The House met at 3 p.m.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER

Clerk of the House: Members of the Legislative Assembly, I have to inform you that I have received the resignation of the Hon. Russell Daniel Rowe as Speaker of this assembly. I, therefore, declare the office of Speaker vacant and ask for nominations for Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis moved, seconded by Mr. S. Smith, that the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) be Speaker of this House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Clerk, I would just like to say a word or two to the members of this Legislature about the nomination that I have made. Before doing that, I would like, I am sure on behalf of all members, to express our appreciation to the former Speaker, the very distinguished member for Northumberland, for the leadership and guidance he gave to our always very calm deliberations in this House. It was with regret that I learned of the hon. member’s intention to resign. I do wish to express to him on behalf of all of us our very real appreciation.

In placing before the House the nomination for the office of Speaker of the member for Lake Nipigon, it is certainly in my time in this House the first time that a member of an opposition party has been nominated as Speaker. In considering my responsibilities in suggesting this to my colleagues on both sides of the House, I came to this decision partially as a reflection of the nature and the makeup of the Legislature of this time and also in recognition of the hon. member’s very distinct and, I think, unique qualifications for this very responsible position.

I would speak once again on behalf, I would hope, of all members of the House who had the pleasure of watching the hon. member’s performance as Deputy Speaker in the previous Parliament, in saying that we were all impressed as to his abilities and the very objective nature in which he treated his responsibilities. I am very confident that this same measure of objectivity will prevail as we move into the concluding part of this session in this House that, as I say, is usually relatively tranquil, but on occasion does require the strong hand of the Speaker to see that our deliberations are carried forward as they should be.

As I say, Mr. Clerk, to my knowledge it is the first time that a nomination of this kind has been placed before the members of the House and it would be my hope that all of the members would unanimously support this nomination.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Clerk, I am delighted to stand and second the nomination made by the hon. Premier and also to second each thought which he expressed so well. We too want to pay tribute to the retiring Speaker, the hon. member for Northumberland, and wish him well in the pursuit of his legislative duties as a private member once again. We realize the effort and sacrifice which the position entailed and we thank him for having made both of those for the people of Ontario.

I have already congratulated the Premier for his excellent choice in nominating the member for Lake Nipigon. I believe it was a courageous move on his part to nominate someone from outside the ranks of the government party and I salute him for that. I believe the choice he has made could not have been a better one and we are looking forward to working with the hon. member for Lake Nipigon.

I note, if I might for a moment, Mr. Clerk, that it is traditional for Her Majesty to take the confidence that our proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temperance and prudence. I think the excellent qualities of the member for Lake Nipigon will go as far as any human being possibly could to guarantee the existence of at least one of the three on all occasions and hopefully all three virtually all of the time. I once again salute the Premier and I salute the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Lewis: This may indeed be unorthodox, but I would wish, under these circumstances, to affirm the nomination and to congratulate the Premier for making it. We send our best wishes to the hon. member for Northumberland who has retired from the chair. I am rather pleased that he retired in one piece and in a decent frame of mind, given that to which he was subjected.

The Hon. John Stokes -- a nice roll to the words as printed on the seating plan -- will obviously perform his duties in an exemplary fashion. We in this caucus consider it a triumph of the working class over the adversities of capitalism, and we congratulate the Premier for it. It is also a testament to good sense.

Mr. Breithaupt: Notice he lost his colour.

Mr. Conway: He’s the only working man you have got.

Mr. Lewis: There is, in fact, one more. I challenge you to identify him.

Mr. Breithaupt: What is the prize?

Mr. Lewis: I may say in conjunction with the leader of the official opposition that wisdom and prudence will invariably apply. Alas, the only inauspicious note in Mr. Stokes’s ascent to the Throne: Temperance will also apply. He has already banned coffee in this chamber in advance.

Motion agreed to.

Clerk of the House: Are there any further nominations? I declare the nominations closed and declare the Hon. John Edward Stokes to be Speaker of this assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, first of all I want to thank the Premier and the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and the leader of the New Democratic Party, for their very kind words, which I was able to hear from a room not too distant from here. I want to serve notice on the leader of the third party that that will probably be the last opportunity he will have to be provocative.

This is the first time since 1920 that a member of this assembly has been chosen from the left of the chair, and it’s probably the first time in the history of the Commonwealth that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker have been chosen from the left side of the chair. I look forward to working very closely with the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) and with the Deputy Chairman, who shall be named later on. I look forward to working in close co-operation with them.

I want to thank those who have spoken and who have been responsible for my nomination, and I want to remind them that it is also the first time that a member of this assembly from northern Ontario has been chosen for this very onerous job.

As your Speaker, I shall be mindful of the rights of every member to express his views and to be heard. In this chamber of debate, as well as in the precincts of the House, members can effectively discharge their public duties only if their rights and privileges are safeguarded in an orderly manner. It is my promise to each and every one of you that I shall put forth every effort to fulfil the duties that you have entrusted to me and, hopefully, in a fair, firm and impartial manner. Thank you very much.

This House will now adjourn during pleasure.

[3:15]

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor then entered the House and took her seat upon the throne.

Hon. P. M. McGibbon (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly have elected me as their Speaker, though I am but little able to fulfil the important duties thus assigned to me. If, in the performance of those duties, I should at any time fall into error, I pray that the fault may be imputed to me and not to the assembly whose servant I am.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr, Speaker, I am commanded by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor to declare to you that she freely confides in the duty and the attachment of the assembly to Her Majesty’s person and government and is confident that the proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temperance and prudence.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ROYAL VISIT

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as we gather to renew this, the first session of the 31st Parliament of Ontario, I thought it might be appropriate if I were to set out for the members of the Legislature brief comments in regard to certain major circumstances that prevail in this province and country at this present point in time and the government’s hopes and expectations for this session.

Initially, however, may I extend to each and every member of this assembly the personal best wishes of Her Majesty the Queen. It was a significant pleasure for me, in company with my wife, to represent the members of this government and this Legislature at the luncheon yesterday at Harrington Lake that was arranged by the Prime Minister as part of the Queen’s visit to Canada. This occasion provided me the opportunity on your behalf and on behalf of the people of Ontario to reemphasize our feelings of affection and renew our sense of loyalty to the Queen of Canada.

Further, I was honoured this morning in being granted a private audience with Her Majesty so that I might present a gift from the people of Ontario to mark this, the silver jubilee of her accession to the Throne. The 26 pieces of contemporary art which comprised the gift, and which will be designated as the Queen’s Silver Jubilee Art Collection, will remain in our province and be displayed in many of our communities over the next two years. The opening of the initial exhibition will be carried out this evening at the Macdonald Block in the presence of Her Honour, the Lieutenant Governor, and I trust that it will be possible for all members to be present for this significant occasion. I am most pleased to convey Her Majesty’s thanks and gratitude, which she expressed to me during the presentation.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I turn to matters that will be before this House, let me acknowledge in the beginning that the sittings in this calendar year of 1977 have not been based on the usual patterns, primarily because of an election in which we were involved in the spring of this year. Nevertheless, it is still the government’s hope and expectation that a substantial number of the programs and commitments that were announced in the Speech from the Throne delivered last March will be met before the end of this calendar year. In order that such a goal can be achieved, however, it will be necessary for all of us to work diligently and co-operatively within this House so that we can prorogue with a sense of accomplishment, hopefully some time before Christmas Eve.

The legislation which the government wishes to place before the House during the next eight or nine weeks, along with the even more extensive time that will be required for the debate on estimates, all reflects matters of importance and concern to large segments of Ontario society. Nevertheless, it is only being realistic to acknowledge that the larger issues that confront our province and our nation at this time will without question dominate many of our thoughts and activities over the next period of time. I refer in specific terms to the ongoing debate on national unity and the serious problems of unemployment and inflation.

I do not feel, Mr. Speaker, that there is any need today to dwell at great length on the status of Confederation in Canada. It would suffice to say that the government would welcome, if it is the desire of the members, the opportunity to discuss the overall situation in this chamber and is even more desirous of hearing any constructive suggestions that the members opposite may have to offer.

I believe that to date Ontario has taken a clear, firm, responsible position in regard to the various questions that have arisen since the election of the PQ government in Quebec and the announced referendum on possible separation. Further, I intend, as I have already stated, to be an active participant in the ongoing debate, and I do not plan to confine myself to the province of Ontario in respect to those activities.

Let me now turn to the matters of unemployment and inflation. The persistence of high levels of unemployment in this province through the past year remains a major concern to all of us. The pace of recovery in the economy has remained sluggish, and has been accompanied by a waste of human skills and potential. At the same time, it must be recognized that there are fundamental structural problems at the root of our current dilemma, problems that cannot simply be solved by the government’s spending more or borrowing more or by indiscriminate tax cuts. It strikes me that there are two essential truths we must face in respect to our current circumstances and which I hope will help us to maintain a degree of reality and work towards constructive solutions when we debate such matters in this House and its related committees.

Firstly, the problems afflicting the economy of this province at this point in time are part of a situation that is national and even international in its scope. The answers must be found on the same broader basis.

Secondly, as I have already noted, there are no simple solutions that this or any other government can take that will correct the situation. Anyone who suggests otherwise is doing a disservice to our people and to the governmental process. Clearly, the government of Ontario must do its part, and without question, with an economy as fundamentally sound and a people as resourceful as our own, we have a significant contribution to make. But our objective in this instance of creating meaningful employment and curtailing the rate of inflation is consistent with that of the federal government and of the other nine provinces. We should, therefore, be working in concert in an attempt to find appropriate solutions and to restore confidence, both on the part of our own people and in the rest of the world, in regard to the future of this country.

Given these circumstances, I urge the Prime Minister to call a meeting of the first ministers of this country, in company with their appropriate ministers and officials, immediately, to begin the process of a co-operative national effort to put Canada back on the road to economic recovery. Ontario stands ready to do its part, but we want our own contribution to be consistent with and reinforcing to those efforts being made across the country. Whatever program we develop, we know that fundamental to a sound economy is the reinforcement of our private sector.

It was for that very reason that I and two of my ministers, accompanied by senior civil servants and representatives of business and industry, spent time in Japan and Hong Kong just prior to the reopening of this Legislature. We need more investment and we need more business and industrial development in order that we may create more opportunities in our own province. We felt that within the Far East we should be able to find people who would make those kinds of commitments, because they understood the mutual benefit that was possible.

We emerged from our series of meetings with senior businessmen and government officials convinced that we had made inroads in correcting some myths and misunderstandings about Canada’s and Ontario’s political and economic climate.

[3:30]

Mr. di Santo: You wasted their time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps the member would like to ask some questions about it. We believe we made inroads in encouraging more businessmen in Japan and Hong Kong to look at Ontario as a safe place to invest and in which to seek business partners.

I welcomed the opportunity to remind those whom I met that, despite some reservations they may have had about us, Ontario still offers a more assured future to those who live within our borders and to anyone who invests in our development than almost any other part of the world. As to those who suggested that our environmental laws discourage investment or plant expansion here, I assured them that we were proud of the laws, which we believe are an example to the rest of the North American continent, and that we have no intention of relaxing those laws under pressure of foreign criticism. We are committed to increasing our productivity, while at the same time maintaining the quality of life we have here in this province and which we have worked so hard to achieve.

As to the government’s legislative program, we begin today by reintroducing the package of family law bills which received broad support in principle in the last Parliament. We hope these bills can be put through second reading and committed for detailed examination, as the committee sees fit. We do not want to see these bills lapse again.

The government will also introduce a package of six courts administration bills. They will reform the jurisdiction procedures of the small claims courts, provide for the use of the French language in our courts, increase by four the number of Supreme Court judges and provide for the office of associate chief judge. A provincial offences Act, to be introduced in a few weeks, will provide a full code of procedure for provincial offences, replacing the Summary Convictions Act.

