is referring to.

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Could he comment on and confirm the report in the Toronto Star which quoted a Greyhound official as saying that that company spent “thousands” to bring 70 witnesses from northern Ontario, from Buffalo and from Rochester to Toronto for the board hearings into the application which is presently in dispute?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I likewise read the article. I have no way of knowing whether that quotation is right or not. I have no way of disputing the correctness of it. In many cases when applications are before the board, some of which are very extended and some of which require witnesses to come from considerable distances and perhaps spend several days until they have their opportunity to appear, for either side in the action, I’m not sure of the policy of either the applicants or the respondents, whether they feel obligated or whether it is appropriate for them to pay the expenses of witnesses who are appearing. I’m not sure how this is done.

Mr. Cassidy: You’re condoning the use of big-money tactics.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, you’re as phony as a three-dollar bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West only has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s called a subsidy and you’re in favour of that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Can the minister assure the House one way or the other regarding whether or not the board was aware that the witnesses who appeared at the hearing had their expenses paid by one of the companies that was before the board, before the hearing? Would the minister not agree that it might be a better system to have the board pay witness fees, much as a court of law does, and then assess costs among the various applicants to the tribunal?

Mr. Drea: Why don’t you read the select committee report?

Mr. Cunningham: Why don’t you implement it?

Mr. Drea: Teach yourself.

Mr. S. Smith: Teach the minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have no way of knowing. I have not asked --

Interjections.

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

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have not communicated with the chairman of the board to find out whether the board members hearing the case were aware of witnesses’ expenses being paid or not.

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask the Premier briefly on the same topic: In view of the considerable concern that this matter is causing Metro Toronto, which after all indirectly owns Gray Coach and now finds the company will lose its main profitable routes, would he be willing to meet with chairman Godfrey of Metro Toronto to discuss the matter before the cabinet reaches its decision?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think, in fairness to the member for Hamilton West who, I know, wants to be fair, he would want to correct the impression he has left that Gray Coach automatically loses its routes. As I understand it, and I haven’t read the decision, Gray Coach doesn’t lose anything.

Mr. S. Smith: Read it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It doesn’t lose the routes. All I’m trying to do is suggest that when the member suggested it loses the routes that is factually not the case.

Mr. S. Smith: The result is the same.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The impact on Gray Coach may or may not be significant, I am not prepared to prejudge it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think we should try to be factual in dealing with these matters. I understood the member for Hamilton West might be asking me today whether I would be prepared to meet with the chairman of Metro. I have never refused to meet with the chairman of Metro -- I certainly can’t think of any reason for refusing to meet with the chairman of Metro, or with the mayor of the city for that matter.

Mr. Lewis: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ve met some of your friends from time to time -- whenever you’ve asked, I have.

Mr. Lewis: Not often.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do point out what I said to the member for Hamilton West the other day. I do ask him to consider, and perhaps he could discuss it with his colleagues, the appeal to cabinet on any issue, as I’ve expressed in this House before, is a system or a procedure with which I am not particularly comfortable. I think this applies to my colleagues in cabinet. We are often called upon to review decisions when we are not totally expert in the field. I would confess right now to the member for Hamilton West that I don’t purport to be an expert in terms of the issuance of licences for bus companies or truckers or whatever.

Mr. Roy: I wouldn’t stop there; keep on going.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Ottawa East, unlike him I don’t purport to be an expert in anything, but I do my best.

Mr. Conway: That’s obvious.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have been here quite a while now and the more I’m here the more I realize that you people are far more expert than we are and I accept that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The only thing is, thank heaven the public doesn’t see it that way and that’s what’s relevant.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not saying to the member for Hamilton West that I would refuse to see the chairman of Metro. I don’t think he has asked to see me -- not that I know of yet. He may have; I haven’t heard this. I do suggest it may be that I will say to the chairman of Metro, if there is an appeal -- and I gather from press reports there is an appeal being prepared -- it would be more appropriate to make that sort of decision or consideration after an appeal is lodged with the cabinet.

I try to draw parallels of cabinet sitting in a semi-judicial sense. Would it be appropriate for somebody who momentarily takes on the aura of a judge of a court to be talking to witnesses in advance of the hearing?

Mr. Breithaupt: The Premier should never do that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Kitchener would immediately say, “The Premier should never do that. That would be totally inappropriate.”

Mr. Reid: You win. We give up.

Mr. Nixon: The answer is no.

Mr. Reid: Is that yes or a no?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would have to think it through very carefully.

Mr. Cunningham: Given the known disposition of the minister on this particular contentious issue, would the Premier exclude him from these discussions when it reaches the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think the hon. member really would expect that the Minister of Transportation and Communications, who has some knowledge and expertise and experience in this field, should be excluded from the discussions by the executive council. I think the member, in making that suggestion, probably hasn’t thought it through carefully and really didn’t suggest to me, I’m sure, that the hon. minister not be included in those deliberations.

Mr. S. Smith: I take it that the answer to all that was yes, but I will never know.

BILINGUAL COURT SERVICES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Attorney General: Is the Attorney General planning to take any action to correct the situation in which probation orders from courts in Ontario, even in areas with a very large francophone population, are written entirely in English, even in situations where the orders themselves contain many important provisions that the person who’s on probation needs to be able to obey and to respond to? Why can these not also be provided in the other official language of this country?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, we certainly are trying to extend our bilingual services throughout our court system, throughout the justice system in this province. I will certainly look into the matter that the hon. member opposite raises, and if he could give me any specific examples this would be of assistance to us.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the minister’s reply, can he give us an assurance of when bilingual services will be introduced in the courts in Ottawa, since pilot programmes are under way now in Hawkesbury and in Sudbury?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I can’t, Mr. Speaker.

OTTAWA LAND SALE

Mr. S. Smith: In the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), if I might direct a question to the Premier: Is the Premier or the Treasurer planning to initiate some form of public inquiry into the matter of the land sale by one Aubrey Moody in which it is alleged that Mr. Moody and his partners were able to make a profit of about $950,000 in a sale that was recently written up in the Ottawa Citizen?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Would you say it outside the House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I haven’t read that story in the Ottawa Citizen. I hadn’t heard of it until this moment. I will discuss it with the Treasurer and one of us will have an answer for the hon. member -- perhaps not until Monday.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: I wonder if the Premier could verify with the Treasurer that his ministry was aware of the complaint back in 1974, and aware of the fact that the former reeve -- he was a councillor -- who participated in a discussion on the planning board and so on, did not reveal his interest between 1972 and 1974? This was brought to the attention of the ministry. Could the Premier ask the Treasurer to give us some explanation why no action was taken then?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa East has, as is his wont, set out what he believes to be certain facts, and I’m not disputing them. He knows full well I don’t know whether they are the facts and he is asking me, in advance of ascertaining whether what he says is factual, for a response from the minister.

Mr. Roy: It usually is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the member for Ottawa East really wouldn’t expect that I would do this. I will bring this matter to the attention of the minister and one of us will have an answer for him, as I say, perhaps by Monday.

FUNDS FOR ALEXANDRIA CENTRE

Mr. S. Smith: A brief question, if I might, to the Minister of Community and Social Services: --

Mr. Nixon: The Dickensian minister.

Mr. S. Smith: With regard to the mental retardation project in Alexandria, which comes under the vocational rehabilitation branch of the ministry, can the minister explain why it is that the money never seems to arrive there, and that for the second month in a row they didn’t have money to pay the salaries of the people who are on that grant? Can he confirm that the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) was able to assist and get the money for them a month ago, but now the same problem has arisen again, and they’re just not able to get their money from the ministry? What is going on?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in general terms may I simply say this, that there have been some problems in regard to the workshop areas in terms of funding pertaining to the mentally retarded. The reason for this was that their budgets were approved on an annual basis. In a number of cases there’s been an expansion of their programmes, and in the area of mental retardation physical expansion of plant; and of course the operating expenses which would be attendant upon a physical extension of a plant would be permitted under our current policy.

In a number of cases, workshops have gone ahead and expanded their programmes and their numbers without first obtaining the approval of my ministry, with the result that they have substantially used up the year’s revenue before the year has expired. In general terms, that is a problem we have experienced with a number of cases.

Mr. S. Smith: Not this one.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: What I have said, and I’ve said it in the House before and I’ll repeat it to the member again today, is that there will be no workshop closed in the province because of lack of funding where that workshop is operating in a reasonable way. I’ve personally reviewed a number of them and I will continue to do so to assist them. I’ve also said we will assist them in terms of suggestions -- that is use the expertise of our staff -- and also in terms of financial planning.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of brief supplementary, I appreciate the discussion and I’m sure of the minister’s intentions, but could he please guarantee to us that he’ll look into the precise details of the Alexandria location, where they are well within their budget and in fact have earned more money than they were expected to and yet have this frustrating problem, way off in the corner of the province there, of being unable to pay their staff each month?

Just let the minister give me his personal assurance and I’ll accept it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Again, I wouldn’t single out that one. I’d be happy to work with the hon. member and with the workshop on that.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you.

TUITION FEES

Hon. Mr. Parrott: On November 30, Tuesday of this week, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere questioned the necessity for an increase in tuition fees since -- and I quote from Hansard:

“The minister has decided to spend $44 million more than he had been advised to by the OCUA” -- Ontario Council on University Affairs.

The member then asked me, and again I quote from Hansard:

“Will the minister table a definitive response justifying a budget far greater than that which was devised by OCUA; and when will we see the report from the advisory committee on student aid?”

Mr. Conway: Take it easy.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: At that time I suggested the member might like to reconsider his figures. However, I understand he does not wish to avail himself of that opportunity and I have therefore undertaken to respond to him today.

Mr. Mancini: Easy. Easy.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: And it is as follows: OCUA recommendation 76-7, on page 19 of their report to me, calls for a funding level of $702.8 million to be provided through grant or fee increases compensated by student assistance. However, this does not include funding of all programmes within the system, as subsequent OCUA recommendations recognized.

Hence, OCUA additional funding recommendation 76-8 is for $3.3 million for the bar admission course and theology programmes, and recommendation 76-9 for additional system needs of $3.5 million, bringing the required total funding to $709.6 million.

To this, our ministry line budget items of $13.5 million -- approximately the same as for the current year, and including such non-formula expenditures as the funding of faculties of education, the Ryerson nursing programme, and a special allowance for building repairs -- bring the required funding level to $723.1 million.

The fee increase, if passed on to the students, generates $20 million. Hence, OCUA’s recommendations lead to a necessary funding level of $703.1 million, which is precisely what I announced in the House.

The chairman of OCUA has assured me the announced funding level reconciles exactly with the OCUA’s request, and I have the pertinent data here which I will be pleased to supply to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

As reported to the House last month, the report from the interim committee on financial assistance to students will be available early in the new year. However, the recommendation of tuition fee levels is not within the terms of reference of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, these are the facts. Now I would not go so far as to suggest to you that the member may have misled this House --

Interjections.

[2:45]

Mr. Breithaupt: How far will you go?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I said I would not go that far, but I will go this far, to suggest that the member has misled the students of this province, and that is a very serious concern.

Interjections.

Mr. Warner: While I appreciate the response from the minister in providing me with figures, does he now realize that because he did not table all of the relevant documents on November 15 when he made his original statement he has created a great deal of confusion for all of the interested groups from the college; and universities around this province, including myself? Does he realize that it is very difficult to extract information from this government? It’s like pulling teeth to get the kind of information that’s needed to raise questions in the House.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister knows how hard it is to pull teeth.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the member should know, and the statement I read in this House clearly stated it, that I sent that advice to all the presidents and all the chairmen of the boards. They had it in their hands at the exact moment that statement was made in the House. That information is readily available. Had the member had the courtesy to ask for it, he could have had that report as well.

Mr. Lewis: Whatever happened to The Freedom of Information Act?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

FUNDS FOR SPECIAL FACILITIES

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Minister of Health. The Willard report recommended that special facilities be established under the jurisdiction of The Mental Health Act, at both Huronia and Penetanguishene, for emotionally disturbed retardates who are potentially harmful and dangerous.

In view of the urgency and the obvious danger to safety, my question of the minister is why has he not proceeded to provide the necessary funds to establish these facilities at Huronia and Penetanguishene immediately rather than, as he indicated in the debate yesterday, in the 1977-78 budget?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the member is referring to the ruling of the chairman during discussions on my supplementary estimates.

Mr. McClellan: No; the minister’s answer was in Hansard.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I said funds would be in the 1977-78 budget for such a thing, not in the budget we were discussing last night. I don’t think one should jump to the conclusion that funds are going to be available at all. If funds are available, that’s where they’ll be.

Mr. McClellan: Will they be available?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am unable to say right now. I am unable to say until such time as the Ministry of Community and Social Services and my own ministry are able to come to an agreement on the recommendations in that report. I agree it’s a very critical problem. We have a series of people who are retarded who in the Ministry of Health’s opinion are not emotionally or mentally disturbed but in the opinion of the other ministry are, and they are falling between two stools. In the main, they are often left in our facilities. The lady who was left at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre and who died there two or three weeks ago is an example of that kind of person, who, for some reason or other, should be in other than a mental institution.

1 want to have a chance -- in fact my staff are already discussing that report and I hope we’ll have something concrete as quickly as we get agreement.

Mr. McClellan: Surely the minister would agree that if he waits until next year he would almost be guaranteeing some kind of a repeat of the tragedy at Huronia, and that he needs to act well in advance --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a supplementary question for information? Really, you’re giving advice, which is really not the intent.

Mr. Bain: The minister needs the advice.

Mr. McClellan: I asked the minister would he not agree that it is dangerous to wait.

Mr. Conway: The old colonial railway.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The decision could be made today to go ahead but I can assure the member the facility wouldn’t be ready until at least March 31. I think we both agree on that. The decision will be made as quickly as it can be and implemented as quickly as it can be, on the assumption that it’s affirmative.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mr. McKessock: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development: A two-day meeting of the Niagara Escarpment Commission advisory committee was scheduled for Owen Sound and was changed to Toronto earlier this week. The reason given was so the committee could fly over the Escarpment, leaving from Toronto Airport. Could the minister tell me who the instigator was of the change in this meeting place?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot. The Niagara Escarpment Commission operates entirely on its own jurisdiction and the advisory committee, I would assume, is acting under the jurisdiction of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: In view of the fact that walking the Escarpment would have given them a much better perspective, and then they would have realized that the control area was far too large, does the minister not feel that flying this committee over the Escarpment is a waste of taxpayers’ money?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You get a good view of the Rockies walking through passes too.

Mr. B. Newman: How many times have you walked it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t feel it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money. As a matter of fact, I’ve flown over it myself and tried to acquaint myself with the whole area.

Mr. Breithaupt: Especially on a cloudy day.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I can assure the hon. member I don’t intend to walk it all.

Mr. Breithaupt: Put them up in the CN Tower and let them look at it.

COW-CALF PROGRAMME

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food --

Mr. Conway: Bill! Bill!

Mr. Wiseman: In view of the cow-calf programme monitoring of the heavy calves in the sales ending the end of November, could the minister tell us if he has had a chance to figure out the average price; and if this price does indicate that there’s a payment coming to the Farmers enroled in this programme, will they get it in time for Christmas?

Mr. Breithaupt: Ho, Ho, Ho.

An hon. member: He just happens to have the answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Now can we hear the hon. minister?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, let me say in answer to the question I was very disappointed in the calf prices this fall, to the farmers of this province --

Mr. Wildman: You weren’t the only one.

Mr. Breithaupt: Where are the other two wise men?

Hon. W. Newman: Your friends in Ottawa may have caused a lot of problems --

Mr. Speaker: Order; order please, the hon. minister. Answer the question.

Mr. Breithaupt: Are there two other wise men involved in this too?

Mr. S. Smith: Are they the same ones who did the AIB?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister only has the floor to answer the question.

