The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the House leader (Mr. Welch), could I first of all ask whether it is anticipated the Premier will be in the House later this afternoon? Does anybody know? The House leader?

Mr. Nixon: Here comes the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck), if that’s any good.

Mr. S. Smith: Well, I will ask a question of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough). Or rather, the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld).

Mr. Conway: That’s where real power resides.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. S. Smith: I am just stalling as best I can hoping some cabinet ministers will arrive, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peterson: Could you phone the Albany Club, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. S. Smith: Perhaps we should hold question period at the Albany Club. That’s a good idea.

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Mr. S. Smith: Can the Chairman of Management Board tell this House whether in deliberations with the rest of cabinet there has already been a decision -- and if not, would he assure us that there will be a decision -- that the standing committee on resources development, which will be looking into the Inco matter, will be mandated not only to hear from Inco officials, but will also seek out the opinions of labour, municipal leaders, metal and mining experts, as well as those who are expert in foreign trade, and that it will look into the Port Colborne layoffs as well?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m afraid that I can’t answer all those questions for the hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, because I haven’t taken part in any such discussions.

Mr. Peterson: But you’re still in the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I expect that other members of the cabinet will be along shortly. I am afraid I really don’t know where they are at the moment.

An hon. member: Why don’t we adjourn until they return?

Mr. Lewis: Is a supplementary permitted?

Mr. Speaker: You can try.

Mr. Lewis: I’m afraid to do anything without your absolute permission.

Mr. Speaker: Please try. Please try it.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll have a supplementary question if you possibly can to an answer like that. Can the minister assure us that in his discussions with cabinet and with the Premier on this matter, he will make the suggestion that this committee begin its work immediately, and that it be asked to make its report before the House rises for the winter break?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to pass along that request to the Premier at the first opportunity.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary, since the minister is now gradually engaged on this subject. Could we also ask that he requests the right of the standing resources development committee to travel to Sudbury as well and hear the submissions of the community there on the spot?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’ll pass that along.

Mr. Lewis: Good. That was easy.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the official opposition. I know it’s difficult.

Mr. Lewis: It’s the only disadvantage of being first.

BRUCE NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker.

Since the minister indicated last week to the House that he is well aware of and well informed on my discussions with the chairman of Hydro, is he now prepared to approve of Hydro’s supplying the information that I requested at that meeting?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at that question, because Hydro doesn’t require my approval. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will get the same co-operation from the chairman of the Hydro as he has in the past.

Mr. Peterson: That’s the whole problem.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I am surprised the member doesn’t have those particulars.

Mr. S. Smith: For the information of the minister, I asked for progress reports, cost estimates, productivity reports, in short, everything that would explain the massive cost overruns on this project. Can he assure me that he will intervene to make certain that Hydro feels there is no impediment and that Hydro, in fact, gets on with giving me that material that we require to explain the massive cost overruns and how things could have got so out of hand at Bruce?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I am sure again that if the Leader of the Opposition would ask the chairman of the Hydro board to expedite that response, he will do everything possible to get that.

Mr. S. Smith: We have already done that.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: May I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he has not once contacted me, as Minister of Energy, in connection with this whole issue?

Mr. Nixon: You said you didn’t know a thing about it.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Not once has he contacted me, not once.

Mr. Lewis: May I acknowledge the good judgement of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you. I was just going to thank him for the compliment.

By way of supplementary, can the minister explain, in view of the fact that Hydro still maintains that cost targets for Bruce “B” will be met, and as a consequence has dropped its ultimatum on Bruce “B”, how there are continuing low-productivity reports and field cost reports which indicate an additional $8 million increase in the two months following the ultimatum in April? Can he explain how those cost reports exist and yet at the same time Hydro continues to say that the target has been met and that there are no such overruns? How does he explain that obvious contradiction?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I don’t concur in the allegation.

Mr. Makarchuk: Want to try a supplementary?

Mr. S. Smith: Why doesn’t the minister seriously consider resigning --

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: He is talking about a $400 million overrun and he stands in this House day after day and says --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. S. Smith: -- he doesn’t know what we’re talking about, he doesn’t know what the figures are, he doesn’t give us the information and he doesn’t concur in the allegation. That’s not much of a joke.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Will the Leader of the Opposition repeat that question, please?

Mr. Speaker: There is no question there.

Mr. Kerrio: There is no answer either.

Mr. Lewis: There was a question. He was asked would the minister resign. Or he could go back to ComSoc, which would save that ministry.

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour, if I may: Is she aware that the regional planners in Sudbury, meeting yesterday, looking at all of the available economic and employment data, have come to the conclusion that 6,000 jobs will be lost in total as a result of the proposed Inco layoff on January 31, 1978, over the immediate future after that? Can she indicate what steps her ministry is taking on the question of job relocation and job alternatives in the Sudbury basin?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the Ministry of Labour are meeting at this moment, as a matter of fact, with the representatives of the union and with officials of the federal Department of Employment and Immigration to work upon the proposals which were put by my ministry and by the union leaders of the Steelworkers local in Sudbury, in order to attempt to find some solutions to the large number which is being proposed laid off by Inco.

In addition to that, on Friday morning, my colleagues, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), the Deputy Minister of Industry and Tourism and I will be going to Ottawa to meet with federal ministers, representatives of the municipality and the planning group in Sudbury, representatives of the union and representatives of the company to work further on some of those features which are developed as a result of today’s discussions.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: Could I ask the minister if her ministry is supportive of those five points put forward by Local 6500 to resolve this situation?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, we felt that there was a great deal to recommend many of the features inherent in the points which the union had put forward. There are some other features which we have suggested as modifications which we thought would be useful as well, and those are being proposed in addition to the five points which the union has proposed.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: I wonder if we could ask the minister what those other proposals are that her ministry is making?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It would be difficult to outline them in detail right at the moment, because there are a number of facets which I think have to be worked out. First, I think we have to have some agreement on the part of the union specifically that it would be responsive to these kinds of initiatives, and I think perhaps it will be.