In the field of labour the minister will, as promised, introduce a comprehensive occupational health and safety bill to integrate and reform worker protection now covered by several statutes. A further bill would establish an advisory council on such matters and set up a tripartite council on equal opportunity employment. The government hopes to be able to call for early debate and disposition of the report expected from the committee of the House considering Bill 22 dealing with province-wide bargaining in the construction industry.

There will also be legislation, already introduced by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), respecting certain municipalities, and we should also proceed with the municipal elections bill. A further municipal amendment, to be introduced, will provide for regulation of so-called body-rub parlours and other questionable enterprises offensive to community standards of business. We will also proceed with Bills 34, 35 and 44, standing in the name of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), as with one or two further bills dealing with Highway Traffic Act amendments. A mental health Act, designed to safeguard patients’ rights and reform involuntary admission procedures, will be introduced and called. A further bill, to be introduced by that minister, revises procedures of medical and practitioner review committees.

Bill 4, in the name of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld), will proceed. The Minister of Revenue (Mrs. Scrivener) will introduce and proceed with bills to postpone reassessment for another year, to amend GAINS legislation respecting foreign pensions, which bill I expect will be unanimously supported by the members opposite, and to bring the Corporations Tax Act into line with the federal Act.

Mr. Sargent: What is this -- the Throne Speech?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it’s just a reminder of all those things we have under way that might have escaped the hon. member’s attention in the course of all of his other responsibilities.

A bill to regulate the removal of topsoil from good agricultural land will be introduced and called.

Mr. Riddell: How long has that been coming? Glad you have taken action.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Once again, enthusiastically supported by all the urban members opposite.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you give it out in Japanese?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would have undertaken to do that, but knowing my friend’s intellectual capacity, I question whether or not he would understand it.

Mr. Ruston: That wasn’t nice.

Mr. Breithaupt: Have you lost the yen?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I haven’t lost the yen for anything, I would say to the distinguished House leader for the opposition party.

Mr. Lewis: Previously, that would have been considered unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s have some order. Let the hon. Premier continue uninterrupted.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite right, Mr. Speaker. Amendments to the Police Act will be brought forward, and I have asked that legislation be drafted in regard to the Arab boycott.

In summary, let me say that I sense the possibility that the convergence of economic difficulties, and concern about the political integrity and unity of the country are giving rise to a deepening sense of anxiety throughout many parts of our society. That anxiety and the sense of frustration that can come from it are not only a result of problems and difficulties, but the result of a perceived incapacity of existing governmental institutions to respond to those problems effectively.

In my opinion, the manner in which we deal with Ontario’s affairs over the next few weeks and months will determine whether we are capable of overcoming that perception and lessening that anxiety that I believe exists. In my years in politics and government, I have become accustomed to saying, or to hearing others say, and I quote from many, “These are difficult and challenging times.” Nevertheless, I think that expression is appropriate to the general situation which now confronts us. But it is clear that difficult times require a special kind of responsibility from each and every one of us. It is that type of responsibility to which those of us in this institution and all who are associated with it must commit ourselves in working towards a common goal of creating a better and stronger Ontario as part of a better and stronger Canada.

ONTARIO FINANCES

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’m tabling today, for the information of members, “Ontario Finances” for the second quarter of 1977-78. This report is an important update on the province’s financial situation.

Mr. S. Smith: It is not too promising.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Members will note from the report that the fiscal outlook for this year has changed from that presented in the June issue of “Ontario Finances” and subsequently in my September speech to the provincial-municipal liaison committee. The major change is a significant downward adjustment in revenues, mainly in the personal income tax and the mining tax.

Mr. Cassidy: We predicted this in the spring.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The large adjustment in income tax revenues is explained in the copy of a Telex message received from Ottawa which I am also tabling for information. In addition, continued and prolonged weakness in the international metals markets has sharply reduced the sales and profits of Ontario’s mining industry. Reluctantly, I have further revised downwards the forecast of mining tax revenues.

Mr. Lewis: We told you it would.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are four important points I wish to make about the implications of this revenue deterioration for the province’s fiscal strategy.

First, let me reassure municipal governments that --

Mr. Peterson: They don’t believe you anyway.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- notwithstanding this change in forecast, the province will transfer to them the amount of new funds in 1978-79 that I announced in my September 16 speech. I wish to underline once again the advantages for the municipalities of early announcement of the transfer level and the certainty that it provides for them.

Mr. Wildman: Your transfers now include the teachers’ superannuation fund.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Second, expenditure restraint remains the dominant policy theme for Ontario, with spending in the upcoming 1978-79 fiscal year scheduled to increase by only 6.9 per cent. In the current fiscal year we are holding to our June expenditure position of $13.606 billion despite considerable pressure for new requirements to fund additional pension plan liabilities and other essential additions. In fact, the current level of expenditure is $92 million below my original budget plan.

Third, I would like to emphasize that it is slack revenues and not expenditures which have increased our cash requirements.

Mr. Wildman: There is a cause and effect relationship between high unemployment and low resources.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Fourth, despite this temporary setback on revenues, the government of Ontario is still firmly committed to achieving a balanced budget position.

Mr. S. Smith: When’s that?

Mr. Lawlor: You are getting worse.

LICENCE PLATE RECIPROCITY

Hon. Mr. Snow: Today I would like to bring the House up to date on Ontario’s efforts to establish licence plate reciprocity for commercial vehicles with American jurisdictions.

Following recommendations by the select committee of the Legislature on highway transportation of goods, negotiations were initiated with the states of Indiana, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. At this time, I am pleased to advise the members that the government has approved regulations establishing such licence plate reciprocity for commercial vehicles with Florida, Georgia and South Carolina as of October 1 just past.

Further, I am pleased to report that the state of Indiana has responded to Ontario’s proposals in this regard and that I further anticipate putting a similar agreement into effect with Indiana in the near future. I would like to add that I will soon be initiating similar negotiations with the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky and North Carolina.

On the basis of the approved regulations, tomorrow I will be signing the actual agreements on behalf of the province of Ontario with Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. These agreements will mean basically that the commercial vehicles from these three states will not have to have Ontario licence plates for trips into Ontario. Similarly, Ontario operators of commercial vehicles will be able to operate in Florida, Georgia and South Carolina with their Ontario plates only.

I would like to point out that the agreements cover straight trucks, tractor units and trailers and buses used on charter trips. They will not eliminate the need for “for-hire” carriers to obtain operating authority in either Ontario or the United States as they do now. Nor will these agreements affect in any way the collection of fuel tax or other taxes properly owing in each jurisdiction.

Tomorrow, I will be attending a meeting of some 16 American jurisdictions, all members of the multi-state reciprocity arrangement. My attendance will provide Ontario with a unique opportunity to advise a large number of American states of this province’s position vis-à-vis reciprocity. I will also provide my ministry with firsthand knowledge of the kind of arrangements typical of inter-jurisdictional reciprocity in the United States.

Finally, I would like to announce that in accordance with another recommendation of the select committee, we have established a carrier policy and reciprocity office by rearranging staff within the transportation regulation division of my ministry. Among other duties, staff of this office will monitor and maintain reciprocal agreements while providing information and policy support to the Ontario government regarding commercial vehicle reciprocity with other North American jurisdictions.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I intend to reintroduce the four bills of our family law reform program. It is almost a year since the family law bills were first presented to this Legislature. Since that time we have distributed over 40,000 of our booklets on family law reform. We have received thousands of letters from members of the public and special-interest groups such as women’s associations and the committees of the various bar associations.

We have carefully considered the comments we have received and the submissions presented last December to the standing committee on the administration of justice and, as a result, we have made a number of adjustments to our bills in response to the very interesting submissions.

Other provinces have begun to move on reforming their family law as well. Manitoba’s former government chose to adopt an approach rather different from our own. However, I am pleased to report that both British Columbia and Prince Edward Island have chosen the same approach as Ontario on bills introduced this year.

For almost a year now the public has been expecting us to move the four family law bills forward. Every week we receive inquiries from people who need the new provisions now. Every week we hear from lawyers who must advise their clients on whether they should try to hang on until the bills are passed.

We cannot keep these people waiting much longer. The government has shown its commitment by reintroducing these bills on the first day of the resumed session. We intend to press forward to final passage.

I recognize that there are still some people who wish to be heard and I am, of course, quite willing to accommodate their desire to make submissions. I hope, and indeed I anticipate, that I will have the co-operation of the members opposite in expediting the business of the standing committee on justice so that the family law reform bills can receive consideration without undue delay and come back to the House for final approval. I hope that the other three bills, together with the family law reform bill, can be dealt with quickly, and without the need for lengthy study in committee.

The measures which we have already brought forward will soon be joined by another bill to reform the law relating to custody and guardianship of children. This will complete the most comprehensive reform of family law ever undertaken at one time.

I think we in Ontario can be justly proud of the initiatives taken, which have been followed in at least two other provinces, but our initiatives count for nothing unless this House finally passes the family law reform bills. The public expects action. We in the government intend to press forward and I call on the members opposite to join with us.

Mr. Lewis: You would think we were putting an obstacle in your way; for heaven’s sake go ahead.

[3:45]

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. S. Smith: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Premier: Since the latest figures, released today, show that the deficit of the province of Ontario has actually jumped by some $375 million, and in fact has jumped $158 million in the month of September alone; and since his own estimates of economic growth have proven to be totally unsupportable; will the Premier now consider bringing in a new budgetary statement of some kind to bring up to date the real facts, the real figures, and to take some action to stimulate the creation of jobs for a very difficult winter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the opportunity will present itself, perhaps starting tomorrow -- the House leader could inform me, but I think the estimates of the Treasurer will be before the members of the House very shortly. They start, the House leader tells me, tomorrow evening; I think that would be a very good opportunity for the members opposite to acquaint themselves with the latest information as it relates to the financial position of this province.

Mr. Roy: We have the information; we want to know what you are going to do.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to have that advice, Mr. Speaker.

I think that would provide the Leader of the Opposition, and others opposite, the opportunity to get into the figures that are of concern to him, in detail.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that all of us are operating on the original budgetary statement, with the expenditures planned by the government as intended by the Premier’s policies, and according to his predictions; given the fact that these predictions are not only wrong but disastrously wrong; would it not make sense to let us know what his intentions are now, and particularly what his intentions are with regard to job creation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know there is a tendency on occasion in this House to get carried away with the phraseology used. What the Treasurer has informed the House of today, and I have not had an opportunity to read it in detail, is a reduction in revenues below those anticipated; one of the significant areas being that in the field of income tax, and I think the Leader of the Opposition would like to read the Telex that brought this information to us. I think the Treasurer also pointed out, though, that in terms of government expenditures the government had continued to make efforts to reduce our level of expenditure, so that in relative terms we are still in a very sound financial position. I think it is important for the members of this House to understand that while we do have problems, in terms of the fiscal integrity of the province our ability in terms of our finances is as sound as ever. It is one of the soundest jurisdictions anywhere in North America, and I think the people of this province should know that.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the Treasurer’s announcement today makes it clear that our budgetary deficit in Ontario will almost certainly rise over $1.5 billion by the end of this fiscal year, can the Premier explain how it will be possible for him to meet the commitment made in the Bramalea Charter, since it now appears that there will be roughly a 20,000-job shortfall this year alone? Therefore, what job creating propositions, in specific terms, will he be taking to the conference of the first ministers which he himself today requested?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I did suggest today that the Prime Minister of this country convene a meeting of first ministers to look, in broad terms, at the economic situation facing the people of this country. I said in my statement that we would be prepared to support in any way that we could some broad national sort of objective.

I mentioned to the media, I believe on Friday, that being very realistic about it the main fiscal tool in terms of stimulation of the economy, or whatever the federal government feels is the realistic and responsible approach to take, is something that must be provided by the government of Canada. We have made it quite clear that our approach has been, and will continue to be, to try and restore that feeling of confidence in the private sector with the people generally. There is no point fooling anyone; we do not have plans for massive make-work programs of short-term duration that would only add to the financial plight of this province.