Mr. S. Smith: Down the chimney he will come.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it is anticipated the price -- the final sales figures have not come in yet -- will be somewhere around 33 cents per pound --

Mr. Wildman: You said the prices will rise this fall.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and there will be a payout, of course, under the programme. It might be interesting to note also, Mr. Speaker, under the programme we have 4,000 more applications of people involved than last year, which indicates a very fine programme.

Interjections.

Mr. Wiseman: With all the noise, I don’t think the minister could hear me, but I asked if there was a payout to be made, can the farmers expect that in time for Christmas?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate that the payment --

Mr. Good: Wait until the election.

Hon. W. Newman: -- would be out by the end of this year, before the end of December if it’s humanly possible, because --

Mr. Breithaupt: Delivered by Santa from Lambton.

Hon. W. Newman: -- I understand the reasoning.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: How did the minister arrive at the fact that these calves are selling at four cents a pound more this year than they did last year, when every other sale in the part of the province we represent would indicate that calves are selling as poorly as, if not more poorly than, they did last year?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that is a very, very good question. I’m glad the member asked it. Because of the organizational work done by my ministry and the people in other parts of the province --

Mr. Conway: Louder, Bill, louder!

Hon. W. Newman: -- we have had more uniform sales this year. Eastern Ontario prices were better because at Galetta they formed a community sale and we had better prices there. Also around at the sales we have had some better prices -- certainly not what I would like to see, but better throughout the province.

Mr. Conway: Good representation.

Hon. W. Newman: I said I anticipated prices would be around 33 cents The final figures are still not in. 33 cents.

DRYDEN HOSPITAL

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health: Is the minister aware that a disallowance of $21,000 expenditure by his ministry to the Dryden hospital is threatening the closure of the eight-bed medical wing in that hospital? Is the ministry willing to reconsider that disallowance, in the light of the fact that the ministry appears to set the population figures served by the Dryden hospital at around 7,000, whereas the hospital serves a much wider population area, extending as far east as Ignace and taking the overflow from Sioux Lookout?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am fairly familiar with the problems of the Dryden hospital. I have visited it and they have been brought to my attention by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier).

Mr. Reid: And the member for Rainy River.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Is there a member for Rainy River?

Mr. Reid: You wrote me a letter. Don’t you read your mail?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I probably sent it to Rainy River. In any case, I think there are a number of problems involved in that hospital’s budget, one of them being that they have used certain operating funds for capital purposes. That is one of the things we have to sort out with them. Population doesn’t determine the budget of a hospital. The operating costs of the hospital do, on a budget basis, and we are looking at it in that case.

I am also keenly aware that that hospital is very deeply in debt at the bank; to the point, I believe, of a $440,000 overdraft at this point in time; an accumulation of many years, apparently, of overspending.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary: Is the minister not aware that that debt apparently has arisen only in the last three years? Since it is the only hospital of any size between Kenora and Thunder Bay on Highway 17, wouldn’t the minister consider that an argument for maintaining it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we are going to maintain the hospital but it doesn’t mean I should pay more than it should have.

FIRST MINISTERS’ CONFERENCE

Mr. Conway: A question of the hon. Premier: Would the Premier share with this House the sum and substance of his communications, I believe this week, with Mr. Levesque, the Premier of Quebec, as to the upcoming First Ministers’ Conference?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have very informally talked to the new Premier of Quebec. I called him the day or the day after he was sworn in as Premier. I had sent him a telegram of congratulations prior to that. I talked to him again this past Monday.

Mr. Reid: In English or French?

Hon. Mr. Davis: En Anglais.

Mr. Breithaupt: Which is that?

Mr. Reid: That sounds like Ukrainian to me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: For the member for Kitchener, in English; I realize he has difficulty with both languages and I want to help him as much as I can.

Really, I would say to the hon. member -- and I am not being facetious -- that my communications to the new Premier were those of congratulations and best wishes. I very briefly outlined the traditional relationship that has existed between the two governments and our two provinces and I hoped these would continue. He reciprocated those thoughts. I think it is fair to say that there was nothing, shall we say, of great interest for the members of the House, that I can recall, which would be worthwhile sharing at this time.

HYDRO NIAGARA ESCARPMENT LEASE

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the member for Scarborough West made an inquiry regarding the leasing by Ontario Hydro of property held in Collingwood township, and I undertook at that time to provide him with information about this leasing agreement.

The Hydro land was purchased between 1962 and 1968 and is known as the Delphi Point Property. It consists of 934 acres and is located in Collingwood township. It will not be developed by Hydro for at least 15 years.

Hydro’s present leasing policy is to negotiate directly with individuals who express an interest in land which Hydro has no immediate plans to use. This policy applies to all individuals; indeed within the Delphi Point Property there are six parcels of land which are leased to farmers.

Under this same policy, 788 acres had been leased to a company known as Big Apple Farms Limited for a period of 10 years beginning September 1, 1976. The leasing charge is $1,000 per year plus taxes; the rental charge is subject to review at the end of five years at which time Hydro has an opportunity to increase the rent. The taxes for 1976 are estimated at $11,331.

I would like to point out that the present leasing arrangement for agricultural zoning is the same arrangement made with farmers across the province, that is $1 an acre per year plus taxes.

As previously mentioned, the total property is 934 acres. The new lease is for 788 acres; 10 acres had already been leased by Georgian Peaks Ski Club. Big Apple Limited is a subsidiary of Rose Community which is a name used to encompass a major development in the Thornbury-Collingwood township area. The developer purchased the Georgian Peaks Ski Club in November, 1975, and the leasing now of the remainder of the Hydro property was a natural extension of the lease already existing between the Ski Club and Ontario Hydro and was for property adjoining the 192 acres owned by the ski club.

[3:00]

Any rezoning required, or permission to use the land for other than agricultural purposes, to build structures or carry out other development of the land, will be the responsibility of the lessee. This procedure is still to come. The lessee will be required to obtain all the normal permissions from the local authorities or the Niagara Escarpment Commission where appropriate. If these permissions are refused, and the land cannot be used for the intended purposes, Hydro has stated that it will consider an application to cancel the lease.

Contrary to published reports, I have learned that the developer made his plans known to the local authorities as early as November, 1975. When the Georgian Peaks property was purchased last November, the developer met with members of the town of Thornbury council, the Collingwood town- ship council and the Beaver Valley planning authorities in Thornbury on November 8, 1975, and advised them of his plans for the property and the intention to lease the Ontario Hydro land.

Also, the developer attempted to meet with the Niagara Escarpment Commission and was advised that it would be setting a precedent for him to appear before the commission. He was advised to make a presentation to the staff of the Niagara Escarpment Commission at their Georgetown office. Subsequently, the developer met with the chairman of the commission, another commission member and a senior staff member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission on July 28, 1976, and during the two-and-a-half hour meeting he presented a survey of the lands they proposed to lease from Ontario Hydro and outlined the plans for the use of that land.

From the foregoing, it is made clear that it is not correct to say that the lease was made without the knowledge of the local authorities. I have had it confirmed by the chairman of the planning board, the reeve of the township and the chairman of the Niagara Escarpment Commission that those meetings did take place, and that local authorities did have knowledge of the intentions to seek a lease of the property.

Hydro has acted properly in executing a lease which will reduce its costs and still maintain the land for later use by Ontario Hydro for its original purpose.

There will not be any improper use of the land. All of the normal controls on the land continue to exist. The local planning board and Niagara Escarpment Commission may accept or reject any proposed changes according to their normal criteria.

I might add that on Monday the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) asked me about the land leased from Hydro and its possible use as a marina. I can confirm that this land is landlocked and there is no possibility of any of it being used for a marina. The announcement made by the developer regarding marine facilities referred to other properties he holds in the Thornbury area.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. May I just suggest first of all that a prepared answer of that length should have been given as a ministerial statement, because it took almost five minutes. I’ll add three minutes on to the question period.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: I believe there is a supplementary from the person who asked the question.

Ms. Lewis: I asked the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh I’m sorry, I thought it was someone else.

Mr. Lewis: Do I take it from the minister’s response that at no time did Ontario Hydro seek clarification from Thornbury, Collingwood, Beaver Valley planning board, or the Niagara Escarpment Commission, that this was a developer-initiated consultation and that Ontario Hydro which had the land and had letters from the Beaver Valley planning board saying, “We do not want the land leased for any purpose without consultation;” never took it upon itself to deal with the appropriate authorities?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, Hydro was aware that the authorities were in fact being made aware of the intentions of the applicant. They deal with every individual, whether they’re an individual farmer, or as in this case a corporate concern, in exactly the same way and under the same conditions.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a supplementary, the member for Halton-Burlington?

Mr. Reed: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister indicating by his statement that the property known as Delphi Point will be developed after 15 years?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I said that it would not be developed by Hydro for at least 15 years. There is no guarantee that it will be developed in 15 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey with a final supplementary.

Mr. McKessock: The taxes being $1,100 and some a year, will the assessment now be changed to coincide with the new proposed land use, so that the municipality will receive more from this land?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me first of all correct the member’s figure. The present taxes are $11,331 per year. I am told that if the lessee is successful in getting the approval from the local authorities and the Niagara Escarpment Commission for what he proposes, then the local municipality would see that figure jump to an excess of $20,000 per year. But as the hon. member knows, there would not be any change in the assessment unless a change in the land use was approved.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could I get some clarification? I notice that when members are asking questions, the Speaker is very careful to see there is no editorial comment thrown in and that the question is --

Mr. Speaker: I try, but there is still a lot.

Mr. Breaugh: Could I ask you how is it that I watched three ministers today editorialize at length and yet I did not hear the Speaker interject once? Would you explain that rule to me just a little more carefully?

Mr. Lewis: A rule for the weak and a rule for the strong.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not really a point of order; but we advise all people to keep the editorial comment to a minimum on all sides of the House, please, because it is not appropriately a part of the question period.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: It seems to us that the mighty are inheriting the earth.

Mr. Breithaupt: By the time we get it, it won’t be worth getting.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

REPORTS

Mr. McNeil from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolutions:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977:

Ministry of Industry and Tourism

Ministry central office programme………$755,000

Industry development programme…..$6,544,000

Trade development programme………$2,394,000

Tourism development programme.…$10,116,000

Operations programme…………………..$6,909,000

Communications programme………………$811,000

Administration programme……………….$1,548,000

Ontario Place Corporation programme..$3,192,000

Industrial incentives and development programme……………………………………..$30,377,000

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Environment be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977:

Ministry of the Environment

Ministry support services programme..$5,895,000

Environmental assessment and planning programme……………………………………$14,742,000

Environmental control programme…$206,085,000

Resource recovery programme……….$13,546,000

Resolved: That supply in the following supplementary amount to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Environment be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977:

Ministry of the Environment

Environmental control programme……$6,363,000

Hon. Mr. Wells presented the annual report of the Teachers’ Superannuation Commission.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry presented the seventh annual report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr. Young presented an interim report from the select committee on highway safety.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, this report is an interim report of the select committee on highway safety, which was appointed by this Legislature because of a growing concern on the part of the members of this assembly, as well as on the part of the people of the province of Ontario. The problem we were facing at that time was -- and we are still facing it -- that on the highways of this province we are now killing about 1,800 people per year and injuring and maiming 100,000 people per year. The total cost of this mayhem, depending on how much we value a human life -- even at $50,000 -- runs to about $500 million per year.

When the committee was set up, we had no expertise in this field. The committee itself and the staff which was set up to serve that committee were not experts. None of us, I think, had the kind of knowledge which is necessary for a final report. Over the period of the first few months we have been gaining that experience. We have been finding out that this field is far vaster and has far more ramifications than I think any of us realized -- far greater even than I realized, and I have been in the field and thinking seriously about it for a good many years. The result has been that the first few months have been sort of taken up with learning and gaining experience.

We have found out, for example, that there is no simple solution to the whole problem. There are no single solutions to the whole problem. Even though we have heard all kinds of solutions mentioned I don’t think anyone would claim that one solution applied to this problem would solve it. Of course, even the experts who came before us disagreed and in the face of that, Mr. Speaker, you can understand the problem we are facing.

However, the committee was set up for the purpose of reducing the tragic and costly burden caused by the motor vehicle accidents in this province. We looked at the work in, perhaps, two phases. The first included going out in the province, listening to people and finding out what solutions the people of Ontario had to offer. We found this is a tremendous concern for Ontario.

Twenty advertised public meetings were held, seeking the views of the public. We held them in 15 centres around the province and the report gives the location of these. As well, the committee advertised for and received submissions from individuals containing over 300 recommendations which the committee is now in the process of sifting through.

In addition to hearing from the general public, the committee sought out the views of police and various professional and private interest groups. Forty professional and private groups did appear and their names are listed in our report.

In addition to this, we took a two-week trip to examine the highway safety systems of three foreign jurisdictions. We found that in Sweden they have a death rate of 1,000 per year whereas Ontario’s is 1,800. We wanted to know why. In Britain, they have 50 deaths per 100,000 registered vehicles whereas Ontario has 65; and we wanted to know why. In Holland they are just beginning, as Ontario is, a very serious study of this whole problem and are attacking it with massive applications of research projects and very large staffs in those projects. We wanted to look at those, particularly the moped situation. They have hundreds of thousands of them and we wanted to see that and see what they are doing in that regard.

After looking at the situations in these countries, we sat down to evaluate what we had seen and what we had learned. We came to certain conclusions and the committee is now prepared to make certain recommendations -- not too many, because we felt we still needed much more study in certain specific fields.

We have four recommendations to make. When I mention these recommendations I must say that throughout the work of this committee, so far, we have had very cordial relationships with the ministry. At the very beginning we asked them to come in, to assess in their view what the big problems were and why. The minister made available to us Mr. Harvey Mosher, who travelled with us and met with us on a regular basis. His work, might I inform the minister, has been extremely valuable and he has done an extremely good and effective job with us.

In addition to that, we have kept in very close touch with the minister and as soon as the committee had come to certain conclusions, because of the urgency of the matter, we communicated to the minister what our findings were. The minister again has co-operated with us and we with him so that already some of these recommendations which we have made have been translated into actuality. We appreciate that and we appreciate the co-operation we have had from the minister and from his staff.

Those recommendations are as follows -- they are outlined a couple of times in our report:

[3:15]

That the Ontario government, without further delay, make the wearing of an approved motorcycle helmet compulsory for all moped riders. We felt, after investigation, that this was important and urgent; and the minister, as you know, has already acted on this recommendation.

That the government of Ontario take responsibility for the preparation and distribution of a free document outlining the laws relating to impaired driving. Such a document should be ready for distribution to all motorists renewing vehicle licence plates for 1977.

I think very few people in Ontario, and certainly the members and staff of the committee, had not realized the full extent of our laws, which are about as severe and far reaching as any laws in any jurisdiction. We appreciated that fact, but we felt that the people of Ontario ought to be apprised of that; and so we made this recommendation and again forwarded it to the ministry, and already that process is going forward. I understand that those documents will be available for distribution at the time suggested.

The next one: That the Ministry of Transportation and Communications begin the implementation of a system of classified drivers’ licences in the next calendar year. Again, work on this had already been begun by the ministry and was well advanced when the committee was doing its work. Across the province we heard literally scores of representations that this kind of classification of drivers’ licences was essential and urgent. We have made that recommendation; working together, the ministry at the same time, I think, has implemented it and it goes into effect the first of the year.

The next recommendation: That the government of Ontario draft for early presentation to the Legislature appropriate legislation to impose a penalty against any person who leaves keys in the ignition lock of an unattended motor vehicle.

We realize there may be some problems here, but we also realize that many of the thefts -- a very large proportion of the thefts that take place -- take place easily because keys are left in the ignition lock. Very often, and we’ve seen instances of this in the recent past, young people have stolen a car and the resulting high-speed chase has culminated in death. So we feel this is an urgent matter which is now in the hands of the ministry.