There are programs of training and retraining which we think might be useful. There is the proposal that, indeed, early retirement for some of the employed workers in the Sudbury area might solve some of the problems. There are two projects related to Inco at which we believe some of these individuals could be employed as well. There are some other features in addition to that.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Would the Minister of Labour join with the trade unions and the membership in the Sudbury basin in rejecting the federal proposal to have the employees at Inco and Falconbridge, and Inco in particular, work a reduced work week which would, in fact, just spread the poverty around?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Although I am aware of the unions’ apparent antagonism to this proposal at the moment I’m not sure that they are cognizant of all the features that might be included in such a program on the basis of the unproclaimed sections of Bill C-27, the federal Unemployment Insurance Act. We were hoping to be able to explore this further with them and with the company and with the federal government to see if we could develop it in a way which might be more acceptable to the unions than it is at the present time.

[2:15]

Mr. Martel: Does the minister agree that it should be the taxpayers of Canada, who subsidize Inco, rather than Inco, who should pay for the havoc it is creating in the Sudbury area?

Mr. Kerrio: They are doing the same for General Motors. You know it.

Mr. Lewis: It is negotiated in General Motors; it is not paid by government.

Mr. Kerrio: Exactly. And all we are doing is negotiating now under prior circumstances. As soon as you couldn’t nationalize, you went down the pipe.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not really quite sure of the implications of the hon. member’s question. Of course the taxpayers of Canada have some concern about this, and I am sure they will be expressing their concern to those of us who are attempting, in co-operation with the company and the union, to solve the problem.

Mr. Laughren: We’ll believe that when we see it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary on this.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the government taking any steps at all to protect the jobs or to help those people who will be affected by these layoffs, but who are not working for Inco, the 3,000 people who will be affected because of the economic decline in the Sudbury area?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is very difficult to protect those jobs which might be affected by layoffs.

Mr. Cassidy: Not “might” -- will.

Hon. B. Stephenson: What we are trying to do is, in some way and as effectively as possible, to ameliorate the immediate situation, which of course is going to have a beneficial effect on the spinoff which has been conjectured in the House.

Mr. Cassidy: The answer is no, in other words.

BURNING PCBS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of the Environment: Is there no way to end the ambulatory paranoia with which his ministry is affected in these constant decisions it is making which are secret and not shared with the public? Why wasn’t the public told about the permanent burning of those toxic wastes?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is a misdiagnosis.

Mr. Lewis: It’s not a misdiagnosis. It’s an accurate diagnosis.

Mr. S. Smith: They are recumbent. That is the misdiagnosis. They are not ambulatory.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There is nothing paranoiac about it whatsoever. All we are interested in is accurate, fair and balanced reporting. As for the article to which the hon. member apparently is referring, there is no question of secret burning. This is an experiment.

Mr. Lewis: A two-year experiment.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes. For every experiment of this kind we don’t necessarily notify the local council.

Mr. Makarchuk: Why do you deny the question then?

Mr. Lewis: You issued a certificate.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, a certificate was issued. If the hon. member would let me answer the question -- and I realize he is trying to remember some information he got just before he walked in here --

Mr. Lewis: You are paranoid.

Mr. Breaugh: And ambulatory too.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The fact is that at some time during an experimental stage it is necessary to issue a certificate. That is part of any ongoing experiment. During that period there is analysis of the process, and in this particular case there were at least three different experiments with a various number of certificates issued.

As far as the PCB burning experiment was concerned, for example, a certificate was issued in December 1975 for the period until about April 1977. During the period that the company had the certificate that experiment was going on. It involved the Ontario Research Foundation and Environment Canada as well as our ministry. But you have to burn this material in this kiln as part of the experiment, as I say, to make sure that the emissions are acceptable and that there is no evidence of toxic waste contaminating the neighbourhood.

All I am saying is that there is no intention of keeping anything from the public. We issue these certificates to have some control over the burning of this material during the course of the experiment. There was an analysis done in May 1977 by a federal agency regarding this experiment. It was after that, or about that time, that we stopped the shipments of that material to the Mississauga plant.

Mr. Lewis: When the story broke.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Now, with more monitoring equipment and some modifications to the plant itself, we are considering allowing that burning to continue because, so far as we are concerned, as a result of this experiment it is a safe and acceptable method of getting rid of contaminated waste.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, on that basis does the minister not think that when he is issuing a certificate that public hearings should take place? Does he not feel that there is secrecy involved when he has an employee of his ministry saying, as quoted in today’s Star: “How far do we have to go? Do we have an obligation to hold a public hearing every time we issue a certificate?” Is not the answer yes to that question?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The answer is not yes, because this particular experiment involved a utilization of waste oils and certain hydrocarbons for the production of cement. This is not waste disposal in the strict sense of the word. This is utilizing material that can be used to produce cement and at the same time is a safe way to get rid of this material.

The ministry issues probably 1,000 certificates in a year but in an experiment of this kind --

Mr. Lewis: This is a controversial thing.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- until we know what is involved and are able to hold a meeting and explain to the public what is going on and what we found out, then really we can’t see the good sense in having a hearing. As I say, it’s not required under our legislation.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: I wonder if I could ask the minister, in regard to the reporting on this particular case, whether someone from within his ministry -- I have a great deal of respect for the minister and I know it would not have come from him -- asked that a confidential report be obtained on the particular reporter who reported this story, checking into his newspaper stories and his background?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I believe that is correct. I believe there was some type of assessment done on the reporter by the information branch, of which the reporter is aware and received a copy.

Mr. Kennedy: Supplementary: Would the minister confirm whether or not the lead paragraph of this article in today’s Globe is in fact accurate where it states: “The cement kiln has been regularly burning highly toxic wastes for about two years without public knowledge but with the ministry’s approval?”

Mr. Lewis: That’s true.

Mr. Kennedy: It was certainly public knowledge last spring. I was also informed --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Kennedy: -- that burning had ceased in April. Is that accurate?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, the statement as written in the first paragraph is accurate. We did not notify the public -- that’s correct -- at the start of this experiment. As I say, it involved three or four different agencies. It was done, first of all, on a very technical and scientific basis and then it moved into the process of issuing the certificate and the company accepting the waste in its cement kiln under the monitoring of our ministry and the other agencies that were involved in the experiment.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: It seems to me to follow straight on. I want to ask the minister as a minister, a lawyer and a civil libertarian, was he responsible for a part of, or aware of the decision of members of his ministry to look at the stories written and related background matters involving the reporter who has been persistently reporting on his ministry in order to compile a document meant to discredit him with his employers at the Globe and Mail? Was he aware of all of that?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I want to make sure that the hon. member is accurate in saying that a report was put together with the intention of discrediting the reporter. No.