Mr. Lewis: What about your public commitment of 100,000 jobs?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party wants to discuss in some detail the commitments made in the very historic Bramalea Charter, I have said it is our objective --

Mr. Lewis: Better a piece of history than a piece of reality.

Mr. Makarchuk: Known as false advertising.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s have some order. This is not a debate, it’s a question period.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are quite right, Mr, Speaker. I am still optimistic that in terms of the projection laid out in that document -- 100,000 jobs a year for, I believe, a 10-year period of time -- is not only a realistic objective, it is one that has to be attained and we intend to do it.

Mr. Lewis: Like a balanced budget.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: In view of the figures that came out today, and in view of the omission from the Treasurer’s statement when he’s committed to balancing the budget, is the Premier prepared to affirm right now that the budget will be balanced in 1981? Is that still government policy?

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is still the policy of the government of this province to make every effort to balance the budget of this province by 1981. That was stated then and we continue to move towards that objective.

Mr. Nixon: So much for that.

Mr. Foulds: Is that a commitment or a promise?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course it will be made much easier for us if we have a constructive, enlightened approach by those members opposite who understand financial matters and do not call upon us for massive new expenditures that will not be productive for the economy of this province

Mr. Roy: We can’t do worse than you have been doing in the last while; we can’t do worse.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the government’s policy as far as job creation is concerned is a commitment to 100,000 jobs a year and praying for help from the federal government to achieve it, but no other policies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have never been reluctant to pray for help at any time, and this is no exception.

Mr. Lewis: So that’s how the Premier does it.

Mr. Deans: It is getting a little bit embarrassing, isn’t it?

BRUCE NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, another question of the Premier: What steps has the Premier taken, personally, concerning Ontario Hydro’s contract with the Lummus Company for two heavy water plants at the Bruce nuclear site, in view of the fact that Hydro’s latest estimate of the final cost is about $990 million, some $200 million higher than the initial estimate, with no penalty provisions at all in the contract? What steps has the Premier taken, personally, to look into this matter?

Mr. Breithaupt: Other than prayer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would think the member for Kitchener would be the last one to discount the power of prayer, knowing the history of his family and those involved in it; but anyway I’ll not digress on that issue at this moment.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition if he would ask the Minister of Energy, through whom the corporation reports to the members of the House, I’m sure he will get all the information on this particular issue that he feels is relevant.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Do I take it from the Premier’s answer that he himself, on a personal basis, has done absolutely nothing with regard to the Bruce nuclear heavy water plants? Is he alarmed at all about the apparent lack of information on the part of the Minister of Energy, who knew nothing of the ultimatum which Hydro had given Lummus on such a large capital project?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will confess to the Leader of the Opposition that I have not personally gone to Bruce to analyse the work or in any way determined what the cost structure is or anything of that nature. I do make that confession, yes; I have not done it. I also have confidence in the ability of the Minister of Energy --

Mr. Riddell: It might be worth a trip.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I informed myself that the Minister of Energy was fully knowledgeable and quite prepared to give any information that he can to the members of this House.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, does the Premier plan to intervene in the $1 billion purchase of uranium from Dennison Mines, when the world price has not yet been established?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say with great respect --

Mr. Speaker: That’s not really a supplementary. I wouldn’t think that was a supplementary.

Are there any other supplementaries? The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Roy: It was a very good question, though.

Mr. S. Smith: With respect, do I take it that the Premier has in some way redirected my initial question to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Taylor), to see if he’s done anything?

Mr. Lewis: No, you can’t do that; he has answered it twice.

Mr. S. Smith: He has not done that.

Mr. Lewis: May I just ask a supplementary? If these figures as alleged are accurate, would the Premier not wish to initiate some kind of inquiry into Hydro’s internal financing to understand, even if it’s on track now, how an error of that magnitude could have been made without any way of recouping the public money?

Mr. Nixon: Phone up Campbell Grant and ask him to have a look at it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Scarborough West is one of those who is more reluctant to initiate an “inquiry” on every matter that is raised and I’m hopeful that he still takes that approach. I think, really, that if one were to ask the Minister of Energy to assess the information that is available, I think the judgement should be based on whether or not the overexpenditure, if there is an overexpenditure, is proper and consistent with what has happened in the construction industry generally, the rates of inflation, et cetera. I am not competent to make judgements of this kind, but I think before anybody considers, as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, that we set up a select committee to once again reinvent the wheel, or do this or do that --

Mr. S. Smith: It’s just $200 million; don’t disturb yourself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say that in percentage terms no one is minimizing $200 million, but I would say that he might consult with a member who represents that area who knows something of the complexity of this contract, of the work that has gone on and also Ontario Hydro’s record in the production of nuclear energy.

Mr. S. Smith: He knows; that’s the trouble.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say that in terms of cost efficiency, in terms of efficiency of plant, there’s not a utility anywhere in the world that can match Ontario Hydro’s record in the production of electrical energy for the people of this province. Let him show me one.

Mr. Deans: Since the Premier seems to believe that if we had the information placed before us we would see the justification for the increased expenditure, I wonder if he is prepared to place all of the information before us in order that we can look at it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m delighted to answer questions here until 5 o’clock. To me it is the --

Mr. Deans: I don’t want to ask questions until 5 o’clock. I want the answer to this one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- most stimulating part of the day. I would say to the members opposite that --

Mr. Deans: Just say it to me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I’m sure the Minister of Energy has spent several days in preparation knowing that this might be a question, although one can’t always predict with logic what questions will emerge from the opposition --

Mr. Makarchuk: We can predict his answers though.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but I am sure that this was one that might have been anticipated and that the Minister of Energy would be quite delighted to answer. That’s all I’m suggesting.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I won’t ask Jim Taylor a question; I’m afraid he’ll be succeeded by Keith Norton.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

NUCLEAR WASTE

Mr. Lewis: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if I may direct a question to the Minister of the Environment? Is the minister familiar with -- has he read carefully -- the report on nuclear power by Dr. Robert Uffen, which has been presented to the board of directors of Ontario Hydro and has apparently won their approval?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been some press reports regarding that particular paper; but I haven’t read it in full, no.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister by way of supplementary, could we in this Legislature be privy to what is apparently a major document? And could I ask the minister to explain that since Dr. Uffen has clearly taken the position that until a safe method of storing used fuel has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt -- those are his words -- Dr. Uffen recommends that Hydro should not become involved in a large nuclear program; and since that recommendation has gone before the board of Hydro and been approved by them; why is the minister continuing with the Darlington nuclear plant which runs directly counter to that recommendation, without an environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, again, I read the press reports on Dr. Uffen’s comments and I think he indicated, in so many words, that any present programs may proceed but if you have any large plans in the future --

Mr. Lewis: What’s Darlington?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I believe he’s talking about another two or three generating stations -- then you certainly should have an answer for the safe disposal of waste.

[4:00]

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Given Dr. Uffen’s remarks about the proper waste disposal program, I am wondering whether the ministry has anticipated any of his concerns; and whether in fact, given the immediacy of his suggestions, it has done anything to expand upon the situation that we have in Chalk River, which has been allowed to expand purely on an ad hoc basis as apparently the only waste disposal site for nuclear waste in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Chalk River is a waste disposal site. I think the hon. member should remember that it’s the Atomic Energy Control Board that is responsible for the safe disposal of nuclear waste. At the present time I understand that board is attempting to locate at least two sites in Ontario. One was, as the hon. member probably knows, the proposed site in the Madoc area, which now has been dropped. They are still looking for at least two sites in this province, which in all probability will be on government land. In the meantime, of course, the spent uranium in the existing plants will be safely stored on site at those plants.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: In view of the fact this study by Dr. Uffen has been approved by the board of the corporation of Hydro and therefore is a statement of policy, would the minister undertake to table it in this House so that we would have the benefit of its studies?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, I have no objection to tabling a report of that kind if it has been submitted to Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask one short final supplementary? Will the minister be prepared to look again at the exclusion of Darlington from environmental assessment once he has read Dr. Uffen’s report?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As I said, I don’t believe any approval by Ontario Hydro is in conflict with the exemption of Darlington from the Environmental Assessment Act; I would doubt that very much. However, I will look at that; and of course at the time of tabling, if I table it, there will be a statement dealing with that point.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Conway: Did I understand the minister’s earlier comments to mean that to this date the ministry has given no advice and has prepared no strategy on behalf of the government or Ontario Hydro, as a major producer of nuclear waste in this province, to combat the kind of situation that Dr. Uffen speaks of in that particular report?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That was a real flowery question, old man --

Mr. Eakins: What’s the answer?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But I think what the hon. member is trying to say is, are we doing anything about the safe disposal of nuclear waste? The answer is “yes.” We are working with the Atomic Energy Control Board, we are working with Environment Canada -- a number of agencies attached to both governments. We are assisting in trying to find a site. We have committees set up; we have studied various locations. The one that was proposed at Madoc really never got off the ground because it was during an election campaign and, of course, you know what happens during an election campaign.

An hon. member: You end up losing a seat.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Did we win that seat, by the way? In any event, there’s no question that we will find a safe site for the disposal of nuclear waste; that is a number one priority.

Mr. Foulds: Are there safe sites?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with his final question.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour, if I may: Given the counterpoint outside this Legislature during the early proceedings today, can the minister indicate to the House whether she intends shortly to provide an inflationary raise in the level of workmen’s compensation pensions?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am curious as to the definition of an “inflationary raise.” Does the hon. member mean one that will cause inflation or one that will meet levels?

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, why doesn’t the minister use her imagination and talk about pegging it to the rise in inflation or even to the Anti-Inflation Board guideline since nothing has been -- I will rephrase it quickly, Mr. Speaker, knowing you would wish me to, as a supplementary: Given that the pensions have not been increased since July 1975, I think, is the minister now prepared to meet at least the inflationary rises in the cost of living since that time?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sure there will be recommendations coming forward within the reasonably foreseeable future regarding this specific matter, which has been under intensive study.

Mr. Makarchuk: You’ve been coming for two years.

Hon. B. Stephenson: In addition, it has been affected by the study which has been taking place of the actuarial status of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the potential effect of modifications in the level of pensions and the level of compensation. These, I believe, must be facts well known to all of us before any statements are made about increases which should be at this time added to the remuneration of those who receive workmen’s compensation. I believe we must do it responsibly, and as soon as that information is available to me --

Mr. Lupusella: You have been saying that since 1976.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- which I think will be about the end of November, then we shall be considering those changes.

Mr. Deans: What’s the foreseeable future?

Hon. B. Stephenson: If you had listened, I just told you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Dovercourt; is this a supplementary?

Mr. Lupusella: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that some time in 1976 I introduced in the Legislature a private member’s bill to increase injured workers’ pensions based on the cost of living starting in July 1975 --

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Lupusella: Yes. Is the minister prepared to give some immediate attention to it? If not, why not?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we have given attention to it, we are continuing to give attention to it, and it will be resolved.

Mr. Lewis: Very helpful to the people outside.

RYERSON DISPUTE

Mr. Sweeney: A question of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, Mr. Speaker: My question deals with the $322,000 settlement made between the board of governors of Ryerson and the former vice-principal of that school. Mr. John Parkin, who chaired the meeting of the board of governors in which this settlement was made, has refused to disclose the reasons for it, even given that at least 80 per cent of that is taxpayers’ money. He went on to say: “The only way those questions will be answered is if they are raised in the House.”

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Sweeney: I am raising it in the House. Can the minister explain why the board of governors of Ryerson would give $220,000 to a former vice-principal of that school -- taxpayers’ money?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think we would have to accept that the board, who considered this problem at some length, will give information on that subject. Knowing that members might be concerned about this particular problem, I asked the president to prepare a letter for their information --

Mr. Conway: Good fellow, the president.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- and I will be pleased to see that the member has a copy of that, which we received this morning. I will table it in the Legislature.