There is one further note I would like to insert here. The announcement this afternoon by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was a very welcome one, pointing out that certain parts of the insurance industry are going to use more humane methods in dealing with young drivers. This committee received a great many representations in this regard. We have not yet made recommendation because we feel we must study it further, but I think the chairman of the select committee on company law has a strong feeling about this and the announcement this afternoon is not unrelated to the work which his committee and our committee have been doing.

Certainly, when the Insurance Bureau of Canada met with us and with his committee, we made our feelings known in no uncertain terms, that the harsh treatment of young drivers by the industry was uncalled for, it was not solving the problem and something different, certainly, was demanded.

So I say again that the announcement this afternoon, and I hope subsequent action in this field, is not unrelated to the work which our committees have been doing, as well as the treatment in several other jurisdictions in Canada afforded to the younger driver.

The winter programme, the second phase of the programme of this committee, is already underway. Having established the basis and established what the parameters of the problems are, we are now ready to move into specific investigations of specific problems. As a matter of fact yesterday and on the next couple of Wednesdays we’ll be meeting with, again, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications staff, to see exactly, with the experience we have behind us, what is now being done by the ministry and what their hopes are in this whole field. I might say that yesterday’s meeting was extremely productive and we are looking forward to the next meeting.

Starting on January 3, this committee is meeting three to four days a week until the House meets, or until we can get our final report ready. It’s going to be a rather brutal sort of itinerary, but we feel the urgency of the situation demands that. We are moving into certain specific areas. I want to outline those.

They are eight and they encompass all the problems which have been brought before us, both by the terms of reference and by the people who have spoken to us. To summarize them very briefly they are: driver instruction, testing and licensing of drivers, drinking driving, enforcement of the legislation -- present and, we hope, future -- automobile standards and maintenance, commercial vehicle standards and maintenance, the road environment and administration.

Particularly, there is the whole field of research, which other countries are carrying forward and which perhaps we in Canada have not undertaken too seriously yet, but which we hope will be undertaken in the near future with some degree of comprehension and with at least a fairly large degree of funding by the federal government, and by the provincial governments where called for.

What we will be doing as we study these problems is to call in experts in the field from Canada and from outside our jurisdiction. We will be making certain field trips where we feel that is necessary to see what is happening in the field. We are looking forward to an extremely productive and very profitable time. I think we must face the fact -- and I emphasize it again -- that even experts in the field disagree. That’s why perhaps we have been a little slower than we had thought at first in coming to our ultimate conclusion.

Let me quote a couple of sections from the report: “It is therefore clear that the committee cannot expect to be guided by the absolute consensus of the experts. Experts will disagree on the most appropriate actions. In the absence of an expert consensus, the committee will exercise its best judgment as representatives of the public to choose the actions and the combinations of actions that it believes will improve the safety of our highways. Deciding that a particular action is likely to produce improvement in highway safety will not be enough. This first stage of decision-making also requires some judgement about whether the overall benefits justify the cost. This will be a difficult judgement to make because in highway safety benefits and costs are not quantifiable on a uniform basis. Sometimes we see a great social benefit and at the same time the cost in money may outweigh that social benefit. At other times the very large money costs may be outweighed by perceived social benefits.”

Just before closing, I want to pay tribute to the staff of this committee, which has worked long and tirelessly so far and will be continuing to do so as we drive them as a committee in this process. They are our counsel, Mr. Alan Schwartz; our consultant, Mr. James Fisher; our research co-ordinator, Arna Crocker; and the clerk of the committee, Andrew Richardson. I’ve already mentioned Mr. Mosher and his part in the committee. We pay tribute to their job and to their achievement and to the work which they have done.

Finally, let me quote again the final paragraph of our introduction: “There is in Ontario today a mandate for government action to make our highways safer. Ontario can be a world leader. The committee has set for itself the very ambitious task of coming up with a comprehensive approach to realize that objective.”

In the first chapter we say: “Three central impressions emerged from this initial phase of the hearings. First, and perhaps the most important, is a deep and universally expressed concern about the carnage on the highways.

“The second is a willingness to try, shared by the vast majority of people both here and in Europe. Although well aware that there are no absolute solutions for highway safety problems, almost everyone appearing before the committee expressed a willingness to support initiatives which might make an improvement.

“And third, most people share an optimism about the possibilities and are prepared for innovations and government leadership.”

As chairman of the committee, let me say a word of appreciation to the members of the committee who have worked hard this far and will continue to do so, to the ministry, to our staff and the Legislature in this massive undertaking. Thank you very much.

Mr. Nixon: I want to mention two or three points briefly. Perhaps the minister is prepared to respond to some of the recommendations in the report before we go on to another item.

I do feel, however, to be fair to my colleagues in the committee, that I should say one or two things about the conduct of the committee itself.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the committee did travel to Europe and the chairman has indicated from his point of view how valuable he felt the trip was and how important was the information that was gathered. I think you’re aware, sir, that as one member of the committee I did not feel that trip should have occurred.

This is not because I’m unwilling to make these trips nor is it that do I not realize how important they can be. I feel -- and I think this is something which should concern all of us, whether we’re on select committee or not -- that there should be perhaps a more careful approach to the authorization of select committee trips and other trips by members of this Legislature at public expense. We can always bring forward justification for any group of people to go almost anywhere in the world to gather information which may or may not be available.

I do believe, with the budgetary circumstances which face us and for a wide range of reasons, we must be careful when these trips are approved by committees or any other group that there is a clear and valuable return for the expenditure of these funds. I raised it in the committee at the time and I raise it now. I am as vulnerable as anyone else to accusations of hypocrisy and I suppose I am guilty of those accusations.

I simply put it that we’re going to have to be careful that our house is set carefully in order when it comes to the expenditure of these funds.

There is another specific point I want to make. Among the things my colleagues found in this tour -- I was not with them but it was an interesting piece of information -- was that at least two of the jurisdictions, Sweden and the United Kingdom, reduced their highway speed limits at the time of the energy crisis. Since that time the speed limits have been put back to where they were before; or, in the case of Sweden I am told, they were put back on a modified basis with a different approach to speed limits depending upon the region in which the highways were. We were much later in reducing our speed limits here but in travelling with the committee, I have been struck by one or two important points.

The first one is that while the police forces all strongly approved of the reduction in the speed limit almost without exception they indicated they must have more money for enforcement. I think particularly of the OPP inspector of the sergeant at Barrie who indicated clearly that he felt there should be a reduction in the speed limits on Highway 400. He also indicated they needed more black and white cars; they needed more radar; they needed more money for aerial surveillance. He indicated that tough enforcement was the answer. Frankly, I have my doubts about that because I’m not at all convinced that the reduction of the speed limit was as useful as many people had hoped it would be.

There is a general feeling in the community that it is sort of a motherhood thing, that it is a good thing the speed limit is reduced because fewer accidents are occurring and the severity of the accidents is decreased. That may or may not be so. Really, the indications are very difficult to determine. I suppose if we were to reduce the speed limit to 30 that would be even better, but we are finding the community is not responding to the reduced speed limits in the way that perhaps we had hoped.

[3:30]

I want to quote from a speech the minister made in a hearing on motor vehicle occupant crash protection in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, August 3, 1976. I quote from the script that the minister provided and I talked to him personally about this because he indicated he did not say what the script says he said. The point is that it was prepared by people in the department going on the information that was supposedly available to them. I believe in this province we are proud of the fact the seat-belt legislation and the reduction in speed limits have, by their combination, reduced accidents and the severity of accidents. We’re proud of that and we believe that this is an important step forward that should be copied by other jurisdictions. It is difficult to determine whether the speed limits have been as efficacious in that regard as some people would hope.

In quoting from the minister’s speech, he had gone on at some length, and very properly, indicating the problems in imposing a mandatory seatbelt law and then indicating the statistical and very favourable results of it. I quote from page seven of his speech:

“We also lowered our speed limits in January. However, there has been no significant drop in operating speeds.”

I’m sure he will want to indicate what he intended to say and what he actually did say, but this is from the script that was provided publicly and provided to the members of the committee on highway safety. My feeling is this, surely it was well accepted by editorialists in the community at large that we reduced the speed limits, but the findings of most people is -- certainly from the minister’s speech -- that the actual speeds travelled have not been reduced significantly. There are those who say if the speed limit were retained at 70 for controlled access highways the cars will still be going probably eight to nine miles over the speed limit, but I’m not at all sure that that was our finding when the speed limit was set at 70.

If there were significant savings of energy, particularly petroleum, then obviously this is a matter we should continue, perhaps with much stronger enforcement than we have now, but the minister in his statement said there is no significant reduction. All we are giving the police is an almost impossible enforcement problem. We in this House have approved a reduction in the speed limit which the people do not feel is legitimate. They want to save fuel but, on controlled access highways particularly, it may in fact increase the menace in some instances rather than decrease it.

I simply felt, although the members of the committee don’t agree with my feelings in this regard, that at the interim-report stage I should bring it to the attention of the House and the minister and also give him an opportunity if he wants to correct the misapprehension that is in the community, or at least in a number of people in it, as a result of his statement in Washington, and that this would certainly be a good time to do it.

We did not discuss in detail the possibility of a recommendation having to do with speed limits. I sense that not everybody on the committee agrees with my contention in this regard. As a matter of fact, far from it. An indication of how far from it is the fact that they went to Sweden and the UK, where they did reduce the speed limit and then put it back up again, and while there has been considerable talk of the recommendations from those areas, this one has not surfaced in any significant way.

I wanted to bring this to the attention of the members of the House in this interim report. We will no doubt continue our investigations and examinations in this important field and I’ll look forward to talking about this and other matters more fully when the final report is before you, sir.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a comment if I could. I would have to say, in response to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk in his opening comments about the need for select committees to practise restraint, I want to assure the House there wasn’t a member on that committee, or for that matter on any other, who doesn’t agree with the need for restraint.

However, this committee was set up with the express purpose, according to the terms of reference, to look into the incidence of traffic accidents, the carnage of no less than about 1,800 killed each year, some 70,000, 80,000 or 90,000 injured, and we were charged with the responsibility of trying to bring in some recommendations which would reduce this. When you take the cost of the toll and match that against the committee going where it feels it’s necessary to go to obtain evidence and information, I think it’s one of the better investments the people of Ontario have made. The trip was well worth while and it will be reflected not only in this interim report but in the final report as well.

Some of the recommendations have been touched on and I’ve got to say I don’t share the opinion that there is no benefit in reducing the speed limit. It’s my impression from observation that over the months since that was announced there has been a gradual reduction of accidents. I feel this from travelling on some of our major highways and I can’t agree with the member on that point I think it is showing up in the reduction in the number of accidents. The other thing, of course, is the use of seatbelts, which has reduced the carnage on the highways, the personal injuries and fatalities.

Two of the major things this committee must come to grips with and this point is most frustrating -- are the drinking driver and the impaired driver. We will be going on in our future discussions and activities in trying to come to grips with this and to bring forward some very positive recommendations which will add to the safety features of our highways. We just don’t see now that the carnage and mortality from accidents can be totally reduced, but perhaps we can do something that will diminish this and turn it around and start it on the decline. When all these things are put together, this could very well happen and any investments, therefore, that the people of Ontario have in this committee are insignificant in comparison to the cost of medical treatment, legal actions, the results of fatalities and the attendant grief and costs that are associated with such incidents.

So I bring that forward to the members of the Legislature.

Mr. Ferrier: I would like to comment on the tabling of this report. Our community was very seriously saddened on the weekend, on Sunday night, for there was a car accident in which eight people were killed. We don’t know all the reasons for it yet, but we will be trying to find out from the ministry in due course.

When an accident of that magnitude happens in a community, it brings home to us the need for more adequate safety measures to try to cope with the dangers that lurk on our highways. I think the members of this committee have taken their responsibility seriously in trying to become acquainted with the subject, a subject which has many facets and a subject on which the experts do not always agree.

The two things that the experts have agreed are the most effective measures of dealing with highway safety are the compulsory use of seatbelts and the reduction of speed limits. I’m quite surprised at the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk wanting to keep a higher speed limit, when that’s one subject -- the lowering of the speed limits as a safety measure -- that the experts agree on, the experts that we talked to.

I think we have an important piece of work to finish in the next two and a half or three months and I anticipate a lot of hard work and a lot of hard study going into that, hopefully to come up with a report that does put forward a number of very useful recommendation so that the minister and his staff will be able to incorporate them. I am quite confident that the minister is much in earnest about this subject and he will do something to follow up the recommendations that will be in that final report

I do not want to leave unchallenged the statement by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk where he takes a shot at the committee for going overseas to other jurisdictions to investigate highway safety there. He has a very cynical view apparently of the work of members of this Legislature and of committees by suggesting that people are only wanting to go on those kinds of trips as a fun trip and not really in earnest to try to carry out the responsibilities that are given to them.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in case my hon. friend is indicating in any way that I either suggested or even felt for a moment that he or my other colleague went just because it was a fun trip, let me completely disabuse him of that I simply indicated that I felt the trip was unnecessary and the information it yielded could have been obtained with a 10-cent postage stamp.

Mr. Bain: That’s not a point of order.

Mr. Nixon: I am sure they worked very hard. Indeed, as a matter of fact, I am convinced of it.

Mr. Ferrier: He’s had his chance to spout off and I would just like to make a few comments in rejoinder. I think the matter of select committees in this Legislature has been tightened up in that all expenditures must be approved by the Board of Internal Economy. The chairman did submit this budget to the Board of Internal Economy and did point out that he felt it was necessary for this trip to take place to do the kind of job that needed to be done in these areas. Some of us might suggest the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was negligent in his duty in not going in that he did not seem to be sufficiently concerned about the matter to go to see what others were doing and studying --

Mr. Nixon: What about the two members of your caucus who did not go to Europe? Do you think they were negligent?

Mr. Ferrier: -- and to talk with the people who were making the decisions and had done the research and were effecting the countermeasures to take place in Europe. When you are poking a finger of accusation at fellow members of your committee, I would suggest there is also another side. Maybe there is one finger pointing back in your direction.

Mr. Mackenzie: It would appear that members have been allowed to say a word or two and I want to say just a word or two on this particular report.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I wish perhaps to respond for a moment to the remarks that have been made, but is this the appropriate time to debate this report?

Mr. Speaker: A person can make comments on the report. It has been customary to do that on the prelude.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I understand it is customary for the chairman of the committee to make comments on the handing down of the report.

Mr. Speaker: Other members have made comments on reports as well.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Okay.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister may too, but perhaps he might wish to be the final speaker on it.

Mr. Young: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I might just indicate to you that my intention as chairman of the committee was to make a brief statement. Perhaps it wasn’t as brief as it might have been. It was not in my knowledge that there was to be any debate on the subject today. I just want that cleared for the record.

Mr. Speaker: I understand other members felt constrained to make some comment.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, my understanding was that the chairman would give a brief report on the report and that we would be at some later date debating it. Inasmuch as the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk decided he was going to make those statements that he did and the others have been allowed to speak, then I think there is a right, even an obligation, on members of that committee to let their feelings be known. Mine will be very brief.

[3:45]

I happen to think that was a good committee. I also happen to think they put an awful lot of time and effort in. If I was making a recommendation, or was in a position to make it for another committee that was taking a look at things, whether they’re in Europe or any other parts outside of Canada, I would say you don’t give them such a rushed schedule, that there’s so much you can absorb, and certainly the time and effort was put in by the committee.

But I would also say to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that when he talks about members in the past having practised a little bit of hypocrisy, I think there’s some hypocrisy and a dereliction of duty when a committee does make a decision that this is what it wishes to look at and what it wishes to do and he doesn’t want to take part in that trip for his own reasons. I’m simply saying that were I in that position and I want to make it clear, I would have stepped down from that committee, and if he had any guts he would have done the same thing.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we keep the comments on the report?

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At no time was the matter put before the committee for discussion or a vote.

Mr. Mackenzie: Oh, come on. For Christ’s sake.

Mr. B. Newman: I wasn’t on the committee, but I do --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Just one moment, please. Did the hon. member for Yorkview wish to comment on the last remark?