Mr. Lewis: Why else? Why would the ministry put a report together?

Mr. Speaker: Just answer the original supplementary, please.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I was not aware that this was undertaken by the ministry.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister approve of it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But I am certainly aware of the circumstances where, as a result of an interview with the reporter and his editor the reports that were coming out of our ministry were discussed. The idea was that we must have a fair and balanced reporting --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, of course.

Mr. Deans: In whose opinion?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- of the articles that were reporting about our ministry.

Mr. Deans: Would you like to manage the news?

Mr. Lewis: That is no way to handle it.

Mr. Warner: Nixon wanted fair and balanced news.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: You can rise in the House. You don’t have to let anyone create your reports.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, all I’m saying is -- now that I’ve found out about it -- that I don’t think the reporter was prejudiced in any way by this assessment. As I say, it was discussed with him and, apparently, he is satisfied with the assessment.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Can the minister explain to this House exactly what this so-called report consisted of and who did it? Was it merely a compilation of articles written by this particular reporter or were further questions asked of other citizens regarding this reporter and his background? If so, by whom, what were the questions, and has any other reporter ever undergone a similar investigation or been reported on in this manner?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is my understanding that -- as the hon. member says -- a number of articles written by the particular reporter were assessed by people within the ministry; then, a report or assessment was given as a result of those articles, and this was discussed with the reporter and his editor.

Mr. Breithaupt: A sort of scoop.

Mr. Lewis: That is unbelievable.

Mr. MacDonald: Why didn’t the minister rise in the House if he thought they were unbalanced?

Mr. Lewis: Unbelievable.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the minister if he thinks it is a legitimate expenditure of public funds to investigate the background of a reporter?

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you investigate it and tell people what they should do?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think that the hon. member should keep his questions in perspective. As I’ve said, the only assessment involved, as far as I am aware, was of a number of articles that were written by the reporter about the ministry over a certain period of time. Only those articles were assessed, with the facts as they were; and a comment was made on that assessment and given to the reporter.

Mr. Lewis: To his bosses.

An hon. member: You tried to get him fired.

Mr. Lewis: The minister didn’t raise it in the House. He sent it to his editors.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: In view of the fact that much of the polychlorinated biphenyls have been taken into New York state for high temperature incineration, has the minister taken advantage of the technology that’s been developed there so that such experimentation is not so necessary here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The experimentation that the hon. member is talking about is just what was carried out at the St. Lawrence Cement plant at Mississauga.

Mr. B. Newman: That is not a cement plant in New York state.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The American Environmental Protection Agency were also observers in respect to that experiment. So what we did at the St. Lawrence Cement plant in Mississauga gave the type of information that was wanted on both sides of the border and is the type of information that is now being used in respect to the Peerless application in Detroit.

Mr. Kennedy: Supplementary: Have PCBs been burned at this plant through the past summer? Are they being burned now, or accepted now; and, secondly, if the minister is planning to proceed did he state earlier that there would be public meetings?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is my understanding that there hasn’t been burning of PCBs since about June, I believe it is. There is no burning going on at the present time and I would expect there would be hearings before it resumes.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: I want to come back to the related supplementary matter. Isn’t it true that the Ministry of the Environment was so mad and embarrassed at the continuing succession of stories on environmental matters that were written that the minister attempted to compile a document which would discredit the authenticity of the story and, therefore, of the journalist? If he does that kind of thing -- and there have been other complaints from other ministries to newspapers -- does he not think he should rise in the House and share it with the Legislature whenever he undertakes that kind of foolishness, rather than go off to the employers in the fashion he does?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As a result of a number of articles written by that particular reporter, a number of employees within the ministry were complaining that they were being misquoted, that their answers were being distorted in a way that didn’t give a true and accurate impression of what they were saying.

[2:30]

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the minister say it in the House? Raise it. That is what this place is for.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As a result of a number of employees complaining about this, we wanted to see if there was some legitimate reason for feeling this way. Were they in fact being misquoted? Were the reports inaccurate? It was strictly an in-house type of assessment --

Mr. Foulds: Oh, yes, very in-house.

Mr. Lewis: It went to his employers.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- dealing strictly with those articles and then an assessment was made in respect to that.

Mr. Lewis: It was pressure. It was political pressure.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is quite possible that this could have been asked for. There might have been some arrangement, I don’t know, between the reporter or the editor in respect to this assessment to see if there was any indication of unfairness. The assessment was carried out, but certainly it wasn’t given to anybody else. It wasn’t intended to embarrass the reporter or anything like that.

Mr. MacDonald: It wasn’t?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It was to deal with some complaints by people who were being quoted.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The final supplementary on this. The hon. member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Conway: Who specifically directed that this in-house assessment vis-à-vis this reporter be undertaken? Was the minister aware that it proceeded and did he give this in-house assessment his blessing to that extent before it took place?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware that this type of assessment was taking place.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what I meant by ambulatory paranoia.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am not sure really who gave the orders or who made the decision. I’m not aware of that --

Mr. Foulds: That’s why you don’t know what’s going on in your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- I can certainly find that out. But I wasn’t aware of it at the time it was undertaken, and, as a matter of fact, I really only found out about it this week.

Mr. Lewis: I’m not surprised that’s true.

Mr. Speaker: With a new question, the hon. member for Quinte.

Mr Lewis: You shouldn’t permit that, George. You just shouldn’t permit that kind of stuff. It’s garbage.

INVESTIGATION OF REPORTER

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, following along that same line of questioning, I wonder if the hon. minister could tell us who spoke with the reporter and the editor, and whether something has been done to reprimand the persons within his ministry who gave that particular order?

Mr. S. Smith: Is that a supplementary?