Mr. Sweeney: A supplementary: My understanding is that this same board of governors in 1973 negotiated a contract with this former vice-principal of approximately $1 million, lasting a period of 14 years. Is there any monetary mechanism whatsoever between the Ministry of Colleges and University Affairs and the boards of governors of any institutions that would speak to such an astounding contract settlement?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot will accept that an audited statement of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute is tabled each year in this House. I think, secondly, that members would accept that the responsibility clearly rests with the board for their decisions, not only in this matter but in all matters pertaining to that institution. I do not accept for one minute that we should interfere in the normal course of the duties of a board that not only has representatives appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, but indeed by the students and indeed by the faculty. I remind the member opposite that the board came to that unanimous decision after a great deal of deliberation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich with a supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as the decision was made in 1973 by a majority of board members that were appointed by this government, would the minister not agree that the problem would not have arisen if, at that time, there had been a fair complement of both students, faculty, and support staff on that board, and appointments to that board from a wider range of the public such as exists at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I have no way of judging what might have happened in 1973 had a different composition of the board been in place. I think the member realizes, too, that there is a bill before this House to change the composition of the board and it will be debated in the near future.

Mr. Roy: As a supplementary to the answer given to my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, is the minister in fact suggesting that it’s somewhat improper to ask a question questioning a decision of a board; and secondly, that he as minister cannot intervene? Even though it’s a unanimous decision of the board, in view of the facts given by my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, is this not taxpayers’ money and are we not entitled to the full explanation of this?

Mr. Conway: What does the Treasurer think?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think if the member would listen to what was said --

Mr. Roy: I did.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- I was prepared to table for this Legislature today a full report from the president, outlining the rationale of the decisions made by that board.

Mr. Sargent: You said you couldn’t intervene.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Does the member want the responsibility for all of our post-secondary institutions --

Mr. Roy: No.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- to be eroded by the taking on of that responsibility by the minister? I say to him that it’s fundamental to our society that those charged with the responsibility --

Mr. Nixon: This guy is going to go far.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- make the decisions and be held accountable for those decisions.

Mr. Roy: It is taxpayers’ money. The minister should intervene.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the minister aware of the fact that the president of Ryerson was not aware of this agreement and didn’t find out about it until the last four months; and does he think that that’s proper? Coming back to his other point, when the minister says that a settlement shouldn’t be questioned, is there any limit at which it should be questioned?

Hon. W. Newman: What is wrong with the president?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I again have to remind the minister -- or the member -- that if he would look at the record --

Mr. Roy: He should be the minister.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- I did not say that a decision should never be questioned. I said the responsibility for that decision must rest with those who made it. There’s quite a difference.

Mr. Breithaupt: With those who appointed them.

Mr. Speaker: There have been sufficient supplementaries.

OTIS ELEVATORS

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Treasurer. If I understand the Treasurer and the government correctly that they are pinning their hopes for employment on the private sector primarily, would the Treasurer look into a situation in which the recent -- not recent -- but the takeover, by Hughes Corporation of Otis Elevators, resulted in a directive being sent to the Canadian subsidiary that they were not to quote on large jobs, that they were to confine themselves to small construction within their own jurisdiction? Doesn’t the Treasurer feel that that will have an adverse effect both on employment and the economy of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’ll be glad to look into it.

NANTICOKE PLANT

Mr. Reed: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Can the minister tell the House how much money has been spent this year on repairs at the nearly new generating plant at Nanticoke, approximately what percentage of those repairs were underwritten by the equipment suppliers themselves through warranty and what percentage will be paid by the purchasers of electric power?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I will take that question as notice and get the detailed information for the member.

Mr. Cassidy: You have had five months to prepare for this.

Mr. Lewis: I see you have Tom Coleman on your staff; you’re smartening up now.

Mr. Cassidy: He needs Tom Coleman too.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Cassidy: A question to the Minister of Labour: Since the minister recommended to cabinet a year ago that the minimum wage be raised to $2.90, can she say what recommendation she is now making about a minimum wage increase and what action is likely to come from the government?

Hon. B. Stephenson: While I admire the hon. member’s psychic capabilities, I would really not be able to tell him today that there is any movement afoot in that area. We are still awaiting some studies which are being carried out.

Mr. Cassidy: We read the memo.

Mr. Breithaupt: How about $4?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How about $4?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the cost of living has gone up by 11½ per cent since the last adjustment of the minimum wage and in view of the material that the minister now has arguing that a fairer level is desirable, can she say what information is holding back this decision?

Mr. Laughren: What province are you waiting for?

An hon. member: It is the lowest minimum wage in Canada.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh no it is not; it is most certainly not the lowest one in Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A question has been directed to the Hon. Minister of Labour. Give her the courtesy of allowing her to answer.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Makarchuk: She is waiting on Pakistan.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is an area which requires a great deal of study, one which certainly cannot be moved upon with any degree of certainty unless we are aware that there will not be an impingement upon job opportunities by sudden movement or major movement of the minimum wage package.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Look at all those freeloaders over there.

Hon. B. Stephenson: This is the area which is being studied, and when that is completed we shall be reporting.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Social workers, teachers -- they don’t know anything about that.

[4:15]

Mr. Samis: Why should the people of Ontario have to accept the second lowest minimum wage in Canada?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, was the question “Why they would have to accept?”

Mr. Samis: Why they should have to accept.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, they do not have to accept the second lowest minimum wage in Canada. But, indeed, I would remind the honourable member for Cornwall that this province’s industries do not compete with Ottawa, nor with Quebec City, nor with Winnipeg. They compete with the states of New York, Michigan, Illinois and Ohio where the minimum wage is at least 30 cents lower than ours. We do not want in any way to damage the already precarious competitive position of the small manufacturers in the province of Ontario; we must be responsible in whatever movement we make in the minimum wage.

OHTB BUS LICENCE

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: In view of the fact that only two of the seven members of the Highway Transport Board were present when Greyhound lines were granted a certificate to operate; and due to the fact that the chairman, Mr. Shoniker, told me, at the time, that he was disturbed at the pressures of the Bay Street gang, would the minister advise why the board established for the first time in history a new policy of direct competition by different companies on the same route, thus reversing a long-standing government policy, something which only this Legislature can do and something which the minister cannot do himself?

And secondly, in spite of an appeal launched by Gray Coach Lines and Local 113 of the Transit Union against this decision, why were the licences issued immediately?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, there are several questions in that one question. As the hon. member is well aware, the decision of the Highway Transport Board on this particular licence is in the process of appeal before cabinet at this time. I’m sure he is well aware that when the decision was handed down last year a new hearing was ordered. That hearing was carried out and a report was received about the middle of July of this year. The report was submitted to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, who is considering the appeal of the Gray Coach Lines and the United Transit Workers’ Union.

The process of dealing with that appeal involved my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), whose staff processes such appeals. Then there was a requirement to allow 60 days after that second decision was granted by the board for Gray Coach Lines, the main participant, to respond. I will point out that Gray Coach Lines took their full 60 days, and I believe their response was submitted about September 20 or 21. Then there was a period for the applicant in the case to respond to the Gray Coach response, and that, I believe, was received about a week ago; I received on my desk, I believe it was Friday, the final Gray Coach response to the response to the response. And now, it is my understanding subject to correction from the Attorney General --

Mr. Conway: Don’t worry about that.

Mr. Roy: Make sure you don’t get him to argue with me.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- that the Lieutenant Governor in Council is now in a position to deal with this appeal having received these different responses through the normal legal process. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that cabinet would now be in a position to deal with this appeal expeditiously.

Mr. Sargent: Is the minister aware that this Phoenix-based Greyhound Corporation, the largest in the world of its kind -- with rumoured Mafia connections, which I hope the minister has checked out -- has been given a blank cheque here, not only to make millions of dollars, but at the expense of a publicly-owned corporation? Will the minister assure this House that the cabinet will either revoke this licence now or bring it before the Legislature for full examination?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member or this House that undertaking. Cabinet will deal with the appeal that is before it and, as I said, I hope now that all the information is together the cabinet will be able to deal with the matter expeditiously.

BURNING PCBS

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister reverse the stand in support of the burning of PCBs by Peerless Cement on Zug Island in the Detroit River that his ministry has now taken before the Wayne county hoard of health and the Detroit city council; inasmuch as no production system in continuous operation can be made fail-safe and, secondly, any failure of that burning system there will dump, as a result of the prevailing winds, the highly toxic and cancer-producing PCBs over the west side of the city of Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that the proposal for the Peerless plant is the same as the method used by the St. Lawrence Cement plant in Mississauga. That method has been tried at Mississauga and is successful.

Mr. Bounsall: On a pilot scale only.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, a pilot scale, but using a substantial amount of PCB-contaminated material, up to full capacity at some time. We’re not concerned with the quantity as much as the length of the time of the experiment. We’re satisfied, from the information we have from those who are monitoring that project -- which includes at least two federal agencies as well as two provincial agencies --

Mr. Bounsall: That it will never fail.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- that this is a successful method of destroying PCB-contaminated material. If Peerless uses the same method, and this is our understanding, then it is safe. It is much safer, certainly, than using a land fill.

The hon. member knows there is a substantial amount of this type of material generated on both sides of the border. Much of what we generate in Canada is exported to the United States so we have some interest in seeing that that facility is established.

I don’t know what more the ministry can formally say at those hearings, except that if the scientific process that is to be used there, the technology that is to be used at that plant, is similar to what is being used in Canada, in Mississauga, then we accept it. We have to have a solution to this problem and as far as we are concerned this is the best solution.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Surely the minister sees the difference between a pilot-scale project at Mississauga and one in which there is going to be continuous burning of this substance in a populated area, particularly when that populated area is in the highly populated west side area of Windsor.

I can see where the minister might support the burning of it in a plant that is not in a built-up area, but surely the minister cannot support the set-up of this plant in which he has an operation that he cannot guarantee will be fail-safe and will dump those offending gases on the people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will admit that certainly the St. Lawrence Cement plant in Mississauga is in a built-up area. Secondly, we have completed that project; experimentation at Mississauga has been completed and the company is now in the process of making an application for a permanent certificate. We’re satisfied that the experimentation there was a success.

I was under the impression, from the information I have, that Peerless will at first be somewhat under the same type of ground rules; the company will be limited as to quantity and it will be closely monitored right at the plant site as well as in the surrounding area. That would include, as far as we are concerned, monitoring in Ontario. Again, the monitoring will be such that we are hoping there will be no danger to any of the residents in the area.

Mr. Foulds: Hope springs eternal.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Another point -- I was trying to remember what the other point was the hon. member raised -- remember that this disposal is being carried out at a cement plant. It is not a separate plant strictly for the burning of PCB-contaminated material; it is a cement plant that has been modified and converted to do just that. I would think, with the continuous monitoring and the checking, that this is as safe as any type of industrial facility of this kind; safer than making cement, frankly.

Mr. B. Newman: A final supplementary: Is the minister aware that the burning of PCBs in a cement plant leads to a condition known as puffing or a back draft, where not only are the PCB contaminants thrown back in at the operators, but also there is a substantial increase in the amount of contaminants and dust particles that are emitted into the atmosphere?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I hope the hon. member is getting his information correct. We always have these great, sensational scare statements regarding any type of safe disposal. What does he want us to do -- leave it rot in the ground or enter some lake or stream and really be of danger?

Mr. Roy: Are you suggesting there is no puffing?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say is that a cement plant has to be modified and converted before it can handle PCB-contaminated material. An ordinary cement plant cannot handle the material. There is a substantial amount of modification to that plant; it is a costly conversion, but it is safe. From the information I am getting it is safe, both within the plant, to the employees in that plant, as well as from the point of view of emissions.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary: Is the minister aware that Monsanto, the manufacturer of the PCB in the first instance, has phased out the burning procedures that it had in the past? It is phasing out completely and now leaving the responsibility to governments to resolve; and that also --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes. Will the minister look at the brief and the report presented to his ministry by Dr. Edwards, a professor of law at the University of Windsor, concerning the dangers of burning PCBs, both in the St. Lawrence facility and also in the one in Delray, Michigan?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what a professor of law would know about the danger of burning of PCBs.