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, the committee did discuss this on several occasions; it did vote its concurrence in this programme.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order --

Mr. Bain: You weren’t even there. If you had attended more, you would have known what went on.

Mr. Nixon: I must object to the hon. chairman’s statement. I don’t recall a resolution or a vote of the committee; it was simply decided that the committee would go.

Mr. Mackenzie: You were never there.

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker cannot judge on that. Any further comments on the report?

Mr. B. Newman: I wasn’t on the committee, but I would like to make a few comments concerning the report --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member is stretching the matter just a bit too far when he’s not even a member of the committee. It’s appropriate for the members of the committee who served on it to make whatever comment they wish; this has been a courtesy in the past. But I think to make it a general debate, this is the wrong time. Since the member was not on the committee, I think he should not speak at this time. Thank you.

Mr. B. Newman: I will accept your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I will tell my colleagues to the left something concerning the previous committee on the use of schools and the attitude they took towards it at that time.

Mr. Deans: Oh, sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister wish to make a comment in winding this up?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the committee; maybe it’s not appropriate for me to speak.

First of all, I would like to thank the chairman and the members of the committee for the very fine job they have carried out on behalf of highway safety. I know they are all very interested in the work they are doing. I appreciated very much getting an advance copy, which the chairman sent me and I received about a half an hour before I came to the House this afternoon. I’ve had a chance to review the interim report, and I’d like to compliment the committee in the way that the committee has worked with myself and with my officials in the past few months.

Regarding the recommendations of the committee, as the hon. members know, recommendation number one, asking for an extension for the date of the final report, must be dealt with by the House. I personally feel this is necessary and would certainly be in favour of it, although perhaps during the period of the continued studies we can continue to have the same type of liaison we have had so that we won’t necessarily have to wait until after April 30 to get any further recommendations.

On recommendation number two, relating to moped helmets, we received an interim recommendation from the committee. I have acted on that recommendation and the regulation has been passed.

As for the third recommendation, relating to making literature available to motorists to make them aware of the consequences of drinking and driving as far as the law is concerned, I think that is excellent. My staff have already prepared a brochure and I understand it is at the printers and will be ready within a matter of days.

Mr. Roy: Don’t forget to put your name on it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: And picture too; colour picture.

Mr. Warner: Not of your head.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Recommendation No. 4, relating to the classified driver’s licence, of course, is one that the ministry has been working on for some period of time and that has already been announced.

The fifth recommendation is one we have given some study to. I want to say I thank the committee for their recommendation and we will certainly look further into that matter.

There are some very important matters for the committee to study and I appreciate the fact that they will need more time. There are matters relating to the licensing of driving schools, driver examinations and vehicle inspections. Many of these things are going to take more time.

I would like to respond also to the hon. member for Brant, Haldimand, Oxford or whatever it is --

Mr. Stokes: From BON.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, I guess.

Mr. Nixon: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes. The hon. member did draw to my attention this particular comment which was included in the prepared text for my speech in Washington. Unfortunately that’s the problem with having prepared texts. What was being distributed here in Toronto at the time I was making my remarks in Washington was not quite the same because I did alter it slightly. I don’t have a transcript of what I did say in Washington so therefore I can’t tell you exactly what I said. The finding is that the speed limit was lowered and I think the average travelling speed of vehicles on our highways today is definitely lower than it was before the speed limit was lowered.

Mr. Good: No way.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do believe however that the number of people driving above the new lower speed limit is probably a higher percentage than it was before the speed limits were lowered. There are more people breaking the law in other words. I think this is our finding. There are more people breaking the law today than there were before the speed limits were lowered. That doesn’t say that the speed limit being lowered has not lowered the average driving speed because I think it has. That is the point I was trying to get across, probably very poorly, in that speech in Washington.

Mr. Nixon: You said there was no significant drop in operating speeds.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I realize, as I stated, that that was in the text. I made alterations to that text in the copy I had while I was --

Mr. Reid: We believe the text.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- travelling between here and the capital of the United States.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Again, as I say, I thank the committee for their work and for their co-operation and I assure members of my continued co-operation and that of my staff with the committee as they carry on their work in the months ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

MOTIONS

Hon. Mr. Auld moved that the standing committees of the House be authorized to sit concurrently with the House for the consideration of legislation now referred to them.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld moved that the meetings of the standing committees when considering Bills 131, 139, 140 and 141 be recorded on tape for reference.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Would you add Bill 85 please, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: And Bill 85.

Mr. B. Newman: Recorded but not printed.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld moved that on receipt of a written application by Mr. Martel to the Clerk of the House, Mr. Martel be substituted for Mr. Makarchuk on the select committee considering the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature.

Mr. Deans: Just a brief word to express our thanks for having made that motion. Mr. Martel, as you know, has been incapacitated for some period of time but expects to be back on the job here in the Legislature some time after Christmas. Unfortunately the House wouldn’t be sitting in order to substitute him and I appreciate the content of the motion.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes, on behalf of Hon. B. Stephenson, moved first reading of Bill 176, An Act to amend The Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 177, An Act to amend The Development Corporations Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The Development Corporations Amendment Act provides that where financial support is given under The Development Act, 1973, to a person for purposes of relocating an industrial undertaking that person shall give his employees the option to continue employment at the relocated industrial site and pay the relocation costs of those employees choosing to relocate.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Bain moved first reading of Bill 178, An Act to amend The Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bain: This bill would make three basic changes in The Workmen’s Compensation Act:

First, it would give an injured worker establishing a claim, or anyone that that injured worker chooses, access to his complete Workmen’s Compensation file.

Secondly, this bill removes the requirement that an industrial disease be disabling, or be the cause of death before compensation is payable. Under this bill the occurrence of an industrial disease would entitle a worker to compensation.

Thirdly, this bill would automatically transfer a compensation pension upon the death of the injured worker to his dependants, regardless of the percentage disability of the pension and regardless of the cause of death.

[4:00]

SOCIAL REFERRAL SERVICES ACT

Mr. Cunningham moved first reading of Bill 179, An Act respecting Social Referral Services.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with social referral services, providing for the inclusion of standard terms as to vendor’s duty, cancellation and the confidentiality and returning of personal information in social contracts and the limiting of their costs and duration.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. di Santo moved first reading of Bill 180, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, the bill requires that employers with 20 or more employees hire injured workers with permanent partial disability.

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. di Santo moved first reading of Bill 181, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, the bill permits the employees to accumulate pension benefits while unemployed due to disablement.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING

House in committee of supply.

On vote 2002, community planning programme; item 5, community renewal:

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, the ministry’s request for additional funds amounts to $1.5 million, and is to be utilized as transfer payments under the Ontario Home Renewal Programme.

The Ontario Home Renewal Programme has been put into full implementation this fiscal year and the demand for funds by municipalities has exceeded the anticipated rate of participation. It is now anticipated that 280 municipalities will apply for funds, which is an upward revision from our original estimate of 264 for this fiscal year. With these additional funds, it is anticipated that 546 more units will be rehabilitated, adjusting the 1976-71 target from 4,758 to 5,304.

Mr. Cassidy: On item 2002, I think the minister will agree to slight latitude, and I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, will as well. I don’t want to make a long speech, but this might be the opportunity for a few brief questions to the minister about matters which relate to his estimates, but which --

Mr. Chairman: You will confine your remarks to the Ontario Home Renewal Programme.

Mr. Cassidy: As I say, I am asking for a certain amount of latitude given the fact that I do not intend to take up a great amount of time of the Legislature. If I was to take a great amount of time, I am sure you as a good chairman would squelch me firmly as you have done so many times in the past.

Mr. Chairman: We have to be consistent in our rulings from the chair. It was ruled yesterday by another chairman that you would stick expressly to the amounts and to the topics being discussed here. In the interest of consistency we’ll insist on that today.

Mr. Cassidy: My comments about the Home Renewal Programme in itself are limited. We welcome the success of the programme. Our feeling has been that this is an area in which the province was right to move when it moved two years ago. It was right, I might say, to adopt the lines which were sketched for it by the NDP when we began to suggest that kind of movement long before this minister became Minister of Housing.

If anything, I would judge from the kind of reaction there has been to OHRP in various parts of the province, that this is one of those cases in which we can say to the government, “You’re doing okay but this is a very limited programme in view of the degree of need that exists out there.”

As the minister is well aware there are well over two million housing units in the province of Ontario and this extension, which will be made possible by means of this particular supplementary estimates means that only an infinitesimal proportion of the housing units in the province will actually be covered. I think it’s something like about one-half of one per cent of the housing units in the province become possibly eligible for rehabilitation. You have to bear in mind, in addition to that, that this is not necessarily complete rehabilitation and there is a backlog of homes needing to be fixed up because the programme is only a couple of years old.

At the rate the ministry is going, Ontario would be involved with rehabilitation of each particular unit of the housing stock of the province on average once every 200 years. I’m not sure whether the rehabilitation which is being financed by this particular extension will last for 200 years or whether in another 15 or 20 years there mightn’t be need to have another go at some of the homes which are qualifying for these grants at this time.

As long as this programme remains as limited as it is right now, the question of whether or not the income band to which it is directed should be widened is probably academic. In other words, there’s enough demand right now for OHRP funds that you don’t really need to look at people who earn $13.500 or $15,500 and who might wish to qualify for the loan part, say, of OHRP funds.

I think the minister might clarify whether it is the intention of the ministry to change those income bands from time to time, bearing in mind that since the family incomes in the province have changed substantially and bearing in mind that what we now have is a programme which is directed to an extraordinarily small number of people in the larger cities. They have to be able to own their own homes, for the most part, in order to qualify. They have to have an income which, I believe, is still to be less than a family income of $12,500 per year.

Anybody on that kind of an income simply can’t afford to buy a house at today’s prices. The only kind of housing available to them, if at all, is under the federal assisted home ownership programme and that would be for new housing -- pretty much by definition new housing isn’t eligible for OHRP.

Therefore, what you are directing these funds to is a diminishing number of lower-income families who bought their homes several years ago and who live in the older parts of our cities. In towns and villages, I appreciate there would be a broader number of people because incomes there are not so great. Everywhere you go, I am sure there’s a significant number of senior citizens who become eligible for OHRP funds.

OHRP now, I would suggest, does nothing at all to help in situations where people of modest incomes acquire housing and then seek help in order to fix it up, both because the housing isn’t there because the prices are too high or because the income they need in order to buy in at today’s prices and mortgage rates simply means that they couldn’t qualify.

I have to tell the minister as well that while the administration of the OHRP funds in general isn’t working too badly, there has come to my attention instances of fairly serious delays. I know these delays are a matter of municipal administration, but municipal administration is also a reflection of the red tape which is built into the programme by the province.

If OHRP is to be successful it seems to me it should be able to provide modest amounts for modest rehabilitation and repairs and not just major amounts for major rehabilitation and repairs. It can be that in certain cases people living in older homes would prefer to take a couple of thousand dollars, half as grant and half as loan, in order to seal up the windows and doors and do some other essential improvements than commit themselves to a very heavy loan and grant, even though that might be accessible to them.

However, the administration costs of these more modest grants are heavy. In the borough of York, which is one instance where I’ve been active in trying to get a resolution of problems in the last week or so, they had got to the point where they had about 15 applications for OHRP that were backed up in some cases as long as six or eight months. The difficulty there was that the municipality was running into delays because of the need to search titles on each and every one of these particular applications.

The searching of titles wasn’t just the searching of title back to point of purchase of the property or to the point where the last title search was carried out. It was search of title back to the Ark -- back to the beginning. That was, therefore a time-consuming and costly process. It seems to me that in cases where the obligation being assumed was maybe $2,000 or $3,000 or $4,000 some less time-consuming programme might have been picked out by the ministry.

I see the chairman is looking at me very intently. I know he will agree that I have kept on the subject meticulously. I have to tell him that I’ve taken about five or seven minutes longer than I intended to take with all of my questions, only I was driven into it by the chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I’ll accept your thanks for that.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. Perhaps I could just try to put this into perspective, Mr. Chairman. The most recent figures from Ontario Finances indicate the overall expenditures for the Ministry of Housing under the estimates are to go up from the estimated $171 million which we had at the beginning of this year to an estimate of $173 million, an increase of $2 million. In rounded terms, that may represent the $1.5 million that we have right here. On the other hand, the ministry seems to be shortfalling by $25 million on the Ontario Mortgage Corporation and by $9 million on the Ontario Housing Corporation. Since those funds could generate 10 times that amount of construction, that shortfall seems to be very serious in view of the great difficulties that are allegedly occurring with the shortage of rental accommodations and which have been adverted to on a number of occasions by members of the Conservative Party.

I think that overall picture might be touched on by the minister because that’s something which is concerning people greatly.

I think too, also in relation to the Home Renewal Programme, Mr. Chairman, the ministry is responsible for the Ontario Housing Rehabilitation Programme and also for the Ontario Housing Assistance Programme. Perhaps some statement about the extension of OHRP past next year might be in order in case there are any uncertainties as to that regard. Perhaps in the same breath the minister might comment very briefly about the present termination date of March 31 for OHRP since that’s causing enormous concern about what happens next.

Those are the opening comments I wanted to make on the estimates.

[4:15]

Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of brief questions. Does the minister have any figures that would indicate how many different communities are using the Home Renewal Programme, and what is the largest amount that has been placed in any community in the current year?

Mr. Chairman: If you just go ahead and give your opening comments, the minister will answer them all at once.

Mr. Hall: Yes. That’s fine, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with that thought.

I am concerned about some communities that may not be using it and I’m wondering if the minister when he replies would indicate to us what ongoing contact he has with certain communities, some of which have come to my attention, which, through some deficiency on their part possibly, haven’t availed themselves of this programme.

I’d also appreciate it if the minister would enlighten me as to the exact time the money goes forward. Is it a matter of a requisitioning by the community for certain dollars on approval of an application, all requirements having been met, or can the municipality require funds to be sent down in advance of the actual outflow?

I want to just make certain that there’s no money that’s not being put to good use at all times in the transfer process. I support the programme, of course, and I would want to just check with the minister -- I assume that this does not include funds in the current year for rehabilitation of rental properties, if you’d touch on that point with me. You might respond as to whether we’re now getting into that as a result of your earlier announcements or whether we’re still on owned property.

Those are the main questions. I’d appreciate the minister’s answers and then if anything is derived from that I might appreciate the opportunity to raise another question.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I’m wondering if it would be possible in order to keep track if I could answer perhaps the two critics at this time and then go ahead with the hon. member for Brantford.

Mr. Chairman: It seems like a wise way to handle it. The hon. minister.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Brantford.

Mr. Makarchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to participate in this. Earlier today we sat in the public accounts committee looking at the --

Mr. Chairman: Well, it seems to me it is traditional that the two leadoff speakers for the opposition parties give their leadoff comments, to which the minister can respond. Then we get into the questions and answers.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’ll be very brief in my responses because I think that in general there’s agreement that the programme is working. I’m sure there will be some differences of opinion as to how well and how perhaps it might be improved, but the programme is working and that’s evident by the fact that I am here now requesting extra funding for that particular programme.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre suggests we have two million units in Ontario, but I would think he would agree that not all those two million units are in need of repair. I think perhaps while our percentage is a little higher, if we are at that point -- that the two million of them are in need of repair at this time -- then we’re all in some difficulty and the minimum standards bylaws in the various municipalities cannot be working very well.

I think the rehabilitation programme has been working along fairly well in trying to meet the needs of those persons who are in the lower income areas. These are the people who, I’m sure the hon. member would agree -- and he has made a great many speeches in this House, outside this House and elsewhere, speaking on behalf of those persons who are in that lower-income bracket -- that they should be the ones to receive the help.

Mr. Cassidy: I am glad you’ve noticed. It hasn’t had much effect.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: One cannot help but notice. When you’re speaking in Ottawa, I just open the door in Sault Ste. Marie and I can hear you. It’s about that easy.