Mr. O’Neil: No, it’s a new question.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am not sure who spoke to the reporter and the editor. I’d have to find that out.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister prepared to give full disclosure of this matter at this time or in the very near future?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. That was a new question. With a supplementary, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister prepared to guarantee to this House that this form of intimidation of a reporter will not occur in his ministry again, and will he also seek the same assurance from cabinet that it is not done by other ministries against reporters in the future?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I would have to agree that this is a form of intimidation.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Exactly. Exactly, and it shouldn’t be done.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, don’t misunderstand me. I’m saying that I will have to agree first of all that this is a form of intimidation. I really don’t have enough of the facts to know whether there was some type of agreement or arrangement to get this information. In other words, did the paper say, “If you’re not satisfied with this man’s reporting, why don’t you analyse the stories he’s been writing over the past year or so?” I don’t know if that type of arrangement was made or that type of discussion was entered into. But certainly that is not the type of thing that I would favour in the future and I don’t expect that it will be done again.

Mr. Lewis: Then reprimand the people of your ministry. And it is not just your ministry, by the way.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: There are other paranoids over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Very simply, is the minister prepared to investigate this matter and report back to the House as soon as possible with names and dates about this whole incident?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am prepared to make a statement on the matter at some future date, yes.

Mr. Lewis: Good. Done. Let it be the last time.

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Northern Affairs: The government spent $8 million at Minaki and committed itself to spending another $10 million. How many jobs was it intended to create, this $18 million that the government of Ontario was prepared to spend on Minaki Lodge?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That question should be more appropriately directed to my cabinet colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Martel: I will redirect it, but as it concerned the Minister of Northern Affairs’s riding, I assumed he’d know.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I do know.

Mr. Martel: To the Minister of Industry and Tourism: With the expenditure of $8 million in Minaki and a commitment for another $10 million, how many jobs did the government of Ontario intend would be created in Minaki?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, in regard to Minaki -- and we’ve gone through this subject on a number of occasions -- not only was it to try and create employment for the native people in the Minaki area in the range of something of about --

Mr. Martel: Just how many? I want to know how many.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will give the explanation, if you don’t mind.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s correct and I’ll come to it. Mr. Speaker, while the opposition might think that because you invest in a particular project, that’s the only place there happens to be employment, there’s a spinoff effect from that industry as well. I’m saying that directly at Minaki we’re looking at --

Mr. Makarchuk: Most of it went to pay a mortgage in the States.

Mr. Speaker: Order, do you want an answer to the question or not?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’m not sure they want an answer at all. They just like to hear themselves.

I said very clearly, if the members would listen and stop interjecting, 250 at Minaki with a spinoff of at least 250 in the other resort industries in the immediate area, and most of them native people.

Mr. Mattel: In other words, the minister is spending roughly $90,000 or $45,000 per job. Is the government of Ontario, in order to protect the 6,000 jobs going to be lost in the Sudbury basin, prepared to put that kind of money per worker, either by stockpiling --

Mr. Speaker: That’s not supplementary.

Mr. Martel: Certainly, it is. Mr. Speaker, I’m asking if the government is willing to put a proportionate amount of money in the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member will take his seat. I was very, very attentive to the first question and it dealt specifically with Minaki Lodge. It did indeed and I so rule.

Mr. Martel: It dealt with jobs, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It dealt with jobs specifically at Minaki Lodge.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I’m ruling the supplementary out of order. You cannot debate it. You can challenge it if you wish. The hon. member for London Centre.

Mr. Martel: We were talking about the creation of jobs.

Mr. Speaker: You were talking about jobs in Minaki. Order. The hon. member will take his seat

The hon. member for London Centre has a supplementary dealing specifically with Minaki Lodge and jobs.

Mr. Peterson: Could the minister tell us his response, and how much progress has been made with respect to the public accounts committee report that that asset should be disposed of as quickly as possible? Could he tell us what progress has been made in those negotiations and, perhaps, bring us up to date on those reported rumours in the press some couple of months ago that he was prepared to give the thing away? Is that the case?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me assure you that it was not a statement by the minister or the ministry in relationship to what way we’ve disposed of the asset at Minaki.

Secondly, in relationship to trying to find a buyer, we have been seeking out and we’ve been discussing it with some of the principal hotel operations in the province of Ontario and across Canada and, indeed, some of the international chains. We will continue to do it and we anticipate, very shortly, to place an ad in the trade journals that will go on a very widely circulating basis to get proposals as to what the private sector could do with Minaki.

Mr. Kerrio: Put the old Hydro building on the list.

Mr. Foulds: Could the minister tell us how many jobs were, in fact, created by that expenditure of funds? Would he not agree that, as a matter of policy, it would be wiser to spend that kind of money building a true economic infrastructure for the north, so the kind of layoff that occurs in Sudbury would not have the devastating effects on one-industry communities that it does have?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’ve listened to members from the north for the last number of years indicating very clearly they felt that we should be moving into areas of tourism to try to strengthen the economic viability of some of those communities. Minaki was intended to do just that.

We got into a constraint period because of limitations and government spending. Minaki was one of the first programs that was cut, and I’m sorry to say that it has been. But it was intended to try and develop some meaningful employment for people of Minaki, both natives and others in that community.

During the construction period there were a very substantial number of jobs. At the moment, the only portion of Minaki that is in full operation is Holst Point.

Mr. Foulds: How many jobs are there?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’d have to inquire.

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister apply all her energy and resources available to ensure that fair employment practices will prevail during the present negotiations between Inco Metals and Locals 6500 and 6200 relating to the present massive layoffs of Inco Metals employees? Can the minister also assure the Legislature that good-faith bargaining will be present in the matter of equity and severance pay, and that Inco operations in Sudbury will be given the same consideration on severance pay that applies to Inco employees in Port Colborne who have received notice of termination of employment?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the company has complied with the legislation thus far. I think it has informed not only the Ministry of Labour but also the trade union in Port Colborne of the kinds of programs which it is willing to negotiate with the unions regarding early retirement and some supplement to retirement programs for those who might choose to take, perhaps, an earlier than early retirement. Indeed, there are other facets to that set of negotiations which are quite important for the workers in Port Colborne.