Mr. S. Smith: You are a lawyer.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But I am not an expert.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is not a professor of law.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The hon. member must realize that there is a hearing going on at the present time dealing with this application. All the information and the points that he has raised would certainly be considered by that hearing board in respect to the Peerless application.

If Dr. Edwards is an expert in this I would assume that he would appear before that board before any licence is issued to Peerless.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the hon. member for Windsor-Riverside.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Haven’t we got a Tory member down there?

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he would at least be willing to meet with the members of the city of Windsor administration? He has not done this so far; as minister he gave approval to this application before even consulting with local officials. I would like to ask him if he would now be willing to talk to Windsor’s director of pollution control and the mayor, especially in view of the fact that the people in the city of Windsor and the local government have said that they are willing to take this application to court?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to meet with the representatives of the city of Windsor, and anybody from Windsor.

[4:30]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Armourdale.

Mr. Conway: I see Phil has lost weight.

ROBARTS COMMISSION

Mr. McCaffrey: I have a question of the Treasurer, if I may.

In view of the fact that the Robarts commission report is being studied and analysed by members of council in the borough of North York as in other boroughs of Metro Toronto, and in view of the fact that the borough of North York is being treated fairly harshly in this recommendation, would the Treasurer consider extending the deadline for them to present their brief beyond October 31, perhaps until the end of November?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of requests to extend the deadline and I think without setting a date, we have indicated, if memory serves me correctly, that we would like to have the briefs in as quickly as possible. I think a number have indicated they would have them in by the end of November, so that would seem reasonable.

RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Has he or has he not ordered the closure of Riverview hospital in the city of Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have extended indefinitely the closing date of the Riverview unit of Windsor Western Hospital.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: On what basis did the minister originally decide that he was going to phase out and close the hospital?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is a very lengthy history to the Riverview situation, which goes back into the 1960s. The original order was sent over the signature of the deputy minister, I think, in early 1976.

Mr. S. Smith: Brings back memories, does it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: My own decision was based on the thorough report that was prepared by the district health council as to how the earlier decision could be implemented -- and I emphasize that it is “how,” because the decision was taken by the ministry -- and on a personal examination of all of the hospitals and hospital units in Windsor.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he ever reconsidered the closure of Riverview hospital; and if he did why did he make statements to the press to the contrary?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m sorry. Made what statements to the press?

Mr. Cooke: Statements to the press that the minister never did reconsider his predecessor’s decision.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This is something that concerned me in some of the articles I read. Let me make something clear: When I went into the ministry there was hanging over, if you will, that unit of that hospital -- it is not a hospital; it is a unit of a hospital -- the order to close by the end of March.

Mr. Wildman: The shadow of death.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Since the district health council report was not completed and the indications were it would not be completed until about the middle of April and since I wanted an opportunity obviously to review that report and to allow for reactions to it from whatever source, then I extended the date until the end of September.

I would have to say that in going to Windsor, as I did on April 15, to receive personally the report of the health council and personally to tour Riverview hospital --

Mr. Nixon: It’s only a unit!

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and in going to Windsor in the summer of this year to view the other hospitals and the other unit of Windsor Western, I was trying to keep the most open possible mind on the subject.

Mr. S. Smith: Before the election.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I wasn’t trying to play any games on this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That wasn’t part of the original question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What it still comes down to in the final analysis is that so long as there is empty space in the other hospitals, so long as we face the kind of problems with the availability of capital dollars in this province -- I have to tell the hon. members that the list of capital wishes, if you will, from all of the hospitals in the province totals something in the order of $700 million to $800 million, and in this current year we have $100 million to meet that.

Mr. Cooke: That’s not the question. That’s not what I asked.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: So long as there is empty space in other hospitals, I cannot in all good conscience possibly consider either approving a new hospital or letting continue, without some action, a duplication of expenditure in effect.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Do I understand that the minister is saying that when empty space exists in certain hospitals he will necessarily move to fill that space even if it means having to duplicate specialized facilities, such as rehabilitation facilities that are at the Riverview unit? Is he going to fill space with any kind of duplicated facilities? Surely he didn’t mean to say that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the question the hon. member hasn’t read either the task force report or the report of the district health council. If he’ll look into it, he’ll find out that what is proposed is a splitting up of the 120 beds at present at the Riverview unit, the majority to go to the IODE of Windsor Western -- where there is already a chronic program under the same administration, under the same philosophy -- and other beds to go to other hospitals that are at present operating --

Mr. S. Smith: Which will have to duplicate the rehabilitation facility.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, no, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: Inasmuch as the committee of the district health council that studied chronic care recommended that Riverview be kept open until new facilities were built, and since Riverview hospital -- from its own funds; not from any ministry funds -- is willing to build a 120-bed, entirely new unit geared to chronic care; surely the minister, under those conditions, would rather see that done than have a lengthy court battle over the keeping open of the Riverview unit?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the task force did not recommend the maintenance of Riverview until the new unit is opened. It indicated that that would be its preference, but given the fact that the ministry had directed that the Riverview unit be closed, which decision was made in recognition of the fact that space was available --

Mr. Cassidy: They are puppets, then.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- at significant savings in operating costs through the closure of the Riverview unit and the amalgamations into IODE and into the other hospitals in the area --

Mr. Cooke: That was your decision, not theirs.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s the ministry’s decision and it should not be pinned on the district health council, as some members over there tried -- and in fact I think you’re the one who tried. That was the ministry’s decision and we’ll take full responsibility for it.

Mr. Bounsall: You are still wrong.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The health council’s responsibility was to show how that could be done, and in that regard they did an excellent job.

As far as the second part of the question is concerned, the reason again comes back to the fact that notwithstanding -- and I don’t believe the offer has been made for the total cost; the offer that was made at a meeting I had in the summer in Windsor was something of the order of $4 million -- notwithstanding that, it would mean additional operating expenses. The experience of the ministry is that for every dollar you spend this year on capital expenditures for a new facility, between now and two years from now you will spend an equal amount in operating expenses. In other words, it’s a relationship of 50 cents to every dollar of capital, which goes on forever and has to be a major consideration in looking ahead to the future facilities.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine, could we have these bright lights turned off, now that there are no television cameras in operation? While I’m on my feet, I would like to bring to the attention of members that His Excellency Mario Gomez D’Ayala, the President of the Legislative Assembly of the Compania region in Italy, is in our galleries. Would you join me in welcoming him, please?

REED PAPER

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister tell us why he has apparently decided not to appeal the court decision which imposed pinprick fines of $1,000 for each of five counts against Reed Limited for discharging contaminants into the Wabigoon River last year, when the maximum fines provided in the legislation for a first offence are $5,000 per count?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for the transcript of that decision.

Mr. Lewis: Still?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes.

Mr. Breithaupt: It might be a little late to appeal.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I would assume we would have to have formal notification of the decision and the reasons for the decision. There are some problems regarding how he arrived at the decision in the first place and also some of his comments regarding the amount of the fine for the five different counts. So we want to have that before we make any decision to appeal.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: When the minister receives the transcript of the judge’s decision, will he also look at the judge’s comments, some of which have been reported in the paper, regarding the ambiguities in the Act and the amending practices followed by the government for this Environmental Protection Act which make it difficult to implement the principle that polluters must pay for the damage done to the environment?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The judge’s comments were in respect to the control order. He was of the view that as long as a control order is in existence we shouldn’t take action against the company, although it’s obvious that the company cannot meet the requirements of the control order. That is something my ministry is disputing, as far as those comments are concerned, and that would be one of the grounds for an appeal.

Secondly, any clarification or clearing up of any ambiguity can be done by some simple changes in regulations. Certainly we can do that even without waiting for a copy of the transcript or appealing.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister not aware that the judge directed some of his comments to ambiguity in the actual legislation -- at least as they were reported in the press -- and would he take notice of those very carefully when reading the transcript? Secondly, is his instinct to go along with the judgement of the lawyer who pursued the case for the ministry, to appeal the case, as he has been reported to have said to the press in Thunder Bay on the radio media?

Mr. Roy: If you wait to read the transcript, you’ll be out of time on your appeal.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes; and I would think that the lawyer who attended on our behalf would naturally have that feeling; he wanted a bigger fine.

Mr. Roy: He was a finer, was he?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He wanted at least five figures.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There’s no question that the amount is small after preparing for a case and sitting on a case taking at least three months of his time. So he’s bound to have reacted that way. As the member for Ottawa East will tell you, any good lawyer will act that way,

Mr. Roy: Oh, yes.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Even if he doesn’t get his fees.

Mr. Roy: Depending on the size of the retainer, of course.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: After talking to him, I must say that was my immediate reaction as well.

BEAN CROP

Mr. Riddell: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Just as a prelude to my question, I hope the minister didn’t sell any of this year’s white bean crop to Japan or other countries he visited.

In the interests of the white bean industry in Ontario, what assistance might be forthcoming to those processors, including the Ontario Bean Growers Co-op, for beans they have sold that they do not have and are not likely to get because of the weather conditions which have prevailed, and which I understand will be continuing for some period of time; or are we going to let them go bankrupt the way we did some of the meat-packing plants that I think we could have helped had we stepped in at the time?

Mr. Conway: Give them the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) in a trade.

Hon. W. Newman: In answer to the member’s question, I realize the serious problem the white bean producers have had this fall because of the harvesting conditions. The latest report I have as of this morning is that there will be approximately 600,000 bags available because of the change of the regulations to allow the darker coloured bean to be graded No. 1.

Mr. Riddell: There have been 850,000 sold.

Hon. W. Newman: I realize that the bean board through the various brokers has forward-sold 800,000 bags of beans -- closer to 900,000. I understand the domestic market will be all right, I understand the UK market will probably be all right; it will be the other markets that we will be concerned about. The question is whether the government -- and we are looking into this now -- should be responsible for buying up contracts that the private sector people took with those people. Taking into consideration that only 60 per cent of the white bean crop was covered by crop insurance -- 40 per cent was not covered by crop insurance -- should we be trying to help those people out or should we be looking at ways to help out the producers across the province, not only in white beans but in many other crops that have suffered severely because of wet weather in the last month?

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Lewis: I thought the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Grossman) handled himself well.

[4:45]

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

REPORTS

RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 22, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Your committee further recommends that an industrial inquiry commission as proposed by the Ministry of Labour should be established.

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Norton presented the report of the Ministry of Community and Social Services for the fiscal year 1976-77.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House will know the member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith) has assumed the duties of a parliamentary assistant and he has therefore resigned as deputy chairman of the committees of the whole House. Perhaps I could take this point to say that all members are sorry to see him leave but wish him well in his new responsibilities.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) be appointed deputy chairman of the committees of the whole House for this session.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that unless otherwise ordered, the House will not meet in the chamber on Wednesdays for this session.

Mr. Roy: Oh, come on. Not that again.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the following substitutions be made on the following committees:

The standing social development committee: Mr. Rowe for Mr. Baetz; Mrs. Campbell for Mr. Van Horne.

The standing resources development committee: Mr. Davidson for Mr. Stokes; Mr. McNeil for Mr. Johnson; Mr. Rollins for Mr. Belanger; Mr. Turner for Mr. Eaton; Mr. Yakabuski for Mr. Ashe; Mr. Riddell for Mr. Mancini.

The standing administration of justice committee: Mr. Baetz for Mr. Grossman; Mr. Eaton for Mr. Turner; Mr. Handleman for Mr. Drea; Mr. Warner for Mr. Renwick.

The standing general government committee: Mr. Belanger for Mr. Rotenberg; Mr. Hodgson for Mr. Hennessy; Mr. G. E. Smith for Mr. McCague.