Mr. Conway: I’m for the lower-income bracket.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On the municipal administration of these programmes, I’m not going to be critical of them; they have had some problems. Part of that has been overcome, I believe, as a result of the people in the municipalities becoming more aware of the programme. They have municipal standards officers who are going out now properly trained and there are still some training programmes going on at the present time. They are being able to deal with the appraisals and the suggestions as to what type of work should be done.

The question of the amount of work to be done has given me some concern as well, and I have inquired in a number of municipalities as to why they are not making money available to owners so they can do, as was suggested, the smaller types of jobs -- repairing around the windows and generally making the house more livable; that is, making some immediate repairs as aside from major construction work. In some municipalities they are insisting, before any loans are made, that they must do a major repair job on the basement or the foundation. But when people really want to have the livable portion of the house fixed up, they’ll do that later, when they’re more able.

One of the answers I’m getting -- and I’m not sure whether it is entirely the reason -- is they are saying minimum standards bylaws have been passed in the municipality and they have determined within their own administration that they do not wish to advance money under the programme unless the work that is being done will be bringing the unit up to the minimum standards, and they’d rather see the work all done at once. I am attempting, in my own way, to try to discourage that, and I am hopeful that some of the other repairs can be made. I think it’s the same in my own municipality as it is perhaps in yours as well.

I may jump around a bit in answering these, but in response to the member for -- I’ll get it right yet -- the member for Lincoln -- goodness, I don’t know how I forgot that -- there are approximately 500 municipalities now taking part in the programme. I say approximately; I have a complete list of them, but I didn’t total them up. The largest amount of money that I can see, in a quick look through these particular papers, appears to have gone to the city of Hamilton, with a total of $623,132 as the amount that has been forwarded to them. The amounts of money -- I’m giving figures that have been actually forwarded to the municipalities -- vary from down around the $20,000 mark up to that high of $623,000. Most of them in the smaller communities, the smaller townships, are between $30,000 and $40,000. The municipalities, of course, are a little higher than that, getting up into the $150,000 to $200,000 area.

I have had further requests for more funding under this programme; I’m pleased to get the requests because, as I say, I think that shows the programme is working. It’s working better now than it did a year ago. People are more used to it, and the administration is distributing the money more effectively. The money is transferred to the municipalities by the application being received from the municipality suggesting how much money they feel they need to carry on the programme within their community for that time. We have allocation limitations, budget limitations and what have you, and the allocations are made up to a maximum on a per capita basis -- based on the population, as any other per capita grants would be made.

The effectiveness of the programme in most communities, I think, has been good. As you related, we have extended the programme into the rental area. We now have that programme in effect. Applications are now being received and there are no income limits being placed upon the tenants who are in the units that are in this programme, as you probably know. But we are asking that it be done in those areas where there are lower-income people living in rented accommodation. Quite frankly, I’m not going to entertain someone coming in and wanting to fix up a $200,000 townhouse for some reason.

The member for Lincoln is having difficulty looking around his colleague. He’s looking at .the best side of him, I’ll tell him that.

Mr. Ruston: Now, John.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The rental programme is just getting going now, and the money is included in the total that we have for this year. We realize it will not be very much money expended in the balance of this fiscal year, but we’ll be ready to go in the next fiscal year with more money in the programme.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre asked about the continuation of the programme. I think the programme is one of the real successes that we have and that we should be continuing the programme. We have already requested --

Mr. Cassidy: One of the few successes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: One of the many successes we have is this programme and I have now requested additional funding for this programme so that we can continue it and meet some of the requests that have come in. In fact, we hope for additional funding for the balance of this fiscal year so that we can add more money to the programme to keep it going in the various municipalities which are requesting more funding.

Mr. Conway: According to your parliamentary assistant it is the greatest success.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think those are the remarks I wanted to make at this time. In keeping with your very strict order, Mr. Chairman, I shall refrain from responding to other questions that were asked about other areas of the ministry.

Mr. Cassidy: I sneaked them in so well he did not notice.

Mr. Makarchuk: Sometimes it puzzles me, particularly after sitting today in the public accounts committee and looking at the first time home buyers’ programme where the wastage is about $9 million to $11 million. Just look at the whole programme, it cost $100 million. There was also the $160 million giveaway that went to industry, and so on. It makes me wonder why you have massive amounts of money going into those programmes of dubious value, of very little job-creating potential, in comparison to a programme like this. I have to congratulate the minister and the government; this is a very good programme as we’ve found it in our community particularly -- and I had a hand in getting it started there. It’s doing the kind of job that we expected it to do.

There are all sorts of people in the community -- widows, single parents, older citizens and so on -- who were living in rather dilapidated conditions in houses that were on the verge of being torn down, with improper heating, with roofs that were leaking, with windows that were not keeping the weather out and so on, and which were fixed up. They are extremely grateful that there is something of this nature going on.

The other aspect of this programme is the fact that there were many small contractors who before were making a sort of more or less marginal existence and who have managed, because of this programme, to acquire reasonable equipment and to have a reasonable income to put themselves on a sound basis. In fact, because of the start they got on the OHRP programme they have been able to go into some sort of major subcontracting field, or take on larger commercial work which they would not have been able to do before. That’s another sort of spinoff from this particular programme.

This is why it bothers me when the minister does not demand a greater amount of money -- perhaps he does -- because as was pointed out by my colleague from Ottawa there is a lot of work that can be done. This is the kind of programme where besides the benefits that flow from it to the people who live in the homes, there are great benefits in terms of jobs that are created in the community. If you compare the number of jobs that are created for every dollar that is spent on the OHRP programme as opposed to the spending that went on the first-time home buyers grant or the $160 million equipment write-off, I have a feeling, Mr. Minister, that you will find the buck invested produces more jobs here than anywhere else in any of the programmes you’ve got in your government. I would suggest that you continue this programme.

My last question, of course, concerns Brantford, which as usual is running out of funding. I did send a note to you requesting whether they are going to get additional funding. I would like to know where they are on the list.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I will answer the last one first. First of all, it is not a question of where they are on the list. We don’t work that way on it. The applications are there and they are evaluated and if they are eligible for money, certainly they will get it.

It seems to me we have forwarded to Brantford, up until now, $195,372. That was the approved amount, therefore I can’t say at this stage whether we have more money going for them or not. We are aware there is a request in from them and we are trying to meet those requests to the best of our ability within the available funding.

I am pleased the hon. member mentioned that there is work being created by these renewal programmes. Obviously there would be. I hope that’s what the experience is in your area, because in some areas it is not the experience. The opportunity is there, but many municipalities have indicated to me -- I say many, some municipalities; I haven’t been in touch with that many of them -- have indicated a problem in getting that work done in that they are not able to get people who are willing to go out and do the sort of appraisal work and give an estimate on the work they think should be done and what it would cost.

[4:30]

As a result, these people who have had the municipal officials come and see them, look at their needs and say, “Yes, you are in need, get an estimate,” are having difficulty. Some of them are waiting a month or more to get someone to come and give them an estimate on the work. When they do get the estimate, they wait another month or so before the individual contractor will say, “I’ll come in and do the work.”

Some of that delay is in that area between the estimate of the work and the actual agreement to come in and do the work. If that hasn’t been the experience in Brantford, that’s great and I would hope that that experience wouldn’t be occurring in as many municipalities as it apparently is.

I think the programme needs more money. We have asked for more money to keep it going.

Mr. Makarchuk: On the same point, I think I have to point out to the minister that initially we did have a problem in trying to acquaint the people -- one of the problems in that field is that there are a lot of fly-by-night operators -- not a lot, but there are fly-by-night operators. That’s one problem.

The other problem is that the small contractor was always concerned about going to a rather ramshackle building, doing a job which probably cost him $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, up to $7,000 or $8,000 and then wondering whether he is going to collect the money. One of the things we did in Brantford to dissipate that kind of apprehension was to hold a public meeting. It was a dinner meeting with the builders, small contractors and so on. I was there as well as our administrator and we explained the programme and from there on in, it took off.

They were assured they were going to get paid; that it’s a well-funded programme and there is follow-up and so on. From there on in, we had no problems at all.

Mr. Good: I’m a member from a city which chose not to go into this programme. First of all, am I correct that the administrative costs of the programme are the only costs to the municipality?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, a percentage of the total grant can be applied to the administrative costs. They don’t absorb all the administrative costs but there is a percentage of the grant which can be applied to the administrative costs. They do have some.

Mr. Good: I have had quite a number of inquiries about the programme but the municipality has not chosen to go into it up to now. The rate of interest charged on the loan, I understand, is on a sliding scale depending on the income of the family. Could you give us an idea of what that rate of interest is?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The interest rate is from zero to eight per cent and the municipality determines what it thinks the interest rate should be. We leave that in the hands of the administration of the municipality.

Mr. Good: Could you explain briefly how people can qualify for this and the difference between this and the federal RRAP and NIP programmes? As I understand it, the levels of income are not that much different; I think it’s between $11,000 and $12,000 for the family income. This programme, I understood, is for people who do not qualify for the other programmes. What is the difference?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m afraid I can’t tell you too much about the RRAP programme. I’m not very familiar with it. I try to confine myself to the programmes I have to contend with and I usually leave the federal ones to them. All I can tell you of the difference between our programme and the RRAP programme is that we didn’t make commitments and back away. We kept the money available.

I can’t tell you too much. I guess the main part of the RRAP programme is tied to the NIP programme, the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme. Ours is available throughout the community. That’s the real difference I can see and I don’t know that much about that programme.

Mr. Good: It’s your own publication which says that this programme is available to those who do not qualify for the other things. On that basis, every municipality in the province would qualify for this programme and every person below the $12,500 income level would qualify -- is this correct?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, everyone would qualify and not only within municipalities. We have moneys in our programme that go to the unorganized territories as well where we have people who apply individually. It is administered through my own ministry as far as the disposition of funds to them for their repair work and the work that they would like to do in rehabilitation is concerned.

The reason we say where they don’t otherwise qualify in that is that in the neighbourhood improvement areas, the RRAP programme is there. The OHRP programme goes throughout the community. Again, we leave it in the hands of the municipality. Some of the municipalities decide that they won’t apply the OHRP programme in the NIP areas. As I have said many times, you almost have to speak a new language in it. I am bilingual; I speak English in housing. You can use RRAP in the NIP areas because RRAP applies to the NIP areas; you don’t bother putting OHRP in there. You leave OHRP for those areas outside of the NIP and RRAP areas.

Mr. B. Newman: That will read well.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am sure.

Mr. Good: One final question then, just so that I understand this, to see if we can get our council to come on this. It’s rather strange -- and I think you might enjoy this -- I believe there was a resolution from a municipality in western Ontario last year asking that the programme be extended which it then was. It is rather amazing that our local council endorsed the resolution to extend this good programme but wouldn’t go in it themselves.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I just might mention to the hon. member that if you would like, I say to you now, we would be very happy to send people from the ministry, in your company if you wish, or on their own, to visit with the new council --

Mr. Good: Better wait until after the election.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- on December 7 and see if we can convince them to join the programme.

Mr. Good: All right. So the last question is simply this. Your literature says the ministry may, in addition to the other rates, give an annual grant of up to $25,000 to the municipality. Would this be for additional work or for administrative purposes?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: For the smaller communities, under 10,000 population. Basically this is a $4 per capita grant. In those smaller communities you end up in some cases with a small amount of money if you get down to 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 people, so we give them the $4 per head plus up to $25,000 as well to give them some money to work with. Otherwise they wouldn’t have sufficient funds even to get into the programme.

Mr. Good: Anybody but a region, I understand, could qualify for that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s right.

Mr. Good: Thank you.

Mr. Hall: Just to touch back for a moment on the matter of administration by the municipalities, whereby it would appear that some of them on receiving an application would send the building inspector around to the house and list everything that might have to be done, whether or not there is a minimum standards bylaw. I just want to ask the minister is there anything in the guidelines that you provide the municipalities with that would suggest to them that they have to go so far?

I know you said that you are trying to influence them to take on smaller projects. Where have they got this idea? Or do you feel that it’s an approach that they are using merely to reduce the number of units that are approved and therefore possibly their administration costs? Is there anything that the ministry has provided which would tend to make them require complete improvement as opposed to partial work being done?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t think we have done anything that would encourage them to go to larger amounts of money and larger projects.

I mentioned the minimum standards bylaws. The communities that have them may, if they wish, apply those particular standards. We don’t encourage them and we don’t have any influence in discouraging them. We leave that to them. Where a community has no such bylaws, of course, they are entitled to do as they will and they do. They treat their residents in whatever way they wish as to what size the project may be.

Mind you, we encourage them throughout the province to adopt minimum standards bylaws. We think it is healthy for a municipality to have them. But we don’t require that they set the minimum standards as the ultimate as to what they will lend money for on these projects. We don’t require them to do that.

Mr. Hall: It has cleared up a point for my own information because it is a local attitude respecting the programme, I guess, wherever such a thing would occur.

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to ask a few questions concerning the programme in my own community. How many more funds are being allocated in my area in your new $1,500,000 supplementary estimate?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t think I can give you the exact amount we would allocate to Windsor. I can tell you at the present time we have allocated and forwarded $397,138 to Windsor. This $1.5 million we are talking about is going to be spread around fairly thinly.

We have applications from a lot of municipalities and we are going to have to be a bit selective in those areas which would, I think, have priority. That would have to be worked out. I can’t tell you how much more money we would send.

I want to make a correction, too. I mentioned earlier that Hamilton had the most money. That is not so. The city of Toronto, obviously, has had the most with $1,028,000 so far.

Mr. B. Newman: You have a request for approximately $600,000 from the community and you are going to allocate some portion of that. Am I correct in saying that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes. I think it is correct to say we are going to attempt to meet part of the requests of all of the municipalities. If I get more money we will be able to do even more.

Mr. B. Newman: Do you do it on an overall request for assistance and then allocate funds on a per capita basis for the communities? Or do you simply base it on where the need is the greater?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, we attempt to do it on a per capita basis to the municipalities. Many times they will tell us how much money they think they want. They may not go to the maximum --

Mr. B. Newman: No, I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We give them what they request us in the way of funding.

Mr. B. Newman: Or up to what they request, rather than what they request?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, I think that is probably fairly accurate -- up to what they request. We don’t necessarily go charging beyond that. In some cases we have met their initial request and, of course, they come back looking for more.

Mr. B. Newman: Do you require the municipality to pass a bylaw first to designate an area? Or do you not?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, we have no designation areas with the OHRP programme.

Mr. B. Newman: Then it is the NIP programme that has the designated areas?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is correct

Mr. B. Newman: I have seen some of the results of the programmes in my own community -- and the NIP programme. I say it is really working. People who would never have been able to afford to fix up their homes can live out the few years left them -- may God give them many more years but we know the calendar is against a lot of them -- they have been able to fix up their homes and they live in fairly substantial homes now.

The only thing wrong is that some of the elderly especially are a little afraid to get involved. They figure it is going to be a heavy financial obligation on them and they tend to shy away from it. There is a selling job to be done -- in some instances on the part of municipal officials -- to the individuals on that.

May I also say that in some instances the inspection, even though it is carried out on the municipal basis, leaves something to be desired. I recall one personal experience. I contacted them in the city hail and mentioned t; they came down and said everything was all right. I went down and inspected the home myself. The sills were covered with aluminum and set in such a fashion that the water was going back into the house instead of leaking out.

The city inspectors insisted that everything was all right so I told the lady not to okay the final bill. She didn’t do it and then waited for about three months. They finally came down and fixed it up the way she wanted it fixed up, which was the way it should have been done in the first place, and everyone was satisfied then.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Can I just touch on two points? One, I am not overly enthused sometimes about the nuts and bolts of both ends of that inspection. I guess this is part of the growing pains of these types of programme. I am not enthused about some of the things I hear about what goes on when the initial inspection is made to determine whether they qualify and what work is needed. That goes back to what the member for Ottawa Centre and others have said about the amount of work which has to be done.