It is my understanding that thus far the company has carried out those negotiations in as good faith as it is possible to carry them out. I will certainly be monitoring whatever negotiations there are, because we intend to be a part of the development of the programs which might be applied to Local 6500 in the Sudbury area.

Mr. Haggerty: Supplementary: Perhaps the minister is not aware of the present negotiations going on between Local 6200 and Inco at Port Colborne, where employees who have a certain degree of disability and who are classed for only modified employment are being coerced in a quiet manner, being told, “There are no jobs here for you”?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am aware of the scope of the negotiations. If there are specific problems of this sort, then I would appreciate having them drawn to my attention. They have not been drawn to my attention to this date, and if the hon. member has some examples then I would think it’s his responsibility to let me know of these so that I may, indeed, intervene.

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism: In view of the fact that this government was prepared to put up $45,000 per job in the creation of work in the Minaki area, is the minister now willing to put up that type of money per job to protect the 6,000 who will be jobless as a result of the Falconbridge and Inco layoffs?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that’s a question that should be directed to the Premier and subject to consultations by our cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Cassidy: Don’t duck it.

Mr. Deans: Just the Premier.

Mr. Martel: I listened to the minister saying that in order to create meaningful employment the government was prepared to put that kind of money into the Minaki area; is it prepared to put that kind of money into the Sudbury area to create meaningful work for the 6,000 people who are going to lose their jobs?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In relationship to the Inco situation, it’s a matter of retaining employment. I have no program within the ministry at this time that gives me the authority to loan or advance funds to any corporate structure to retain employment.

Mr. Martel: I am not suggesting that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: To develop meaningful employment is the project that has been given to this ministry and we try to carry it out the best we can.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister prepared to buy or stockpile nickel by outright purchase to that amount or by buying shares in Inco, so that, in fact, the government has a say as to how the company will act in respect of its employees in the Sudbury basin?

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

FRENCH-LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the minister responsible for the bilingual policy of the government. I understand that’s the member for Cochrane North. Is that right? He is nodding. He said “Oui.”

Is he aware that a significant number of the high schools in this province no longer offer French-language instruction in grade 13 and that some of them, because of lack of interest or application on the part of the students, are not offering it in grade 12?

Is he further aware that in the five years since 1971, the number of grade 13 students taking French has been reduced by 40 per cent, and is he, in his area of policy responsibility, doing anything with the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), his colleague the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Parrott) about this regrettable matter?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Non, M. le président, je n’étais pas au courant du problème comme mon collègue vient de m’apprendre. Il me fera plaisir d’en discuter avec le ministre de l’Éducation et c’est certain que nous ferons ensemble notre possible pour essayer de remédier à la situation que le député vient de nous apporter.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: If he is not aware of this matter, as he indicated in his answer, why is it that he has been given this extremely important responsibility having to do with the policy on bilingual matters in the province of Ontario when it is of such concern and importance, not only in these days but for the educational future of our young people --

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Mr. Nixon: -- let alone to those of us who are already suffering from certain inadequacies, not only in education but probably in a personal field as well?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Aw, Bob.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: In this province, when it comes to education in the French language, I believe that we have an exceedingly good record. As I mentioned to him in French a little while ago, I would be pleased to take this matter up with my colleague, the Minister of Education, and I am sure that we can work out a good program.

Mr. Samis: Comme le représentant de la population francophone de notre province, êtes-vous prêt à suggérer à votre collègue, le ministre de l’Éducation, de faire de la langue française un sujet obligatoire dans l’école secondaire?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Ceci, M. le président, ce sera une politique du gouvernement et ce sera la responsabilité du premier ministre et des membres du cabinet.

In other words, it would be a policy of the Premier and the Ontario government to make French an obligatory subject.

Mr. Samis: The provincial secretary is the only francophone left in the cabinet. No wonder they complain as they do.

Mr. S. Smith: What is his degree of responsibility? What does he do?

Mr. Kerrio: He balances the scale with the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Has the minister discussed with his colleague, the Minister of Education, the fact that the funding mechanism set up by his ministry to encourage the schools of the province of Ontario to teach French is such that in fact it discourages them as they become more proficient and as they go deeper into the language? Has he discussed that?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The Minister of Education announced this year -- and I believe the hon. member was in the House -- a program of substantially increased funds for various school boards to promote the teaching of French to English-language students.

Mr. Sweeney: That is precisely what I am referring to. In view of the fact that the mechanism that he announced -- the mechanism that is in place -- says to the local school board that if you go into an immersion program it is going to cost you more, how can we possibly expect the school boards to pick up that new mechanism when they can’t afford to do it? How can we expect that?

NATIVE RIGHTS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the fact that the Robinson Huron Treaty recognizes the rights of the members of the Ojibway bands in that region to hunt and fish on the lands they ceded as long as they remain unoccupied Crown lands, but the Ministry of Natural Resources officials are enforcing provincial fish and game regulation under the federal Fisheries Act and the provincial hunting laws --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Wildman: -- which seriously restrict these rights, is the minister prepared to recommend changes in those regulations to the federal government and to his ministry in order to preserve these rights and to stop harassing the Ojibways of the region?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of whether or not we are harassing the Ojibways in the region can be disputed. I believe the hon. member is referring to a specific case where some deer and moose were picked up from some Indians who alleged to be members of the Robinson Huron Treaty.

It is my understanding that the provincial game and fish laws -- where we have them -- are overridden by the treaties with the Indians. I also understand that federal statutes override the treaties.

Mr. Wildman: That’s only true in fishing.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact remains, there are some rules in each category. My staff have been told to honour the treaties with the Indians. Sometimes, however, events occur where Indians who allege to be members of one band with certain rights are hunting in an area where those rights do not apply, and these result in the kinds of occurrences we saw in the member’s area not long ago.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Without discussing a particular case, I would like to ask the minister: Isn’t it true that although the courts have interpreted the Fisheries Act to override the treaties, the federal government simply rubber-stamps provincial regulations that are set under that Act? If that’s the case, why doesn’t the minister suggest changes in those regulations that would comply with the treaties? Why didn’t he reply to the letter from the Union of Ontario Indians which requested a meeting on this matter to resolve the whole controversy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, Mr. Speaker, if I haven’t replied to a letter, it’s a very unusual thing except for one that the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) referred to. It has been replied to, by the way.