The standing public accounts committee: Mr. Cureatz for Mr. Hennessy; Mr. Handleman for Mr. Drea; Mr. Leluk for Mr. Grossman.

The standing members services committee: Mr. Eaton for Mr. Ashe; Mr. Gregory for Mr. Hodgson.

The standing statutory instruments committee: Mr. Hennessy for Mr. Cureatz; Mr. Johnson for Mr. Rotenberg.

The Ombudsman committee: Ms. Gigantes for Mr. Renwick.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 59, An Act to reform the Law respecting Property Rights and Support Obligations between Married Persons and in other Family Relationships.

Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 61, An Act to reform the Law respecting the Status of Children.

Motion agreed to.

SUCCESSION LAW REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 60, An Act to reform the Law respecting Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons.

Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGE ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 62, An Act to revise the Marriage Act.

Motion agreed to.

SURROGATE COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 65, An Act to amend the Surrogate Courts Act.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE ROAD ACCESS ACT

Mr. Maeck moved first reading of Bill 63, An Act respecting Motor Vehicle Access to Property by Private Road.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to protect the interests of a person who is dependent upon a single private road for motor vehicle access to his property. A person who wishes to close a private road may do so upon obtaining a court order or by meeting one of the other exceptions set out in this particular bill. The bill does not affect rights of ownership of land, but it contemplates that in the case of a dispute concerning property rights the road will remain open until the rights of the parties are determined, unless circumstances arise that justify the making of a closing order.

SMALL BUSINESS ACT

Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 64, An Act respecting Small Business in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the preservation and expansion of small business enterprises in Ontario. The bill provides for government efforts relating to tendering policy, subcontracting, research and development, and small business co-operatives as a means of providing support for a small business enterprise.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Stong moved first reading of Bill 66, An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, this bill defines compulsory school age and special education, guarantees every child of compulsory school age a right to an education, and transfers the establishing of special education programs from the discretion to the duty of a school board.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Stong moved first reading of Bill 67, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, this bill defines hospital pharmacists and establishes a bargaining unit of hospital pharmacists as an appropriate unit for collective bargaining.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cassidy moved first reading of Bill 68, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill, which is designed to preserve the collective bargaining rights of employees of a business that has relocated. It also gives those employees the right to transfer to the new location rather than being left both without job security and without bargaining rights as is the case under the present legislation.

[5:00]

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved first reading of Bill 69, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prevent the hiring of strikebreakers and to control access to a work premises that is affected by a strike or a lockout. The bill prohibits an employer from hiring or using the services of a person to do the work of an employee who is on strike or locked out. When a legal picket line is established, access to the work premises is limited to persons specifically authorized by the bill. The bill further defines the role of the police during a lawful strike or lockout. It is the duty of the police officer, stationed at a place of work where a picket line is assembled, to ensure that no unauthorized person enters that place of work. Any unauthorized person entering that place of work or doing the work of an employee on strike or lockout is liable to proceedings under the Petty Trespass Act.

RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to remind members of the House that the standing committee on resources development will meet this evening at 8 to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and other committee meetings as set out in the orders on page six.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Also, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 16, 17, 19 and 22 standing on the notice paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Mr. Chairman: The committee will now consider the estimates of the Solicitor General and as this is the first meeting of the committee of supply in this session I would just like to remind the members, and particularly the new members, that it has been the way of operation in the past to have the minister lead off, to have the critic of each opposition party make an opening statement and then the minister would reply. So at this time I call on the Solicitor General for any opening remarks.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first ask leave of the committee, if I may proceed to the front benches here -- a place I am not used to sitting -- so that I may have the closer advice of some of my staff. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In commencing my estimates I would, of course, like to take a minute to pay tribute to the retiring Speaker of the House, the member for Northumberland (Mr. Rowe), for the very patient way he has handled this difficult House, for his kindly manner and, of course, he is always the gentleman. I sometimes think if the members of the House had been as gentlemanly as the Speaker was, we might have made his lot a lot easier. I understand that he will be back tomorrow and we will welcome him at that time; but since this was my first opportunity to pay that tribute, I wanted to do so.

As for the newly-appointed Speaker today -- the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) -- we all know him as a no-nonsense man, a man who is always firm yet always fair. I am sure he is going to bring to this House some of the decorum that it has lost in the last few sessions. I hope when he lays down a rule that there will be a ban on coffee drinking and such nefarious practices as that, I hope he will also lay down a ban on the abuse of ministers and the Solicitor General in particular. We’ll wait to see what comes up.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you on your retention of office. I do not know whether that is the proper thing to do on this occasion or not but knowing what a good job you have done I am pleased you have seen fit to remain in office. And, of course, I compliment the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) on his appointment as your deputy.

As you have said, these are the first of the estimates of the Justice policy field to be presented at this renewed session. I know there will be the other four ministers to follow -- that is, the Attorney General, Consumer and Commercial Relations, Correctional Services and, finally, the policy field.

I’d like to take just a moment to say, dealing with the estimates of the Solicitor General, I am looking forward to the co-operation of the critic from the Liberal Party, the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) and of the NDP, the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella). I hope I will be able to exchange certain information with them, not just in regard to estimates but, more particularly, in some of the legislation I hope to bring forward in this short term. We will need their co-operation to get it passed through the House. I hope to have an opportunity to discuss it with both those critics in order that it might be expedited, or at least to find those positions in which we are on common ground and, on that basis, certain legislation might be brought forward which we might not be able to do if it was contentious and had a long passage scheduled for it.

I would like to present to you a review of the various programs and activities contained in the estimates for the Ministry of the Solicitor General during 1977. Last year the ministry continued to take initiative in the related areas of law enforcement and public protection, which are always high priority with the government of Ontario. This is demonstrated through numerous programs --

Mr. Nixon: You sound like Phil Givens.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: He is now one of the chief administrators of justice in the Metropolitan Toronto area and I know that the former member of this House, Mr. Givens, will serve well and already he is making his mark.

Mr. Nixon: Got any more of those vacancies?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We might look around for a few, if you are interested. We are always looking for good people and, wherever we find them and whenever we find them, we are glad to put them in positions of trust.

Mr. Lawlor: You’re doing a little soft-soaping now.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: What I wanted to say, before I was interrupted so politely, was that the high priority which Justice has is demonstrated through numerous programs, many of which are concerned with the strong and consistent support of policing in this province of Ontario.

The program of fiscal restraint continues in all sectors of the economy and has required tighter control over budgets. Nevertheless, the cost of policing continues to increase. To maintain an effective level of policing, economies have been made wherever possible without adversely affecting public service. That is not always easy to do. We must try to constrain our expenditures and yet, as I say, policing is one of our prime responsibilities. We certainly don’t want to see any reduction in the standard of policing across this province.

The economic constraints being exercised at both the provincial and municipal levels require a co-operative effort to provide Ontario with the policing services it requires. At the same time, provision must also be made for special assignments. The security arrangements made for the 1976 Olympics are an example of a large-scale operation which required a good deal of planning and execution involving a large number of man-hours and the use of equipment.

The introduction of two-man police cars on some shifts has also required a reallocation of resources and some programs have been affected. I note the change there is “some shifts.” We certainly don’t have universal two-man police cars in this province. But the police are attempting to put it in where they feel wisdom dictates they should do so.

During 1976 the Ministry of the Solicitor General took the initiative in a number of areas where changes could be introduced so that the policing resources can be applied with a greater return on the investment. For example, the increase in volume of minor traffic offences and parking violations sometimes calls for an overly large amount of police activity related to the comparatively minor nature of the offences. This is especially so when compared with other important areas such as criminal intelligence, crime prevention and enforcement of more serious and more complicated types of offences.

In co-operation with the ministries of the Attorney General, Consumer and Commercial Relations, and Transportation and Communications, our ministry has been working on systems and techniques to provide the basis for effective enforcement of minor traffic offences. They will permit the police officers and equipment to be used on other tasks. This will help improve the level of service of policing in many areas.

It is also hoped that changes can be introduced which will help reduce the amount of time spent by police officers attending courts as witnesses. I hope we will get into that a little more deeply when we get further on into our estimates. But we certainly are doing all we can, or at least we have a plan to do all we can, to reduce the amount of police time that is required on these minor offences and in appearing in courts often when the defendants don’t appear.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General assists the police forces by implementing a variety of safety programs. Through the Ontario Provincial Police, which is the third largest deployed force in North America and acknowledged as one of the best, policing is provided in all areas of the province. Increased emphasis has recently been placed on improved training, communications systems, Indian reserve policing, northern fly-in patrols and crime prevention activities.

Additional facilities and an expanded curriculum at the Ontario Police College have meant even better instruction for junior ranks and senior officers. The Ontario Police Commission works in co-operation with forces in a variety of ways to maintain high-quality uniform law enforcement. The use of a wide range of computerized, investigative and enforcement techniques is of great and growing value in fighting crime.

As part of our responsibility, my ministry has been continually alert to the problem of organized crime in Ontario and has directed effective efforts to contain this type of activity. An excellent example is the joint forces operation, where two or more police forces aid each other in a concerted effort to deal with a particular organized crime problem that has been identified.

The success of the RCMP, the OPP and local police forces through joint force operations, with continuing assistance from the Ontario Police Commission, demonstrates the ability of various police units to co-operate. The JFOs have been operative since 1966, with an intensified effort since 1973.

Organized crime encompasses so many different types of criminal activity involving widely varying numbers of people that our methods to contain it must be kept at maximum efficiency. To be effective, our intelligence methods must be carried out quietly.

Last spring, a meeting was held by senior officials from my ministry, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the OPP, the RCMP and the Metropolitan Toronto Police. Their unanimous opinion was that a public inquiry into organized crime would not be in the public interest. Such an inquiry would certainly impair the effectiveness of police investigations which rely on undercover and surveillance activities that cannot be made public.

As these knowledgeable people pointed out, they have not had great difficulty in identifying major crime figures; the problem is in gathering appropriate evidence to arrest and convict such individuals. I am, therefore, not prepared to recommend that a public inquiry into organized crime in Ontario be held at this time.

[5:15]

That is not to say that at some time there may not be some service to the province that can be given by having such an inquiry. But it is the kind of inquiry that I think we want to keep away from and use as a last resort. Nobody is charged with a crime at that point, yet you bring them into a tribunal of sorts and ask them all kinds of questions. We talked about the protection of individual rights. It seems to me that almost Star Chamber type of inquiry is something that we may have to use, but certainly don’t want to use, unless, as I say, it’s a last resort.

Therefore, I am not prepared to recommend that a public inquiry into organized crime in Ontario be held at this time. We will continue, however, to make the public aware of the dangers of organized crime but not through the medium of public inquiry.

What is urgently required are the people and the advanced systems to tackle the growing sophistication of modern criminals, especially those in organized crime. My ministry has increased its investigation activities, the most effective way to contain the problem. Existing joint operations have been expanded involving the major police forces in the province. In addition, the special services division of the OPP has developed substantially increased criminal intelligence and investigative operations in which other major forces participate.

Other ongoing activities include developing uniform standards of recruitment and performance, assisting forces in budgeting and control analysis, assisting record systems efficiency, handling appeals in discipline matters, maintaining a suspended driver control system with direct financial assistance from the province.

We also continue to provide financing help to municipalities to maintain their level of policing. Per capita grants to municipal police forces were increased 25 per cent from $8 to $10 as of April 1. Per capita grants for policing to regional forces have also been increased 25 per cent from $12 to $15.

We instituted a management development program for senior officers of the Ontario Provincial Police which was continued for six months on a rotating basis. The course will serve as a possible model for applications on a province-wide basis. The short-term management development program is designed to identify and train potential future managers to meet the expected rate of retirement from the force’s management ranks.

The program consists of a series of 22 courses on a wide range of managerial skills. The design of a long-term management development program for all ranks up to staff superintendent began in 1975, as an extension of the short-term training program. Because of the need to include management education into a structured promotional system, a new process had to be developed to measure individual performance, training and promotion. To achieve this, a revised promotional process was designed and implemented in 1976. Some improved supervisory courses have been prepared by the Ontario Police Commission.