[4:45]

It leaves me just a little concerned that they go in and say, “You’ve got to spend $7,000, $8,000, $9,000 in order to get this work done properly.” I agree with you; I’ve had some experience with this as well from around the province where the workmanship itself has not been that good and it has been passed by the municipal inspectors. We’re trying to clamp down on that as well.

The other thing was about encouraging the senior citizens. Again, subject to the municipality’s generosity or willingness, they can give a totally forgivable loan of up to $4,000.

Mr. B. Newman: It’s hard for a senior to believe that, though. That’s one of the difficult things.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Seniors, of course, are used to being independent and they just don’t believe anybody’s going to give them $4,000.

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, they’ve been paying their own way.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I realize it’s very difficult for them to appreciate when you tell them because you’re much younger. You should take your colleague, Mr. Spence, with you and he can convince them.

Mr. Cassidy: I’d like to ask the minister first if he could comment on the question of the income limit of $12,500 and whether there has been some sort of change in that in view of the fact that with inflation and other things, it’s an ever-decreasing section of low-income families and modest-income families?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Gee, I don’t know, you confuse me, Mike. I’d like to go back and read what was in the estimates when you and I had our discussion.

I don’t think $12,500 is low income, yet, in the province. It’s not a massive income but I wouldn’t class it as really low income. I would think anyone making $12,500 and less certainly needs more assistance and there are a number of those people right across this province who are making $12,500 or less. You know about them and I do too.

If that number is decreasing, well then, I am encouraged, something has happened. But these are the people I think have to have the most help, and I would like to see the money we are putting out on this programme going to the people who are living in homes -- the senior citizens have been referred to -- who are trying to stay in their own homes, who desire to stay in their own homes and perhaps aren’t able to get into senior citizens accommodation, subsidized housing, at this stage.

I can’t see any need to change that income area at this time, the $12,500 and less, because I have people coming into me with much higher incomes looking to get into this programme. Frankly, we’re just saying, no, it’s the $12,500 and less at this stage.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps the minister could comment how much of the funding of the programme this year and what percentage of the funding next year would he expect will go to landlords under the rental portion of OHRP, which has recently been announced?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As you know, we allocated $2 million for this fiscal year. We really don’t have any experience to know how they’re going to come forth looking for this money. We’ve placed some conditions on that, the conditions being the area of the community it must be in, the fact that it must be acceptable to the municipality -- that they will permit the renovation to either existing apartment buildings or to converting existing homes. It’s part of our requirement that they enter into an agreement with us as it relates to rent. So we have no experience yet on how many landlords in the various parts are going to come to us.

One of the things I am concerned about -- and I think it’s the concern of a lot of people in this Legislature, if not all -- is I want to take a good hard look and make sure we aren’t just getting some slum landlords who intend to take the money and continue to be slum landlords. I want to be sure they’re responsible, that they’re sincere in providing good accommodation at a reasonable rent in the areas where they need the most help.

So I can’t give you an estimate on the percentage.

Mr. Cassidy: The reason I raise these questions is the following: The money is now to be provided to landlords in areas where there is low- and modest-income rental housing. The money that will be provided in certain cases will, I believe, be more generous than what is being provided to home owners in that same general area, because repairs and renovations up to $2,500 per unit will be given to landlords with a forgivable feature. This means they won’t have to repay a nickel, they will get it all for free, so long as they keep the rental property for a certain period of years, whereas with an owner, even if they are on a very low income and get it at a zero per cent interest rate, something like half of the amount that is given to them has to be repaid and they can’t get it on a grant.

The second question is this: Let’s go back to 1974 and take a family then earning, say, $10,000 a year. By today their income could have surpassed the $12,500 mark but they won’t be ahead at all. They will simply have been fortunate enough that their income kept pace with the rate of inflation, but they become ineligible.

What I’m suggesting is that anybody who can afford the operating costs of running a house -- with the exception of certain very limited groups, some single-parent women or heads of families and some senior citizens -- very likely has an income around that $ 12,500 mark or above it and still is in a rather desperate and difficult situation. That’s why I’m suggesting you should look at this.

I say that in conjunction with the point of view that the total amount of funds provided for rehabilitation is still really inadequate. The commitment -- obviously in political terms this is an attractive programme. For the people who benefit from it, it’s an attractive programme -- we’ve already granted you that. In terms of the goal of stabilizing low- and modest-income neighbourhoods, on the other hand, I would suggest that it is an ineffective tool.

Let me give you some specific examples if I can go to Ottawa now. The city of Ottawa is eligible and, I believe, has actually taken roughly $600,000 per annum in OHRP funds at $2 per capita. The township of Nepean, which probably hasn’t taken its full benefit, is eligible for about $240,000 at $3 per capita because it has a population of 80,000 or 90,000 people.

If you go back 25 years the city of Ottawa had a population of around 200,000 with maybe 60,000 housing units. The township of Nepean had a population of perhaps 10,000 with maybe 3,000 housing units -- that’s 25 years ago. Therefore the township has 3,000 housing units which are more than 25 years of age and which therefore might need rehabilitation, and it has $240,000. If you’re talking about $5,000 as the average OHRP grant, the township of Nepean is eligible for about 500 grants this year or one in six of its houses over 25 years old could conceivably be renovated according to this particular plan.

The city of Ottawa, on the other hand, has about 60,000 houses more than 25 years old. The $600,000 for which it is eligible -- let me see if I can get the figures here -- would finance approximately 120 grants.

I’m sorry, it’s one in 60 for Nepean. In the case of Ottawa, it’s 120 grants for over 60,000 houses which are more than 25 years old. That means something like -- if I can get it straight -- one in 600 or 500 housing units in the city of Ottawa could become eligible.

Clearly that’s an inadequate kind of effort to stabilize residential neighbourhoods. I am aware that Ottawa has NIP and RRAP funding -- which Nepean doesn’t need or does not want -- but all the same it seems to me that there are needs in many parts of Ottawa which don’t happen to come within a NIP or RRAP area because those grants -- the NIP plans -- have been on a priority basis and they simply can’t have them all over the city.

I would like to suggest there’s a real inadequacy there and the minister’s programme is not answering it. I’d also like to suggest that there is going to be an inevitable tendency for the landlord side of this programme to increase because the number of people who can afford to be in a house and who have an income of less than the figure set by the ministry will decline year by year. Therefore, you are aiming at a very small group. I think that while it is obvious that somebody who has an income of $9,000 or $10,000 or $6,000 or $7,000 should have priority in getting the funds if there aren’t enough applications at those income levels and there are families with incomes of $13,000 or $14,000 who have managed to get places of their own, it is surely desirable that they shouldn’t be forced out of their houses or have to raise kids in substandard conditions because of the conditions created by the ministry.

I have two or three other questions:

First, over what period of time are landlords required to adhere to the rental agreement, which sets a limit on the rent that they charge on accommodation under the rental OHRP plan?

Second, since this is also covered under the vote, will the minister commit the government to pressing very hard on the federal government to follow up the great acceptance of RRAP funding at the local level and to ensure that we don’t run short of funds next year as has happened over the course of the current year?

Third -- and this is a slightly different area. I was sorry that in his introductory statement the minister did not respond to some comments that we had to make in the House some time ago about a rather different problem which has arisen with serious weaknesses and construction deficiencies in condominiums that were encouraged by the Ministry of Housing or its predecessors over the last eight or 10 years.

Some of those condominiums have had major construction defects, The builders have by now gone bankrupt, or have disappeared, or can’t be sued, or something like that. We have recommended that OHRP might he an adequate vehicle to handle those particular problems where condominium owners are now hit with major amounts for repairs in areas where they had little or no control and where they are now victims of hasty construction, of inadequate construction standards, which were encouraged by the ministry of the day.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is not in this vote, is it?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, because I am suggesting that this would come under the Ontario Home Renewal Programme; that is a reasonable kind of vehicle to use in order to help these condominium owners who’ve got caught holding the bag because of a programme which the ministry and its predecessors were encouraging some years ago. I would like some answers to those questions.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Are you suggesting that the people in those condominiums would qualify under the income limitation? Is that what you’re suggesting?

Mr. Cassidy: No, I am not suggesting that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I didn’t think you were. So what is the point of discussing it? You’re making a grandstand play on something that you’re bound you’re going to get on the floor of the House. Well, be my guest, but don’t ask me to respond to it when you know what the answer is.

Mr. Cassidy: There is a serious problem there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I thought we were going to be friendly; apparently we’re not, and that doesn’t bother me at all.

Mr. Conway: Give it to him, John.

Mr. Bain: We are always friendly, John.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Somebody’s pulled your shade, has he? All right. Seriously, I --

Mr. Cassidy: It’s all the chairman’s fault.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s the chairman’s fault, is it?

Mr. Cassidy: But he is a fine fellow, none the less.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I wouldn’t blame him, he’s a lovely fellow. He’s trying to find a way to bring me to order, I can see it coming. Mr. Chairman, I --

Mr. Chairman: I’m trying to implore you to be less provocative.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh my heavens, I would never be provocative -- violent maybe, but never provocative.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Why do you think I came in? I didn’t come in to hear you not being provocative.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As far as the incomes are concerned, the $12,500 figure -- somewhere you have a cut off. I know the philosophy of the hon. member. I could raise it to $15,000; it could go to $20,000. I can take you to houses in Ottawa probably where people are making $25,000 to $30,000 a year and because they themselves choose other priorities, their houses could well use $20,000 worth of repairs. I can show you them in many parts of this province -- where people live in what they think they’re satisfied with and spend their money on other things.

Mr. Conway: Has Michael Pitfield been talking to you?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: So I’m not going to run around worrying about the fact that somebody making that kind of salary wants to have their houses repaired at my expense. No thanks. They can make their own priorities. I am going to try and put the money --

Mr. Cassidy: Boy, you really set up straw men, don’t you?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m not setting up straw men.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, you are. Respond to the question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You have been building straw men in this Legislature for five years.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s time somebody burned a few of them. And that’s one of them.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This business of everybody having to have a free handout -- well, it’s not going to happen. I’m not going to debate with you the question of the incomes. They’re going to stay where they are. I’ll give you the chance if you have this chair some time; do what you will with it. But as long as I’m here we’re going to hang on to try and take care of the people in those income brackets.

Mr. Cassidy: Then it is an inadequate programme.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The programme is adequate to handle the problems that are existing now. The programme is working well. People are taking advantage of the moneys that are available to them. As far as the city of Ottawa is concerned, last year we allocated them a total grant of $591,000. This year they haven’t come in yet, so we don’t know when they will be coming in to require their funding. Probably between now and the end of the fiscal year they will come in with their next requirement.

[5:00]

The landlord situation -- I don’t have that answer right now for you. I can’t give you the exact answer as to how that is going to work, what the requirements are. I’m satisfied -- and if I’m not I’ll make the changes necessary -- that we can make sure that the landlords meet the requirements and the intention of our involving them in the programme -- limitations on those rents. Regarding the comparison you made between the landlord and the individual citizen or own-home owner, $2,500 is forgivable provided, of course, they meet the requirements of the agreement and the rents are stabilized.

In the case of the individual owner, up to 50 per cent can be but it can go up as high as $4,000 to be totally forgiven, as far as those loans are concerned, so it is better in that extent depending on the size of the programme. The maximum to the landlord, as you know, is $10,000 per unit with $2,500 forgivable.

Mr. Cassidy: The landlord can get a 100 per cent grant.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He can get up to $10,000. Ten thousand dollars is the maximum per unit for the repair job.

I may have forgotten one other question.

Mr. Cassidy: The RRAP question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, yes, without hesitation, because when the RRAP situation became questionable not too long ago we did make some contact with the federal government, and I think with some success, in explaining that we felt that programme was working and should be kept going. Certainly the city of Vanier in Ottawa itself approached us and asked for our support of its position and more money suddenly was made available for that programme. I haven’t met the new Minister of Urban Affairs as yet. I’m hoping that when I do, he and I will have discussions on the continuation of the RRAP and the NIP programmes both.

Mr. Cassidy: Just a final comment Mr. Chairman. Under the proposed landlord OHRP which is proposed here, although there is an agreement between the landlord and the municipality, there are some serious questions about enforceability which I hope the minister will look at. Some of the problems that CMHC has had with its agreements with developers under limited dividend might be the area which they might follow.

The second thing is that the landlord, after he’s entered into this agreement, can rent to people with incomes exceeding $12,500. In fact, he can rent to people whose incomes go up to $15,000 or more. He could decide to exclude people with kids because the units have got so nice that he didn’t think families should live there any more, and yet he would still not be prevented from continuing to enjoy the forgiveness feature of his grants.

Thirdly, a landlord who decided to do $2,500 work to a rental unit could get the entire amount forgiven, whereas an owner who decided to get $2,500 worth of work done could only get forgiveness on one-half of that amount. It seems to me that in those regards, this is a scheme which is more generous to landlords who begin by having rental accommodation in a modest end of town than it is to home owners in the same area. The landlords get a higher proportion of grant, they’re not so subject to the income limitations, and they can decide arbitrarily to exclude families with children. I don’t think that’s good enough and I think the minister should look at those aspects of the programme very carefully.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, on the question of the rental agreement, I think in the material we say “agrees to permit the municipality and/or the minister to verify rentals from the tenants.” So the minister very well can be involved in the verifying of the rentals that can be charged, and we do have that hand on the situation and it isn’t a matter of the municipality simply allowing the rents to go up and down. We can have the control.

Mr. Cassidy: You’re getting in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, you’re suggesting that if we have rent controls, we’re getting into trouble. Now that’s a real novel twist.

Mr. Cassidy: I suggest it is difficult to enforce.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, fine. I hope that reads well.

These units will be subject to the rent review programme. I’m not that concerned about the amounts of money that are forgivable. There may be nothing forgivable. It depends on the municipality. They may well say to the landlord, “No, there’s nothing forgivable.” It’s permissive, as you know, up to $2,500 and it could well be he won’t get any forgiveness on it.

Mind you, the same applies to a home owner as well and some municipalities, unfortunately, I think, have taken that attitude that they just won’t forgive any of it, that it all has to be repaid. I guess that’s one of the hazards you have when you allow municipalities to make their decisions themselves as they see it relate to their community. I don’t think we’re in that much trouble; I think you’re anticipating trouble. I’d like to see the thing start; then if there is some trouble starting to develop, surely we can catch it quickly enough to put a stop to it.

Mr. Cassidy: A final point then. I’m basing that partly on the experience that --

Mr. Chairman: You have said “final point” twice now.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He can have two final points.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m basing that on the experience that people have had with the limited dividend, OHMC housing in trying to enforce rental agreements there. It has been extraordinarily difficult where a landlord has not wanted to be easy to work with. I’m suggesting that it may be undesirable to bail out landlords who have allowed their properties to become slums by giving them these funds. I’m also suggesting that for the class of home owner over the $12,500 mark -- say from $12,500 to $15,000; they’re having a rough time too -- that to give them money at eight per cent to encourage rehabilitation and the stabilization of neighbourhoods might, in fact, be a higher priority than to help out slum landlords.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, as a member of this assembly, I must say that I am delighted to see you in the chair. You combine the wisdom of Solomon with the patience of Job, particularly where it relates to some of the more loquacious members of this assembly. I suppose the good burghers of Nipigon should be commended for their wisdom of choice.

Mr. Cassidy: They certainly should.

Mr. Chairman: What’s that got to do with OHRP?

Mr. Ruston: Or RRAP and NIP?

Mr. Conway: I just have one or two comments for J. R. Superstar. Like the member for North York (Mr. Hodgson) last night, who I think admonished us all very wisely that we should be quick to point out those things that are positive about achievement in government, I want to say, like many of my colleagues, that I’ve been quite impressed with the success in many instances that this programme has enjoyed at the local level with those municipalities in my constituency that have chosen to opt in.

Mr. B. Newman: I think it is the good representation.

Mr. Conway: Of course. That is implicit in all of this.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He opted in two years ago.