Mr. Lewis: I’m glad you found your courage.

Mr. Laughren: Screwed up your courage.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Thank you; it comes in bottles. Every so often a letter will be a bit slower in the reply, but they certainly will not be ignored.

While I was in the member’s riding recently, I had the opportunity to talk to some of the Indian chiefs and to discuss this matter with them. I can assure them I will see that the spirit of the treaties is enforced, but I ask them in turn to obey the law also.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary: Does the override to which the minister refers apply to fish and game taken by native peoples for resale, or does it only apply to fish and game taken for home consumption?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s, I guess, one of the questionable points. It’s my understanding we’ve interpreted the laws to allow the Indians to hunt for their own purposes regardless of the federal nature of the statute, providing they are hunting for food for their own purposes.

We have had a number of occasions, I believe, in the riding of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) where it has been alleged that Indians using the right to fish for food have been selling large quantities of fish and causing problems, in fact depleting the stocks. This is when we get into real troubles with people who have taken a law we’ve already bent and bend it further.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister prepared to meet with the chiefs of the region and the representatives of the Union of Ontario Indians to discuss the new, or apparent redefining of the phrase “unoccupied Crown lands”?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the member will realize I’m generally willing to meet with people who have a reasonable cause. I would suggest that in some cases this kind of meeting is best done at a staff level first to hammer out technical details.

Mr. Wildman: It already has been.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If my staff say the technical details are hammered out, certainly I’ll see them.

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Reed: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Understanding that during the last election statements were made to indicate that work was under way to investigate methanol production for Ontario, at what stage is that work at the present time and when can we expect a report on methanol for Ontario?

Mr. Cassidy: Around about the next election, eh?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, shortly.

Mr. Kerrio: You’ve kept your record intact.

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I’m glad the minister didn’t say “in the fullness of time.” Now that it’s been close to half a year, can he give us a ball park figure -- a month or two months or six months, or never?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I gave the abbreviated answer first; now I’ll enlarge, if I may.

As members know, experiments have been going on in connection with the use of methanol in conjunction with gasoline through the Ministry of Transportation and Communications with their various types of vehicles.

We have a committee that’s made up of members from industry, from the universities and from the people in the oil industry, that will be a second report. I expect that report to be forthcoming, I said shortly, I would expect certainly before Christmas.

Mr. Reed: What year?

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: Can the minister tell us, as a result of his exotic travels, if anything from that trip can be applied to expedite the process in Ontario?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It is very interesting. There has been a vehicle developed; the Volkswagen people have developed an all-methanol vehicle. It is very similar to the Rabbit, operating on all methanol. It looks like that application will be used in countries such as Brazil where they are using sugar cane, apparently, to produce methanol. I can see the application here either in terms of methanol mixed with gasoline or an all-methanol vehicle. I think one of the problems is to ensure a fast-growing crop that one can harvest very quickly to produce methanol and provide an economic type of operation.

In terms of the distribution system, it very well could be, for example, that the premium pump could be used, in the existing service station complex, to distribute gasoline. I could talk on it for some time. I would be happy to talk with my critic at his pleasure and to develop it further.

HAMILTON OFFICE COMPLEX

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Treasurer. I wonder if he could provide the rationale for the decision which was made, about the provincial office complex in Hamilton, which didn’t seem to take into account the rising unemployment that is likely to occur throughout the province. Not only was the government not prepared to proceed with the promise it made to build a provincial office complex in the city of Hamilton, but it wasn’t even prepared to undertake to go ahead with it on the basis of a private development which was proposed by a developer in the Hamilton area.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That was not my decision, it was a decision taken by the cabinet, and in particular it was a decision taken by cabinet that so much money would be available --

Mr. Cassidy: You are hiding behind the Premier.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- for public works for government buildings. In an attempt to meet that target, certain larger projects were not approved. I think -- the question might be more properly directed to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. McCague).

Mr. Deans: If I may, by way of a supplementary question, I will ask the Treasurer, because I am particularly interested in what the financial implications would have been to the Treasury by way of a capital outlay in allowing the project to proceed by way of the private development that was proposed; which would have, at least in the short run, have provided a great number of jobs in the construction industry; which in turn would have helped to offset the rising unemployment levels.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That was not part of our deliberations. Whether it subsequently makes sense for the government to relocate, I assume at higher costs, from a variety of locations into a privately-owned building is a question of what the leased costs are to be compared to what the leased costs are presently. That is a question the member would have to put to the Minister of Government Services.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary: Is it fair to say that the Treasurer might be able to make an announcement with regard to the development going ahead some time just before the next election?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not to my knowledge today, tomorrow or before the next election. For the third time, I would say that is a question the member might want to direct to the Minister of Government Services.

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Mr. Epp: I have a question of the Attorney General. In view of the fact a Belleville man recently was released from the Kingston penitentiary, a man the Ontario Provincial Police classified as a dangerous sexual psycopath, and that this person was put in prison after he had assaulted a 10-year-old girl near Belleville and was released in February --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Epp: He was released in February after trying to lure some kids away from parks and schools. I wonder whether the Attorney General’s ministry made any representation to the parole board; was his ministry asked to make any representation, and if asked were any made?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, we were not asked to make any representations, nor is it the practice of the Ministry of the Attorney General to make representations to the parole board.

[3:00]

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Since, apparently, this man kept various newspaper clippings about children in our twin-city area, and maps dealing with the locations of schools in our area, will the Attorney General recognize the seriousness with which this unfortunate circumstance is being looked at by many concerned parents in our community; and will he, perhaps, review the case before an unfortunate and tragic event, which seems almost to be planned for, can occur?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think there is, perhaps, a little confusion as to the role of the Ministry of the Attorney General in matters such as this. As you know, we do not administer the police forces. I gather the police force -- and of course, it has been already stated in the Legislature -- has indicated concern about this individual. I have learned somewhere, perhaps in the press, that the local police forces have indicated this man is being kept under surveillance. The role of the Ministry of the Attorney General, when the case comes before the courts, is to see that it is properly prosecuted. In the future, if it appears that an application should be made under the new amendments to the Criminal Code, that were just proclaimed a week ago, in relation to dangerous offenders, then the agent for the Attorney General will request the court to make such an order declaring an individual a dangerous offender. But once the case has been processed through the courts, the Ministry of the Attorney General really does lose jurisdiction.