The Indian policing service of the Ontario Provincial Police continued to expand and be improved. This program combines the use of regular OPP personnel and Indian band constables to carry out necessary law enforcement duties on the reserves. The OPP administers the program, acts in a supervisory role and provides the required vehicles and related equipment. The band constable program employs people from various Indian reserves in the province who are appointed special constables. They carry out all law enforcement duties on their reserves. We have 71 special Indian constables in the program. They are located on reserves from Walpole Island in the west to St. Regis in the east and as far north as settlements along the shores of Hudson Bay.

In addition to this program, regular force personnel carry out law enforcement duties on Indian reserves and settlements where there are yet no band constables.

We maintain regular detachments on the Grassy Narrows reserve and sub-detachments on the Shoal Lake and Islington reserves. For these programs we employ two aircraft to patrol the northeast and northwest of the province. A crew uses an Otter aircraft stationed at South Porcupine to patrol the northeast section. It flies up the coast of James Bay and Hudson Bay and visits the communities there. The northwest fly-in patrol uses a Beaver aircraft out of Sioux Lookout. It visits 22 isolated Indian communities in the far north.

Members of the force visit the reserves as community police. We believe that to be effective, OPP personnel must be accepted as integral members of the northern communities. So, rather than fly in to answer complaints only, they patrol on a regular schedule. Our Indian policing programs have met with great success and we are constantly modifying them to improve the services.

During 1976 the OPP was very busy with security arrangements for the summer Olympics at Kingston. This involved a great deal of our manpower and equipment. They were also very much involved in planning for the royal visit made during the games. The fact that there were no untoward incidents during these events speaks highly for the efficiency of not only OPP but also that of the Canadian Joint Security Forces.

The OPP responded to the increasing use of citizen band radios. A pilot project was conducted to study the potential of CB radio as a further medium of public access to police. Signs are now posted along Highway 401 between London and Milton, advising that the OPP is monitoring the emergency channel 9. Over this channel OPP personnel respond to reports by citizens of accidents, congested traffic and other emergencies. Our study of the use of CB radio to assist the public will continue and the plan is to expand it to provide province-wide coverage.

Turning to the coroner’s office, the chief coroner’s office of forensic pathology and our highly regarded Centre of Forensic Sciences provide vital scientific and medical-legal investigation services. The coroner’s office has increased its regional program by appointing three new regional coroners, located at Belleville, Bracebridge and Parry Sound. This brings the program of regional coroners to six appointments. These new regional coroners are functioning very well and taking over a number of investigations and, of course, they are the ones who handle most of the difficult inquiries.

I have a particularly keen personal interest in the relatively new Act administered by the coroner’s office, the Human Tissue Gift Act. Dr. Cotnam tells me that transplant and research surgeons throughout the province strongly support the aims of the Human Tissue Gift Act. During the first three months of this year, the number of pituitary glands collected for growth hormone increased in Ontario to 1,619, an increase of about one third over last year. A similar increase has been achieved with eye donations. However, there is still at present a deficit in the number of eyes, kidneys and pituitary glands being donated. We hope to turn this situation fully around within the next few years through our collective efforts.

Mr. Chairman: There are a number of private conversations going on and I think it’s difficult to hear. Would hon. members keep it to a minimum, please?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I know this is a little tedious in parts, but the part I’m dealing with now should have the interest of all of the members. I know there has been some publicity on it lately and some letters written about it; it’s a program with little public support, and that’s what is needed so that we can serve all of our constituents and particularly those in need of medical assistance.

A number of exciting and useful projects have been initiated recently with regard to the Act. The ministry has arranged with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to add the name and address of Ontario’s chief coroner to the consent form on the back of each new Ontario driver’s licence mailed out. This will enable everyone who wishes further information about the Human Tissue Gift Act to write directly to Dr. Cotnam.

A memo to all chiefs of police throughout Ontario was sent recently by the chief coroner, requesting police chiefs to ask their officers to search for the consent form of any victim of sudden and unexpected death in their jurisdictions. Naturally, coroners and pathologists are also reminded to do the same.

By 1978, 4.5 million consent forms will have been mailed out to Ontario’s licensed drivers. After that, about 1.5 million new licences a year will be mailed to Ontario drivers. These people constitute a huge pool of potential organ donors. Steps are also being taken to make general consent forms more widely available and to reach those people who do not hold driver’s licences.

To help increase the number of donors, the coroner’s office is now in the process of producing a new brochure to explain to the public the goals and benefits of the Human Tissue Gift Act. The brochure will be in English, French and Italian and will answer the common questions about the Act. It will hopefully help to dispel some of the common fears or misconceptions the public may have. We are also considering using radio and television messages in an intensive yet low-cost information campaign aimed at increasing public co-operation with the organ retrieval program. I say we depend for the success of this program on an informed and sympathetic public. They are the key factor.

As there are many communities in northern Ontario where immediate fire protection is impractical and as there is a need to find a means of reducing the number of fire fatalities, the office of the fire marshal is conducting an educational program throughout the north. In conjunction with this program, the fire marshal is encouraging the installation of smoke detection devices which, if properly maintained, are effective in giving early warning to residents sufficient to enable them to escape from danger. That program is administered by the Ministry of Northern Affairs, but we are doing our best to advertise it and put it forward.

The detection devices provided under this program are not meant as a protection of property but for the saving of lives. The devices purchased under this plan are listed as products of combustion detectors by Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada. Once purchased, installation and maintenance of detectors are up to individual homeowners. By making funds available for such devices it is hoped that the government can help save lives of northern residents living in isolated homes distant from a fire department. But when talking about saving lives of northern residents, when I am speaking around the province I am also saying that these are ideal units for any home, whether they’re in the northern part of the province or in the city of Hamilton or downtown Ottawa or any other place.

In 1976, a regional fire prevention school was conducted at Thunder Bay and other types of training were provided to 637 firefighters in 66 training sessions. In that year, a great deal of effort was directed towards establishing pilot fire department projects and other services to unorganized communities. The normal training programs are continuing in 1977. In addition, regional fire-fighting schools took place at Sioux Lookout and Marathon. Regional fire prevention schools have also been held at the request of municipal councils. Fire services advisers conducted 23 municipal fire protection surveys in 1976. Twenty-six surveys have already been completed this year. These surveys evaluate present fire protection services and, where improvements are desirable, specific recommendations are made to council.

The ministry is involved with a number of public awareness programs. These are designed to help the general public gain a better understanding of crime and to motivate the public to help in crime prevention. The ministry office provides a media program to support the continuing efforts of the Ontario Provincial Police in this regard. The OPP is very effectively involved in police-community relations and crime prevention as part of its regular law enforcement programs. Six television public service announcements advising citizens of practical methods of crime prevention were produced by the ministry office and distributed to 35 television stations throughout the province. Fire prevention methods are demonstrated in eight fire-prevention public service announcements produced in both English and French and distributed to all television stations in Ontario.

We produced a half-hour motion picture designed to help reduce crime among young people between 16 and 20 years of age. This new film portrays the consequences of actions by youth, the future significance of a criminal record and the social disadvantages of such a life.

A print of this youth crime prevention film is held at every OPP detachment for local showings. As well, the ministry distributes the film for public showings which has stimulated widespread interest among police forces and social agencies.

To date, we have received requests for screening of it by more than 70 organizations in Canada and the United States. Prints of the movie have been purchased for their own use by about 25 outside agencies across the continent, including the federal government, the RCMP and various governmental and civic groups.

[5:30]

Twenty radio messages on the subject of practical fire prevention and water safety were produced and distributed to 36 English and French radio stations throughout Ontario. As a matter of interest, it is the policy of my ministry to issue news releases, broadcast announcements and publications in both French and English. By doing this, we hope to ensure that both official language groups in the province are adequately informed about matters related to law enforcement and public safety.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my review of some of the highlights of the Solicitor General’s estimates. I look forward, sir, to the discussions of these items in more detail as they are brought forward and, once more, congratulations on your continuing position in the office of chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Stong: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Initially, I would join with my colleague, the minister, in congratulating you on your continued success as Chairman and also take this opportunity to add my support and congratulations to the new Speaker-elect of the House.

I would also like to take this opportunity, since I am the new critic for the Solicitor General, in preparing myself in this area of criticism, I would like to thank him for supplying me with the material that he is relying on in these statistics in order to prepare myself.

I think there are two ideas that I would like to weave into our review of the Solicitor General’s office and his ministry at this time, and the first would be in keeping with a statement in his opening address that his ministry is requiring tighter controls over budgets. Perhaps we can demonstrate throughout this exercise that the Ministry of the Solicitor General can be combined with the Ministry of Correctional Services, thereby eliminating some of the bureaucracy that must he overburdening the government and the taxpayer.

Mr. Nixon: And one of the ministers. Which one?

Mr. Stong: I might also say that in my review of the material supplied to me, I question the need -- perhaps it’s redundant -- for the justice policy secretariat. I question whether it has any purpose at all, in view of the already existing Ministries of the Solicitor General and Attorney General. Keeping in mind those two themes that I would like interwoven into this criticism and into the review of the Solicitor General’s estimates, I would like to keep in mind the following points:

It seems to me the first consideration that we must have when we are considering the estimates of the Solicitor General is attitudes of the public towards crime and crime increase. Certain types of crime in particular are perceived as increasing, although last week we received statistics indicating that crime had decreased. I question, in fact, how those statistics are arrived at.

I question this ministry, and I will direct more specific questions on the individual votes in this area, whether, in fact, these statistics are based on the number of charges laid -- we know that out of any given situation the police can lay duplicate charges or triplicate charges arising out of the same situation, perhaps with the intention of enticing a guilty plea to a lesser included offence -- or are these statistics derived from the number of reported occurrences that police receive? Are they derived from the number of cases heard, or are they derived from the number of trials completed or convictions obtained?

These are statistics that are almost meaningless unless we have some basis upon which we can direct our attention and from which we can gather some kind of approach. We know that vandalism, for instance, is increasing. This is one of the most common frustrating and puzzling criminal activities, and little is known about it. Why does it happen, and more importantly, how do we stop it?

In Metro Toronto in the first six months of this year one third of one borough’s budget to maintain bus shelters was used to pay for damage caused by vandalism. Twenty-five per cent of another borough’s roadside planted trees were broken or stripped, and continue to be so each year. Portable classrooms are burned; fire hydrants are turned on; bicycle tires or chains are thrown at Hydro transformer stations; and countless windows are broken in our schools and municipal buildings.

In Metro, wilful damage to municipal property which must be repaired or replaced by school boards and municipal councils -- everything from picnic tables to parking meters -- cost the taxpayers more than $2 million a year. Sault Ste. Marie, for example, has a 33-member task force to investigate the problem of vandalism. I might say at this point that even in York Centre, at the southern part closest to the boundary of Metro, vandalism is on the increase and is rampant. These statistics that I quote to you incorporate that type of vandalism in that area as well. But Sault Ste. Marie has established a subcommittee on damage to study the educational establishments and they report that replacement and repair costs about $13,000 a year out of a $1.5 million plant. In one three-month period, 111 acts of mindless destruction cost more than $19,000 in Payne township. Police in the area maintain that statistics show only the tip of the iceberg, because much vandalism is never reported. Also, less than 10 per cent of those responsible will ever be arrested. One recent spree of vandalism in Sarnia, for instance, cost that city an estimated $20,000 damage.

Schools are the usual focus of attention -- breaking windows. For example, at Brennan High School in southwestern Ontario, nearly $3,000 in glass was destroyed in the spring of this year. And the Windsor public school system put a price tag of about $40,000 on the replacement of windows. In 1975, for example, $160,000 was spent by both city school boards to repair damages caused by vandalism in that area.