Mr. Conway: I just wanted to ask the minister one or two things. Firstly, have you got any indication or feedback from the municipalities as to whether there is an average in terms of disbursements under this -- not that it would mean a great deal. I’m just wondering if there is an average that is readily available to indicate what the individual disbursements are adding up to or coming out as.

Secondly, I want to raise a matter that I’ve had directed to me in two or three letters from constituents living in a smaller community in my riding that has opted in. This municipality has roughly 1,000 people; it does not, for example, have the bureaucratic facilities that a larger community in my riding, such as Pembroke, would have. There seems to be some concern on behalf of some of the people who are involved in this programme in that smaller community about the effectiveness that the smaller municipality can provide in terms of inspection.

We’ve contacted the ministry along that particular point, but I thought I’d take advantage of this opportunity to question the minister to see whether or not that has been a problem in smaller municipalities and whether those people who have participated in the programme in those localities have had a problem with some of the inspections.

I know that many people expect far more from the programme than it is designed to provide, but there seems to be some irritation on the part of some of the people who have contacted me from smaller municipalities about the inspections. Sometimes they’re not happy with it, and they are wondering if there is recourse to your central administration for redress.

I want to conclude as well by saying that I think it is a very good and positive initiative and I want to commend you for it. I think it’s certainly a step in the right direction.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Frankly, we haven’t had a great number of complaints -- very few, in fact -- from the smaller municipalities. Most of the complaints about inadequate inspection come from the larger municipalities; there have been a number there, but not from the smaller municipalities. I think it is safe to say, without being attacked by contractors and others in larger municipalities, that this is a result of the kind of local attitude that exists in the smaller communities. I think the work is done a little better in the smaller communities, because you know who the guy is and he’s not that far away. But we haven’t had many complaints.

What has been done, though, in some of the areas is that the communities will combine to have an inspector. The property standards officers association in Ontario has been training people from the larger municipalities and saying that they would, in fact, make these people available to go to smaller communities and do inspections for them to see that this work is being done right and that minimum standards are being adhered to.

The average price or the average amount of money being put out per unit, is surprisingly quite low -- $3,400 is the average price. That would lead us to believe that there are a number of areas in which the smaller jobs are being done. Some of these are in the smaller communities where the homes require immediate attention, as I suggested, to the livable portion of the house. The other part is allowed to wait because they are being forced to do it.

In larger communities the arm is being put on a little more to get the larger jobs done. But $3,400 is the answer.

Mr. Bain: I, too, would like to congratulate the minister on the Ontario Home Renewal Programme. If he is the author of the programme I would encourage him to embark upon more such programmes. It certainly is very worthwhile and it has brought a great deal of benefit to the people in my riding.

I would like to make three points which I hope the minister will consider and I feel they would be constructive. I don’t know exactly how you overcome one of the problems because I can appreciate that one of the cornerstones of the programme is that it is administered by local municipalities and they have a certain amount of leeway with the regulations they have in the programme.

There are a number of townships, small communities, in my riding but in one township no part of the loans are forgivable while right across the concession road is a fellow who is getting $1,000 forgivable. The incomes are basically the same.

I wonder how we can overcome that? There’s an obvious injustice. I am sure you will agree that the fellow in the township who doesn’t have any forgivable portion feels an injustice. I think there is a real injustice and I throw it out for the minister. I think there should be some sort of guideline on a province-wide basis without taking away the local involvement because I do feel that local involvement in administering the programme is important.

The second problem I have run into is that some townships opt out completely. They don’t participate because for various reasons they feel they don’t have the staff to run a programme. Usually this is a township which has a part-time clerk or doesn’t have a full-time person on the job, and it doesn’t feel that it has the personnel to become involved in the programme.

Therefore, the people in that particular township cannot participate in the programme. I was wondering if the minister would consider doing the same thing as he does for unorganized townships. In the case of unorganized townships in northern Ontario, the programme is administered by the northern affairs officers and, in the case of my riding, the two offices in my riding do a very capable job of administering the programme.

Would the minister consider allowing the programme in organized townships which feel they don’t have the personnel to participate in the programme, to be administered by the northern affairs officer so that the people in those townships wouldn’t be denied participation in the programme?

Lastly, I have a point which hasn’t been widespread, at least from my own personal experience, but I would like to bring it up for the minister’s consideration. On a couple of occasions I have run into situations in which people have applied for an Ontario Home Renewal Programme loan or grant and they have been denied it or they haven’t received what they felt they should have received. There doesn’t seem to be a normal appeal mechanism.

[5:15]

I was wondering whether the person should appeal to the minister or do you feel that some sort of appeal board would’ be appropriate, since it is a programme funded by the province? I would hope that this appeal board would be used very seldom. But do you think there would be some sort of appeal mechanism like that, that would be appropriate, or would you advise people who do have an appeal they want to make that they either go through their member to the minister or go directly to the minister? I would appreciate the minister’s comments on those three points.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think the point is extremely well made on the fact that on one side of a concession road there is the forgiveness portion of the loan and on the other side there isn’t. It has caused me some problems. I think we can make the necessary changes there that are required for this programme to apply uniformly. There is a limit to what you can do as far as the local autonomy sort of thing is concerned. I would like to take some time to look at that to see how we can work it out favourably and allow this thing to have uniform application, in particular in that forgiveness area. That is a difficult one.

As to the question of the inspections of the units, yes, the northern affairs officers I think is another good point you have made and a valid one. In those smaller municipalities they are concerned about trying to get into these programmes and I wonder sometimes if we don’t prevent them from getting into them because of the fact they don’t really have adequate staff. So in the unorganized territories we are using two areas that you are probably aware of -- the northern affairs officers and the health units. I think we can apply those to the smaller municipalities. I’d like to take a look at what sort of workload they think they can handle depending on the size of the municipality and what the population is, but I think that can work.

I haven’t had a great many complaints as to those who feel they have not been fairly dealt with, but many of them may be staying within the municipality itself. I would think at this stage that perhaps the best way to appeal this sort of thing, because the programme is being funded out of the ministry and through the ministry, is the latter course that you propose whereby the matter is brought to the member and the member in turn can bring it to the minister and allow the minister to deal with it to the best of his ability with his staff and perhaps do the follow-up work through whatever agency is doing the inspection, be it the municipality or be it the northern affairs officer, to attempt to give them some satisfaction as to what has happened and not simply have a flat “no.” So I think those three points can be taken care of.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I just have a short question for the minister. I believe it was partially answered just a moment ago. I happen to come from an area where I have to believe that the staff in the municipalities is fairly adequate. We have one area in particular where there have been at least half a dozen calls come to my office about people who fall into the category where these loans and grants probably would be approved for them. But they go to the township and the township says, “No, it’s a big plan, it’s a big programme, we just can’t set it up.” I was wondering what your ministry was doing to try to help to explain to these municipalities so that it just won’t create a lot of bureaucracy and just not create a lot of work and that they should funnel this money through to the people. There’s nothing that I as a member can do if the municipality just does not want to assist.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I certainly make the same offer to the hon. member as I made earlier to the other hon. member. Perhaps if I knew where you fellows were from it would be easier.

Mr. Mancini: I am from Amherstburg.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Amherstburg. That’s not the name of your riding.

Mr. Mancini: Essex South. You should know where I am from by now.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, it is so seldom I see you in the House that I just wasn’t sure there was anybody there.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think the minister should retract that statement, because it is not true.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

An hon. member: It is.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn’t withdraw the statement. I didn’t say anything derogatory. I simply said it is so seldom I see him in the House because I don’t very often look over there.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Perhaps the hon. minister would be less provocative and we can get on with the debate.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s because you are fixed on the NDP.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member is in the Legislature so often that I sometimes become used to him. Do you feel better?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We make the same offer to you. If you would like us to have our people go down and meet with the municipal council, we would be glad to do that. The literature that has been sent out explains it pretty clearly.

There is not a great bureaucracy involved. I think you are right that many of these communities do have existing staff doing other jobs. I know in my own community, there was no additional staff required for the programme and existing staff took on this extra portion of work and are doing it quite well. But if you need assistance from us, we have people who would be glad to go down and meet with those councils, meet with officials and discuss the setting up of the programme and get them into it.

Vote 2002 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Housing.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 803, upkeep of accommodation programme; item 2, repairs, operation and maintenance:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This vote deals with the upkeep of accommodation; repairs, operation and maintenance. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: These supplementary estimates now being submitted to the House for approval are to provide for increases in energy costs and for urgent building repairs. The amounts are for repairs, operation and maintenance; $1.75 million for energy, $650,000 for increases in repair projects.

Mr. Ruston: A question to the minister. I haven’t been able to receive any information as to what these estimates are for; we did do a little calling but haven’t been able to find out. Now you say they are for extra energy cost and building repairs. Now, you know, what --

Mr. Hodgson: That is that office you have on the third floor, Dick.

Mr. Ruston: What’s the matter, Bill? It is nice to see you!

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Ruston: That’s wonderful! It is nice to see you, Bill, over there.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Ruston: I haven’t seen you for so long.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The hon. member will refer to the other hon. members by their ridings, please.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, well I will have to stop and figure out where he is from.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The hon. member will continue debating the estimates.

Mr. Roy: Tell him to keep his voice down. He woke up the member for York North. The member for York North is awake.

Mr. Ruston: When you say building repairs, what would the necessity be for building repairs? Was it higher costs of some of the jobs that you had planned and is this what the extra money is for? Can you tell me that, Madam Minister?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Basically these are for repairs that could not be foreseen a year ago. This means a breakdown or something that has become obsolete and worn out, as for instance an elevator which has required an urgent expenditure for repair. These are repairs which we could not predict a year ago.

Mr. Ruston: Could you give me a rough idea of the major ones? I don’t want to get into the small ones, but have you got any listing there of some of these major repairs and where they were located?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Yes. As for instance, for the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) in London, Ridgetown College; repairs to the electrical distribution system. The wiring deteriorated causing an overloaded and unbalanced system. Overhead lines were in real danger of collapse. And so the cash flow this year is $18,300 and that’s about the total cost of that particular project.

In terms of, say, the district jail at Haileybury, it was necessary for us to replace windows completely with security screens and this was a security measure. The existing wooden windows were in an advanced stage of deterioration. The existing security is now provided by steel bars. The arrangement for these bars could allow weapons to be passed to prisoners. To reorganize this security system would involve a cost of $47,100.

Another example would be cables for phase two of the five-kilowatt distribution at the E. C. Drury school at Milton. This system is in a critical state due to deterioration of existing cables resulting in considerable expenditures for emergency temporary repairs -- $47,900. In Woodstock, the hospital required an overhaul and update of two elevators since the existing elevators were old and a continuous source of trouble. That cost was $40,000.

Mr. Ruston: None of the money you are asking for in these supplementary estimates will be used for any other project? It is strictly for energy costs and building repairs. In other words, we are not getting into any other areas of your ministry. Is that correct?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Yes, I assure the member that this is true. These are all repairs and expenditures for energy costs which could not have been predicted one year ago.

Mr. Conway: I was just going to pursue that line of questioning about the services. I was going to talk about services in the scrolls department of protocol and ask for the minister’s comment about the ongoing politicized aspect of the scrolls department.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Conway: Presumably that may not be in order.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I am not aware that that item falls within this budget and I would ask the member to refrain.

Interjections.

Mr. Conway: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, I will certainly retire. I know the minister will take this into consideration and have the Premier’s office stop interfering in the normal administration of this --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. Can we return to this particular item? Is there any further discussion on item 2 of vote 803?

The hon. member for Wentworth North.

Mr. Samis: That is what I call cohesiveness, Albert. Stand up, Eric.

Mr. Roy: I told you before to stand up.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I am intrigued by this discussion on energy costs as it relates to this $2.4 million. I would like to ask the minister how she could so seriously underestimate the demands that we have on the various plants, utilities and buildings we are required to operate here in the province of Ontario.

I am drawn to several questions. First of all, are we not trying at this particular time to make an effort to curtail our expenses as they relate to energy expenses and are we not involved in various methods of economy to effect some real savings here? Just what is being done in that ministry to result in some savings to the taxpayers, at least as it relates to energy conservation? I know that on many days in this particular building, the temperature seems to be in excess of 80 degrees.

Mr. Conway: That is after the Premier’s speech.

Mr. Cunningham: I am wondering, is part of this money being used to pay for maintenance charges or cleaning work being done on buildings that are currently at this time unoccupied? And if not, what is the extent of money we are paying right now for unoccupied buildings?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: As I commented at the beginning of this statement, $650,000 of the total amount of $2.4 million is for repair projects. The balance of $1.75 million is for increases in energy costs. I think that description is perhaps a misnomer inasmuch as a year ago we could not foretell what the actual cost increases in energy would be; we simply increased our requirement for energy costs by five per cent at that time, knowing full well that this probably would not cover increased energy costs and knowing full well that we would probably have to come back with a supplementary estimate on this item. There was no alternative Mr. Chairman, since that was the amount we could justify at that time. These are increases in energy costs; specifically for purchase of steam, gas, oil and so forth.

[5:30]

Mr. Cunningham: To use a phrase we’ve heard here in the past, I am reluctant to become provocative but would it be fair to ask the minister or at least to infer on my part that one of the reasons she underestimated was to make the original budget look much better than it was? That would be unfair? I won’t ask that then.

Mr. Conway: Ordain her!

Mr. Cunningham: I want to tell you I didn’t expect an answer.

Mr. Conway: You won’t get one from her.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Chairman, the real fact is that our great desire for honesty and integrity in our budget precluded an increase over five per cent.

Mr. Mancini: Just read your own mail.

Mr. Conway: Did you ever get that boulder out of the parking lot?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Wentworth North -- is there any further discussion on this?

Mr. Cunningham: I have one more point, Mr. Chairman, and I’d like your guidance on this. I’m wondering -- we’re being asked at this point in time to vote $2.4 million in supplementary estimates and as the member for Essex North has indicated, there has been very little assistance to him as our critic in providing him with some information as to a general breakdown. We’re given a very cursory indication of how these moneys are being spent and I must say that it really is difficult to examine these expenditures effectively. I must say that, fundamentally, I’m more or less offended by this discourtesy. I’m wondering if it is the customary procedure in this place to do this kind of thing?

Mr. Conway: Freedom of information. Do the hatchet job.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if the member for Essex North feels inadequate information has been provided. Really and truly, this supplementary estimate is quite self-explanatory. It is exactly what the words say it is.

Mr. Roy: It is not.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: It is $1.75 million for increased costs of natural gas and other fuels.

Mr. Roy: You make C.D. Howe an amateur.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: The balance is for very small but basically costly emergency repairs to buildings throughout the province.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall item 2 --

Mr. Roy: No.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: I want to say, in support of my colleague from Wentworth North, that it seems to me, listening to your explanation as to energy, that it’s obvious -- the evidence is there no matter what you say -- your energy conservation programme is certainly not working.

The feds, I think, are looking at saving maybe 10 per cent in energy, and when you budget five per cent over and above last year’s budget and you still don’t have enough, it appears that the energy programme your colleague, the Minister of Energy has been talking about has not been that successful. When we’re considering brownouts in this province I think maybe you should look at the amount of energy used in those television lights and whether they’re needed in this place or needed for that length of time. Are you going to install Christmas lights in those trees you’ve just put up in the hallway? These are all things that government -- I don’t want to be the grouch or the grouch that killed Christmas here but --

Mr. Bain: Go ahead

Mr. Roy: What do we call him? Scrooge? It seems to me, to the minister, that if we’re trying to set an example for other people in the province, you should give some evidence of leadership in the area of conservation of energy. The fact that you’re coming back here for supplementary estimates and we’re doing all these things, is certainly not good evidence of that coming forth.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Chairman, I’d be very pleased to direct the member’s comments concerning the klieg lights here in the chamber to the Speaker for his attention. As to the Christmas tree lights, our expenditures for Christmas tree lights have been greatly reduced and, of course, our tree lights are on timers now. We have them come on at a very specific time and turn off at a very specific time.