Mr. Epp: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether the Attorney General will recommend to the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) that this procedure be followed, that they become more involved in this and try to resolve it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the police forces are very much involved in the matter at the present time.

FUNDING OF WAWEL VILLA

Mr. Dukszta: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Can the minister tell the House whether he will honour the promise made by his predecessor to help partially fund Wawel Villa in 1977 which is a proposal by the Polish community in Toronto to build a senior citizens home.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the subject of Wawel Villa has been dealt with by me in a meeting with the board of that home for the aged. I have communicated very clearly to them that, unfortunately, I do not have, in my budget, capital funds that would permit me to make any such undertaking at this time.

Mr. McClellan: We have been told that in the last four years.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is unfortunate that this particular group was ready to go ahead a number of years ago, at a time when capital funds were available; but because of a schism within the group itself they were delayed several years. Unfortunately, they are now ready again -- this particular section of the group -- to proceed at a time when I simply don’t have any capital funds with which to support the program.

Mr. Foulds: There is a schism in cabinet now.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary.

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

INVESTIGATION OF REPORTER

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: In view of the admission of the Minister of the Environment that what happened in his ministry was a form of intimidation of a reporter, and since this affects the privileges of this House in reference to free reporting, would you, as the Speaker of this House and the guardian of its privileges, ascertain whether or not that kind of thing was done by any other ministry, either by word of mouth or otherwise?

Mr. Speaker: It may be a matter of privilege affecting anybody in this House. I fail to see where you have a valid point of privilege that affects any member of this House.

Mr. Lewis: It affects free and fair reporting.

Mr. Swart: It affects all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker: It doesn’t affect the privileges of any member of this House.

Mr. Lewis: We need a free press; it affects my personal liberty.

Mr. Speaker: I see no matter of privilege affecting any member of this House, and that’s all I have to be governed by.

Mr. MacDonald: Is it not a matter of privilege to be assured that reporters have the freedom to report as they see fit, and as their editors are willing, rather than as required by ministers?

Mr. Speaker: No. Our privilege provisions in this House affect the privileges of members of this House and no others.

Mr. MacDonald: Collectively.

Mr. Conway: That is before the court of appeal.

REPORTS

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report, which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private Acts and finds the notices, as published in each case, sufficient:

Fuller-Austin of Canada Limited;

Borough of Etobicoke;

City of Sarnia (No. 1);

Niagara Institute for International Studies;

City of Hamilton;

Matol Holdings Limited;

Stanley Starr Limited;

Garnet Holdings Limited;

City of Ottawa;

Kedna Enterprises Limited;

City of Windsor.

Your committee recommends that the House give unanimous consent to permit introduction and first reading of Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Sarnia, before the completion of the necessary publication for notice, notwithstanding sessional order 35.

MOTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the statutory instruments committee be authorized to sit concurrently with the House tonight.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mancini moved first reading of Bill 76, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mancini: The purpose of this bill is to increase the legal drinking age in the province of Ontario from 18 to 19 years of age; and that the said change take effect on March 1, 1978.

Mr. Laughren: Does your caucus agree to that?

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 77, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Motion agreed to.

COUNTY JUDGES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 78, An Act to amend the County Judges Act.

Motion agreed to.

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Motion agreed to.

PROVINCIAL COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act.

Motion agreed to.

SMALL CLAIMS COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 81, An Act to amend the Small Claims Courts Ad.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I’ve been pleased to move first reading of a significant series of bills which provide for a number of changes in the structure, procedures and substantive law of the Supreme Court of Ontario, the county and district courts, the provincial courts and the small claims courts. I propose to comment on this series of bills as a whole, because I want to urge on all members the importance of the bills and the necessity of proceeding with them as expeditiously as possible.

The office of associate chief justice is created in the court of appeal, the high court, by the legislation. In the county and district courts, and both divisions of the provincial courts, provision is made for the appointment of an associate chief judge. The high court of justice, which is the trial division of the Supreme Court of Ontario, is expanded by four judges so that it will consist of a total of 42 judges.

A rational system for awarding pre-judgement interest is provided, which will be applicable in the Supreme Court, the county and district courts and the small claims court. Recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission in regard to abolishing the technical and formalistic aspects of the distinction between motions in court and motions in chambers are implemented.

Substantial changes are made in the law relating to the issuing and vacating of certificates of lis pendens. Persons who make spurious claims for the purpose of registering a certificate of lis pendens against title to land are made subject to liability for damages. Jurisdiction to vacate certificate of lis pendens is extended to local judges of the Supreme Court.

These amendments are in response to a number of practical problems which have been brought to the attention of my ministry, by judges and by lawyers in private practice.

Times, of course, are changing, and the convenient and informal form for the settlement of disputes which is provided to the public by the small claims courts must be made more accessible and given a wider monetary jurisdiction. The bill increases the monetary jurisdiction of the small claims courts to $1,000 from $400 in southern Ontario and from $800 in the northern districts. In future, this new monetary limit of $1,000 will apply to small claims courts throughout the province.

The bill also makes provision for a judge to adopt less technical procedures in a small claims court and to admit relevant evidence which is inadmissible according to the strict rules of evidence. These amendments will facilitate the presentation of cases by persons who are not lawyers.

The procedure for pre-trial garnishment, a procedure which has been much criticized, is abolished.

[3:15]

Provision is made for the appointment, tenure and removal from office of small claims court judges, similar to the provisions applicable to provincial judges, including extending the jurisdiction of the judicial council for provincial judges to small claims court judges.

Finally, provincial judges sitting in the family division of our provincial courts are given full power to award costs of proceedings taken before them where there is no other statutory provisions as to costs.