So there is a line that sharply divides childish pranks and criminal activity. Unfortunately, it is not a line that is always visible to many people, who get their kicks perhaps from destroying property or find amusement in ransacking a school or damaging public property.

A second concern that I would like to direct the committee’s attention to throughout these deliberations is a matter of concern to the justice system, which involves the police, the courts and the subsequent correctional institutions. All these have been under great pressure to keep up with the rising cost of crime and the rising rate of crime. We all know that our system is showing signs of strain. In the Ottawa area the court lists are long. In Toronto the court lists are long. Our penal institutions are overflowing, trying to keep up with what’s happening. The police, we know, are continually complaining about the increasing difficulty in their jobs. The courts have indicated they are overloaded.

In addition to the control of crime, the reduction and the prevention of crime are avowed aims of the criminal justice system. It is questionable, however, that the system has many of the characteristics that lead logically to the achievement of these aims. We do not really know how effective the formal process is in deterring the public from committing crime; but it is clear that the stigma of arrest, the legalistic public procedure, isolation from the community and public labelling all diminish the chances for normal social integration. Moreover, the high recidivism indicates that the formal system fails to control subsequent criminal activities, particularly of the identified offender. At worst, it is a primary factor conditioning subsequent criminal behaviour. These two problems, as I have outlined, indicate the shortcomings of the criminal justice system and the social phenomenon of crime. The criminal justice system, as I’ve indicated, is rigid, slow, expensive and inefficient. There can be no question, in my respectful opinion, that we must examine the system with a view to improving it. But in light of its failures we must also determine its limits.

When we step back to look at the criminal justice system, we find that it is essentially punitive in nature, yet paradoxically it is also supposed to turn the offender on to the paths of righteousness in order that he may lead a decent life when he returns to the community. But we must ask ourselves whether it is reasonable to expect this system to take care of all of our crime problems. It is my respectful opinion that we must consider our attitude towards crime and educate the public towards an attitude to crime, and that we must consider co-operation between the Ministries of Education and Justice in this regard.

As modern society, in my opinion, has become increasingly functionally divided, people have tended to leave to others the task which they do not consider integral to their work or family lives. Traditionally, crime has not been perceived by the public as an immediate problem, except in the occasional outcry concerning organized crime. The public has not taken an active interest in crime and legislators have typically reviewed it as a low-priority concern with a correspondingly low budget.

A great many factors have been postulated as causes of crime. At first, it was thought that crime must have particular causes in the same way as some diseases have. But this view was gradually eroded by the challenges of modern social science. It is now generally held that the causes of crime are many and interrelated and are wrapped up in the general turmoil of social action. To eradicate these causes, it is necessary to have broad-based action. It is time for us to face the fact that crime is a social problem, like health or education, and as such must be a community concern. In this respect, I point to the fact that there must be co-operation between the Ministries of Education and Justice.

The public is generally ill-informed about the nature of crime and believes many myths which impede the development of alternative ways to deal with it. To rectify this situation, in my respectful submission, we must not only inform the public about crime and its prevention and methods of preventing it, but we must involve the public in crime detection and in crime prevention. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon this ministry which controls police forces to involve the police officer in more community projects that have him more highly visible in the communities which he serves, for instance, walking the beat, taking the long way home, and stopping in playgrounds and school yards during the holiday sessions from school. Have him attend the school dances in his uniform for a short, brief period. Give him directives to attend the local hangouts in the communities.

For instance, I remember this summer -- my children are pretty small -- one afternoon when I was returning home from the office, a police officer from York regional police had his motor vehicle stopped and his door open and he was out of his vehicle. He had five young children sitting on the curb -- three of them were mine. He was talking to those children as if he was someone involved in the community. My children still have not stopped talking about Constable Anderson who stopped to talk to them on the curb. He had the time to stop his vehicle and get out of it and speak to those children.

It seems to me that a police officer must be seen in the community. We all know that there’s a growing attitude among our youth which indicates itself and holds itself out as fighting authority, particularly the authority which the police officer and the police officer’s uniform represent. We know the names which are commonly called and directed towards police officers are less than complimentary. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon this ministry to overcome that public attitude by greater public participation.

[5:45]

While I talk about public participation, let me direct your attention to an experimental program that was tried in England, and I believe it was tried in some areas in Ontario. In the event of a crime being committed, there was an experimental program produced whereby Scotland Yard would get on the airwaves indicating these were the unsolved crimes, indicating certain aspects of the crime, also asking for public support, also asking for public participation, asking for witnesses, giving some of the elements of the crime and asking the public to be involved in the apprehension.

This serves a dual purpose, in my respectful opinion. First off, it will help the police. There will be many leads, we know, that will have to be run down that would involve police time, probably uselessly, but it has another factor and that is, when anyone is contemplating a crime, particularly a young person, prior to the commission of the crime the possibility of apprehension must go through his head. It’s similar to the helpmate program that was in effect in Toronto here for some time but which you never hear of any more.

All you have to do is to go to any courtroom on Monday morning in any borough in this city and look at the list, and look across those who are attending in court and you will realize that most of those in attendance charged with crimes are under 20 years of age. That is the person we’re concerned about. When that person contemplates committing a crime -- whether it be a burglary, breaking into a house or a shop -- if he is aware that, by virtue of public participation, his chances of being apprehended are that much greatly increased or enhanced, he will probably think twice about it. This is the type of public participation to which I refer.

Likewise, it seems to me that we must concern ourselves with informing those in charge of one of the bases of crime, and that is the study that was done in the United States two years ago dealing with children with learning disabilities. That study, done in three states, of those incarcerated in penal institutions came out with very shocking results. In those three states, it was found that over 90 per cent of those incarcerated suffered from one or more specific learning disabilities.

To wipe out the commonly-held myth that a learning disability is equivalent to or is a situation of mental retardation: that is not right. That is a myth that is commonly held. A learning disability is a real disability, but it is a result of a correlation between the mental processes and the physical or motor activity in the human body. It can be corrected through proper instruction and through proper and specific facilities. In view of the fact that a child with a learning disability is passed on through his grades on a social basis, he becomes frustrated.

I might say that a person in my riding by the name of Rosemary Underwood has done quite a bit of study in this area and has supplied me with much information. She is a person who is very closely attached to this problem and can be of great assistance. It is her finding, as a result of a paper that she prepared, that the same statistics apply to Ontario and there is no reason why they’re any different. Three children in each class in Ontario suffer from a specific learning disability, some of them to greater degrees than others, and we are not doing sufficient to assist these children. These children are passed on, as I indicated, on a social basis. They get into grades seven and eight; they cannot read, they cannot write, they cannot comprehend. They cannot give out what they have learned’, although in most cases they are of average or above-average intelligence. They become frustrated. The statistics show that they begin to act out. They cannot keep up with their peers -- they are unable -- but they are just as intelligent as their peers and they become frustrated in their environment.

When you get a statistic of 90 per cent of those incarcerated in penal institutions suffering from a learning disability, I think it is incumbent upon this government, and more specifically this ministry, to look into that situation in Ontario and study its course. These children may be assisted. Crime may be prevented at an earlier stage. To me, that is one area that this government must concern itself with.

As well, there are other areas I would like to direct the minister’s attention to. One is public relations on the part of the police. Throughout Ontario in each community, no matter how big or how small, we should have incorporated the idea of “the community cop” -- the police officer who is involved with youth; the police officer who is seen on the beat; the police officer who attends functions that are youth-oriented. Since the increasing rejection of authority exists in youth, it seems that we must direct our attention and the attention of the police officer, whose uniform represents that authority, towards that area of our society.

It seems to me that we must also broaden the scope of police training by increasing the requirements of our police officers. We must incorporate into our police forces, accountants, perhaps lawyers -- specific professions. All you have to do, as I indicated before, is attend any courthouse on a Monday morning and look at the youths who are charged. But what about white-collar crime, the fraud -- the type of crime that is going undetected?

Unsophisticated crime is easy to detect. Breaking and entering, theft and shoplifting by unsophisticated youths are being detected; that is adding to our crime statistics. But it seems to me that we have to concentrate on upgrading the requirements for entering the police force. We must upgrade the type of person who is in there -- I am referring to the professional type of individual -- and the public should be made aware that these people are employed in our police forces. Perhaps they already are employed but the public is not aware of it. There should be greater communication of this type of situation to the people of Ontario.

It seems to me that when we are training our police officers the training must go beyond any strong-arm tactics that may be in existence or at least which the public ordinarily regards the police as using in their crime apprehension and subsequent investigation. We need more sophisticated methods, and these methods must be communicated to the people and particularly to the youth. Perhaps it may be incumbent upon this particular ministry to get into our schools with the type of program that would educate our students with respect to how they jeopardize their future in the event of a conviction, how they limit their chances of progressing in the business world and in society, how they limit their ability to travel throughout the world and obtain working visas and how they limit themselves and jeopardize their entire lives. It seems to me it is incumbent upon this ministry, again in co-operation with the Ministry of Education, to embark upon that type of a program.

I recall -- and I find them not unfounded -- some of the complaints I have received about certain particular individuals in our police forces. There is always a bad apple in a barrel, and it is that bad apple that colours the rest of the force; we know that. I view with a jaundiced eye many of the reports I receive, but I must relate what I saw as I left the Canadian National Exhibition this year with my family. I was walking out of the Princes’ Gates -- it was relatively early in the afternoon -- and three police officers in uniform had a car pulled over with the trunk lid up. Naturally it attracted attention because there were three police officers and a person who was obviously the driver of that vehicle standing outside, with his back against the vehicle and with the trunk lid up. I stood on the opposite corner watching out of curiosity to see what was happening because here are three police officers in wide vision, standing at the Canadian National Exhibition Princes’ Gates, probably the busiest spot in the city of Toronto at that time and that day.

One police officer, who was a relatively tall police officer with a white helmet on, was obviously conducting the interview. He kept getting closer to the individual, leaning against the car, and his big boots were on the toes of the individual that he was interviewing. The man kept drawing back his feet -- he couldn’t draw them back any further -- and the police officer kept getting closer. I pointed it out to my wife. I said, “There is something that you would think would not happen in full public view.” I personally witnessed that.

That is the type of thing that in my mind is strong-arm measure and certainly is not a sophisticated way at all of conducting an interview. If the officer wanted to conduct the interview with this individual, he should have taken him into the police station, I would have suspected. But when strong-arm methods like that take place at the Princes’ Gates of the Canadian National Exhibition it seems to me that the bad apple discolours the barrel. I am not in any way painting police officers, because to me there is no way I would want their job. I don’t envy it, and most of the public does not. Most of the public rely on the police officer for its protection. But I think that in the training of police officers, it is incumbent that we expand the type of training that the individual man receives.

As well, the minister did make a reference in his opening statement to organized crime. I have more particular questions when we get to the votes in that regard. I also alluded to the overcharging of specific charges which may colour statistics. But the overcharging also, in my respectful submission, clogs the courts. It is something which maybe we should reconsider and perhaps as we get to specific items we can delve into that more deeply.

It seems to me that in my preparation for these estimates, and from the police officers I have spoken to, particularly in the York region, it would seem -- and it filters down from the top perhaps -- that the morale leaves something to be desired. Perhaps it is because it is a young force. Perhaps it is because it is going through growing pains. I am not sure. From the police officers I speak to -- and it doesn’t seem to matter what rank they hold or the limited years of experience they have -- the morale could be heightened. It is incumbent upon this ministry to delve into those matters and, it seems to me, to be more aware of the individual police officer’s complaints.

The individual police officer is the man or the woman who is dealing with the public. He or she represents the law, whether it be at a speeding trap or an investigation of a complaint. Insofar as that person represents the law, that person must be satisfied in his or her job. If he or she isn’t, then it is time that this ministry began to listen more closely to the complaints of the police officers with respect to their working conditions and with respect to the attitudes that prevail above them in the hierarchy of the police force.

Mr. Chairman, I notice that it is 6 o’clock and I have a few more remarks that perhaps could go until after supper.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.