All our energy conservation methods in this ministry are very considerable but we cannot control the actual cost of the fuel we consume. That’s beyond us.

Mr. Warner: All those people in the Moog building over there.

Ms. Sandeman: I would like to congratulate the minister on the fact that finally the ministry has discovered the simple device of the on-off light switch for the members’ offices. I’ve been appalled ever since I’ve been here by the fact that when I left at night I couldn’t turn the light off in my office. I was delighted to have to sit in the dark the other night while that small matter was rectified.

However, I wonder if you could somehow advise the cleaning staff and the security staff as to the use of that little switch on the wall. I turn the light off when I go home at night. My assistant comes in or I come in in the morning and the darn thing is back on again. We’re never ever going to save any energy around here if people can’t be taught how to use one finger with a little switch on the wall.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I presume some of the money in here is going to be used for this building. Am I correct in that?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: For the heating, yes.

Mr. Singer: And probably some of it will be used for that press conference room down there. That comes under your control doesn’t it?

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: You are talking about heating sources?

Mr. Singer: Yes, yes, and the lighting and the control and the furnishing, that’s all yours. Can you tell me what the rules are and how a man named Southcott got permission to hold a press conference --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. I’m not certain there would be any extra fuel utilized for that.

Mr. Singer: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The Chair just observed that in all probably there wasn’t any extra fuel used for that.

Mr. Singer: Oh, there must have been.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, that would only be true if it was heated by the hot air of the conference that was going on at the time.

Vote 803 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: That concludes the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION

On vote 2806, sports and fitness programme; item 2, community assistance:

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I am asking for consideration for an extra amount of money which is completely related to the special programme for the repair and in some cases replacement of arenas, in order that they might be brought within certain building regulations. I would draw to the attention of the committee that the committee has already considered in the formal estimates presentation of the ministry the request for some $8.97 million for this vote. I would report that we have paid out now about $4.8 million, representing 670 projects. The remainder, which is $4.1 million, represents the amount we will need to honour commitments for an additional 900 projects. That is the regular vote.

In so far as the special programme is concerned, bringing some other facilities up to building code regulations, we have now about 105 applications which have been committed or are in the process of being committed. With some expected delays, they represent the amount to which we are now asking the committee to give some consideration as extra funds -- that is $6,178,000.

Mr. Samis: Naturally, we realize the importance of this expenditure, although maybe not in the city dominated by the Maple Leaf mint to the east of us. I would ask whether the minister, in the brief time allotted to us, could give us any information about whether he has any funds afforded to the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) on behalf of the athletically inclined or physically unfit members of this Legislature so they can engage in their form of recreation east of here in the mint. Since there seems to be a very poor turnout at these athletic events, maybe the minister could make provision for adequate recreation facilities or at least incentives for the members here to engage in such activities.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps a social hour.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. It would seem to me that this vote is for arena repair.

Mr. Samis: Right, that was the whole point of it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Not human repair.

Mr. Cunningham: You are beyond repair.

Mr. Samis: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, in the time allotted, let me say we would support the use and expenditure of this money. There is no question that in these small towns in Ontario, with the crises and problems that were faced by many of them just in the last few months, this money is vitally necessary, number one, to assist them to meet the financial need, and, secondly, to ensure the very important social, cultural and athletic programmes, namely the hockey programmes engaged in most communities, be afforded to the residents, taxpayers and children of those communities.

The only thing I would say is that if we look in retrospect at how this whole situation developed, it left something to be desired. I would hope that the ministry would take note of the lesson that may be learned from this experience. We had communities building arenas, say five years ago, according 10 the existing standards; then we had the snow load standards or provisions increased. It does make it very difficult in small communities to have some bureaucrat from Queen’s Park, or some unelected, irresponsible -- in its best sense -- official, tell them they must spend X number of dollars to make their arena meet the new provisions and the new standards. I would hope that there would be a little more consistency in the actual standards or provisions laid down for small communities.

I did note that in certain publications, Farm and Country for one, there was a certain amount of resentment that many of these decisions for fairly sizable financial obligations on small communities were made by non-elected officials, the bureaucrats at Queen’s Park, in a rather arbitrary way. Finally, when all this pressure built up from the various small communities, the Ministry of Labour did show some flexibility. I congratulate the Minister of Culture and Recreation for assisting the inflexible ministers to show some semblance of flexibility and, horror of horrors, some symbol of humility, in the whole process. For the fact that he’s provided extra money through the sports and fitness programme, along with relaxing the provisions for Wintario for communities in southern Ontario and western Ontario to meet those somewhat arbitrary deadlines, I congratulate him as well.

So overall, Mr. Chairman, on this item we would support the expenditure of this amount. We would ask that the minister in future not allow the bureaucrats to exercise such an arbitrary power over small communities, but we say right on and go ahead.

Mr. Kerrio: I am somewhat disadvantaged, I just came up from committee. I think the House leader must have done that on purpose to let me fumble a little so that I can’t go at him.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No. I don’t think you need any practice.

Mr. Kerrio: You know, that’s two I owe you now, Bob. You got me in trouble with the hockey players and here I am again.

Mr. Foulds: Keep going, Vince. We don’t want to go overseas. Let that be on the record.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You play hockey too well to be an old-timer.

Mr. Kerrio: We certainly are disadvantaged in this vote because we can’t level our guns at the hon. minister because we concur with what he’s doing here. I will only make a couple of comments that I think are reasonably valid.

I would like to refer to Hansard of June 3, on page 2901. We were talking about estimates at that time and I’d like to read into the record, Mr. Minister, that at that juncture I said: “ ... the other point I wanted to make has to do with the priorities in Wintario funding. I suggest to you that there are many arenas across this province which have been up for 20 or 30 years and might very well be closed down because they badly need repairs. We are going to have people suffering in many small communities while you’re building $3 million to $4 million edifices in other communities. That’s how well the priorities are working within that ministry.”

I have to think that for a new member here, I might have been looking forward to what’s happening to us today. And the one thing I’d like to say to you, Mr. Minister, is that I haven’t changed my mind. I feel badly that we have to go to supplementary estimates to raise this kind of money. I have to think that if there was anything meaningful to be done with Wintario funds, at this juncture we should be injecting them into this very worthwhile cause.

Be that as it may, I’ll join with the critic from the NDP and be favourable to these supplementary estimates.

[5:45]

Interjections.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Chairman, I’ll be brief so that the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) may make more acid comments than I might. I wanted to raise a couple of items with the minister which I think need to be taken into consideration. I’ve been in contact with his office and while the people there are very pleasant and always cordial there is a tendency for things not to happen from time to time.

The two points I would like to raise are these. No. 1. If a municipality embarks upon a programme of arena repair using the funds allocated in the vote, quite often it finds it suitable to use volunteer labour in order to meet the financial commitment which is called for under the Act but those people who are involved in that volunteer labour are not covered by Workmen’s Compensation insurance, nor are they covered by any kind of insurance from the ministry. In most cases, the municipalities are finding that the insurance provisions in place at the present do not cover people who might be employed on a volunteer basis to fix arenas to comply with the Act.

Because this is of a general nature and runs across the province, I think there should be some sort of policy taken out by the Wintario people so that when a municipality is participating in this kind of programme and volunteer labour is called for the workers are covered under this particular Act in some fashion.

What happened in my own local area was that the municipality was held up for about a week and a half in making its repairs as a result of not being able to arrange this kind of insurance.

Mr. Conway: Gets him re-elected.

Mr. Moffatt: I think that could be done and people in the minister’s office think it could be done but it hasn’t been done. I would ask that when these kinds of projects are embarked upon in the future, we look at that aspect of it as well.

I think one of the other things which needs to be corrected in this whole business is that Wintario or your ministry, however it’s done, needs to be a little more adept at making those initial commitments to municipalities when they are first exploring the difficulties they get into with such activities as repairing an arena which has been deemed to be below the standard of the building code. What I think needs to happen is that there should be a written commitment from Wintario which will give those people the necessary support as soon as the problem is deemed to be one of urgency. What we had to do was call a series of public meetings, write back and forth, approach people and while the staff people in your ministry are always very co-operative, it always took two to three weeks simply to set up that initial meeting.

I would think that if we’re faced with this kind of situation again, at the same time as the order to close the arena goes out, there should be a very specific statement from the ministry indicating the amount or degree of participation that your ministry will embark upon in order to create confidence in the local municipality that the situation can be corrected.

Mr. Conway: Moffatt for president.

Mr. Warner: Well done.

Mr. Conway: Great man. You’ll be the leader some day.

Mr. Moffatt: Be careful, Conway.

Mr. Gaunt: I have a few brief comments. As you know, I was one of those people who was rather critical of the programme undertaken by the Minister of Labour and I was critical on the basis of how the ministry went about handling this entire matter. Certainly, I recognize, and anyone recognizes who stops to think about it for a moment, that these buildings have to be safe. They’re public buildings. They’re occupied by young people and old people on many occasions and they have to be structurally safe.

I think there is a distinction between being structurally safe and meeting requirements which, in the judgement of many people who know much better than I, are overbuilding requirements. The fact of the matter is that in many cases the ministry looks upon the standards under the National Building Code as firm requirements whereas many engineers tell me that the National Building Code requirements are simply intended to be guidelines only.

What the ministry has done is go out and require engineering reports from all of these communities which have arenas. If those buildings don’t come up to the absolute standards as indicated under the National Building Code, then the ministry says that changes have to be made; hence the need for the additional funds under this particular vote.

All I’m saying to the minister, and more particularly to the minister’s colleague, the Minister of Labour, is that I think it’s a case where the bureaucrats have become a little too zealous in their application of the intent. It seems to me that the building code is nothing more than a guideline. What one is going to encounter from time to time is that when the building code standards are changed, we enter into a completely new round of additional and more onerous requirements. Under those circumstances, I say to the minister, we’re really going to be encountering this kind of thing periodically, perhaps every five years or so. Really, I don’t think that should be the intent of the ministry or the government.

What we want to do is make these buildings safe for public occupancy. We don’t have to have them so strong that you can ride a Sherman tank over the roof or be unrealistic about the requirements. If one is building a new arena today, fine, have it meet the requirements of the National Building Code. But buildings which were constructed 20 years ago surely don’t have to come in for retroactive application of the National Building Code, which is precisely what you’re doing in these cases.

The only other comment that I would make -- and I’m buttressed in this by my colleague from Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) -- is that the government doesn’t have the legal authority to close these arenas. It is running a bluff game on this score. I suggest that it doesn’t foster goodwill in the communities when the government comes in and really doesn’t have the legal authority to do it, but does it anyway.

I say to the minister that with the hospital experience and now with the arena experience --

Mr. Singer: Not to mention the constitutional experience.

Mr. Ruston: Nine-zip.

Mr. Gaunt: Surely one of these times the government will learn a few lessons along the way.

With respect to the additional moneys that are requested under this vote, $6.178 million, I certainly would support that expenditure. I’m glad to see the minister making use of that money in the way in which he’s doing it. I would ask a further question of the minister -- I think he’s anticipating me -- how are we coming along with the situation in Seaforth? With those comments I’ll sit down.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, my riding was one of those communities which was struck like a thunderbolt when we found out that these beautiful arenas that we had become accustomed to were being condemned. A public meeting was called in the little town of Copper Cliff and, make no mistake about it, all hell was breaking loose. These people, who since 1935 had become accustomed to this arena, were really disturbed that it would have to be razed to the ground after estimates were obtained which indicated that the cost of repairs would exceed the cost of new construction. The building today has been razed to the ground.

An interesting thing happened, however; and I don’t know how it happened. The arena was originally built in 1935 by the International Nickel Company; it sat on International Nickel Company ground. Two or three or four months prior to this thunderbolt striking Ontario, the International Nickel Company had gone to the mayor of the city of Sudbury and said, “We want to give you our arena.” The mayor, a very astute person, despite the fact he is a Tory, looked this gift horse in the mouth. He said, “Why would International Nickel Company want to give me this arena?”

Mr. Conway: He wasn’t very astute.

Mr. Germa: He found out two or three months later. I have been wondering ever since how the International Nickel Company found out that you people were going to come in and condemn their arena.

Mr. Gaunt: Ah, they have a real in.

Mr. Germa: That was the situation at the public meeting. Since that time, I understand the transfer of property -- maybe the minister can inform me -- the transfer has taken place, the arena has been razed and moneys are forthcoming to construct a new arena in the town of Copper Cliff. I would just ask the minister what kind of moneys are involved. Does the municipality of Sudbury now own the site? I understand 75 per cent of the cost of the new construction is going to be paid provincially -- 50 per cent from your ministry and 25 per cent from some other ministry. I am just asking whether all things are in place. Are all signals go? How many dollars are involved in the new construction in the town of Copper Cliff?

Mr. Angus: Just one question to the minister: I’m wondering whether there is any money in this vote to purchase the shares of Thunder Bay Ski Jumps Limited?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the last question is no. The answer to the question from the member for Huron-Bruce, particularly with respect to Seaforth, is that we had a very fine meeting at which he was present. We felt under the circumstances that if the town of Seaforth, in consultation with its engineers, could take a look at its report and particularly relate those aspects of the programme it presently has under tender to the Ministry of Labour requirements for building, we would in fact take another look. We are waiting to hear back from them officially with respect to that.

Mr. Gaunt: You haven’t heard from them?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, not on that particular subject.

To the member for Sudbury, I don’t have all the particulars here with respect to that specific site. I am advised that the transfer of ownership is in fact completed, and that the property now is in the ownership of the municipality, and certainly it would qualify for this programme. I would be glad to provide him with complete particulars in so far as that programme is concerned.

Vote 2806 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This concludes the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

On vote 1202, administrative services programme; item 1, programme administration:

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, the item with respect to these supplementary estimates is in the amount of $5.4 million and represents additional funding requirements to the Legal Aid Plan. It is as a result of changes in the volume and average value of payments to Legal Aid solicitors. The increase in the number of accounts was in the area of $13,000 plus and the average account over some 65,700 accounts increased by $27. This is how the figure of $5.4 million is made up.

The average cost increase in the legal accounts was caused mainly by a larger number of complex criminal trials.

Mr. Conway: Lawyers making a killing.

Mr. Lawlor: Obviously the Attorney General doesn’t trust my ability to complete the remarks within three minutes. I think it’s just possible we can do so. We anticipated these particular votes. We are wholly in favour. I simply want to take one moment to commend the Attorney General upon the highly diplomatic, almost exquisite statesmanship of his appearance before what would otherwise have been a fairly hostile body a week or two ago at OISE, on a Saturday, with respect to Legal Aid and to individuals in paralegal work, et cetera. You’ve made a very auspicious -- you might even have possibilities as a politician eventually.

Mr. Moffatt: A successful one.

Mr. Lawlor: In any event we give our accord to Legal Aid and you well know it.

Mr. Roy: I’d like to say on these estimates how pleased I am -- I’m sure the Attorney General is as well -- to welcome the member for Lakeshore back. We must say that the rest or Whatever medical assistance he received certainly seems to have been salutary.

Any time we can have him on his feet for only three minutes I think --

Hon. Mr. Welch: He made a brief one.

Mr. Moffatt: Follow his example.

Mr. Roy: I’ll follow his example. I agree with the member for Lakeshore that we anticipated these amounts.

In the future we hope to have some statement as to some of the decisions which are going to be made in Legal Aid on tightening it up. We made suggestions, as you recall, during the estimates and we’d like to see some of these brought forward. I think there are still constructive ways of making the plan more efficient, maybe stopping a few abuses here and there. There have been not only suggestions by many of the lawyers, but by some of the individuals, the accused and so on.

The last thing I’d like to say is that as a lawyer, I have no qualms whatever in supporting this vote. After hearing some of the moneys that went to the doctors, I hear from the estimates recently --

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: My God, we’re puny amateurs in this game.

Interjections.

Vote 1202 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.

Report agreed to.

BUDGET DEBATE

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to tithe motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.