Once again, I wish to stress the importance of these bills and to state that they represent a practical legislative approach to a wide range of problems in the administration of justice in Ontario. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Pope moved first reading of Bill 82, An Act to amend the Ontario Food Terminal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Pope: The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Ontario Food Terminal board to establish a branch operation in the territorial district of Cochrane.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved first reading of Bill 83, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: The purpose of this bill is to extend the protection for accrued wages, overtime pay and termination pay under the Employment Standards Act, 1974. Its net effect would be that when a company entered into bankruptcy, the wages and moneys owed to employees would get first priority and would not be held into a receivership court.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AUDIT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved second reading of Bill 43, An Act to revise the Audit Act.

Mr. Reid: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. We have been waiting for the new Audit Act for a considerable time, as a matter of fact, I think we can safely say a number of years.

As you may be aware, sir, there haven’t been any substantial changes in regard to the Audit Act since the early 1950s. There was one amendment in 1971. Other than that the Act remained pretty well as it has been.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Amendment was very substantial in 1971.

Mr. Reid: Yes, it was amended substantially in 1971, but this Act we have today --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I show it on my curriculum vitae.

Mr. Reid: Would the Treasurer like to make some remarks and save me all this trouble; either that or send me his curriculum vitae?

The Act we have before us today seems to be based to some extent on the Financial Administration Act of the federal government, Part VII, dealing with the Auditor General of Canada; and of course that deals with a number of matters that are appropriate to our own situation here in Ontario.

There are some new sections in the bill. As a former chairman and present chairman of the public accounts committee, I’m quite happy to see, in particular, the sections dealing with the fact that the Auditor has direction and control over those agencies, Crown agencies and otherwise, that are being audited by accountants in the private sector.

The Auditor has the authority under section 9 of the bill to ask for the working papers and in fact he can ask for additional examination and investigation of any audit that has been done by the private sector of an agency or ministry of the Crown that is not under the direct control of the Auditor, or which is not being audited by the Auditor’s staff. I think this is a most important part of the bill.

Pretty well the essence of the bill is in sections 9, 12 and 13. I have a couple of questions that perhaps we can get into when we discuss the matter in the public accounts committee. There is one question in regard to section 13 of the Act, but perhaps that can wait.

Generally, the Liberal Party supports the bill. We are happy to see it.

It might be worthwhile at this time to say that the Auditor and the public accounts committee have come quite a way in the last few years. It was only in 1968, if I recall correctly, when a member of the opposition became chairman of the public accounts committee -- it’s here in my curriculum vitae.

I believe it was Mr. Jim Trotter, former member for Parkdale, who was the first opposition chairman.

Mr. Nixon: His Honour James Trotter.

Mr. Reid: His Honour James Trotter, yes. The second chairman, I am sure you are not aware, Mr. Speaker, was my friend and colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt).

An hon. member: For six years.

Mr. Reid: The third and more eminent chairman was the member for Rainy River, as a matter of fact --

Mr. B. Newman: Is he still in the House?

Mr. Reid: -- and the fourth was the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa). So there have only been four chairmen of the public accounts committee from the opposition parties.

There are a couple of matters that would be more appropriately brought up during the clause-by-clause discussion of the Audit Act in the public accounts committee and I will reserve my comments for that particular time.

It is interesting to note, perhaps by way of historical footnote, that we have not been operating to the letter of the Audit Act as amended in 1971. In fact, we have not been operating according to the letter of that Act for some time. It’s really time that we did do away with all those matters relating to pre-audit, the Auditor having to sign the cheques and a few other things like that which were in the previous bill. It’s an interesting footnote that the government in fact has been operating somewhat illegally, I would think, in not following the old Audit Act, and I say that the new one is long overdue.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and make a few comments on Bill 43, An Act to revise the Audit Act. It is true that we have been waiting for some considerable period of time for this bill, and I think one of the most important principles involved in the bill is that it secures the independence of the Provincial Auditors, not only through his appointment but in establishing his wages, in his freedom to hire his own staff and in his freedom to hire the assistant auditor.

In principle I think we are making a major step forward to secure the independence of the Auditor, and I think it would be good to enunciate the principle of an independent person -- and I will quote from a paper produced by the Bureau of Municipal Research in June 1976: “The importance of an independent audit of funds handled by public officials has been recognized historically as early as Aristotle’s days when he described a situation in ancient Greece.” I continue to quote: “‘Inasmuch as some of the magistracies handle large sums of public money, there must be another office to receive and account and subject it to audit, which must itself have no other business.’” I underline that statement, “handle no other business.” “‘These officials are called auditors by some people, accountants by others, examiners by others, and advocates by others.’” So the principle of an independent auditor goes away back in our history, and to that I do subscribe.

Those people who handle public moneys, I think, have to be scrutinized by a person who has absolute independence and cannot in any degree or manner be perceived to be under any influence from any authority. In order to maintain the confidence of the public in public spending, it must know that the person auditing these expenditures is, in fact and absolutely, independent.

I had thought that, during my experience and my close contact with the Auditor in Ontario, in my continuing duties as a member of the public accounts committee over the past five or six years -- and of course as chairman in the past session -- I was in close contact with the Auditor. During that period I was of the impression that Ontario probably had one of the best audit systems in Canada --

Mr. Reid: Had one of the best; and is too!

Mr. Germa: -- until such time as a study was done by Simon Mclnnes from the department of political science, Glendon College, York University. In a paper presented in Quebec City on May 30, 1976, Mclnnes evaluated all of the Auditors in Canada in three categories which he headed: not independent, almost independent, and independent. He classified Ontario’s Auditor as almost independent; which was a surprise to me, because from my experience with three Auditors during my time here, I had thought them to be, and I did perceive them to be, acting in an independent manner. But after careful study by Mclnnes, he came to the conclusion that the Ontario Auditor was almost independent.

I am not exactly sure where the absolute independence of the Auditor in Ontario breaks down, but I have to accept that Mclnnes is a qualified researcher. I do not know exactly where the weakness was in the legislation, but he came to that determination.

Just for general interest, under the heading not independent -- and Mclnnes is referring to the Auditors -- Alberta’s Auditor is classified by him as not independent; British Columbia’s Auditor is also classified as not independent; and those provinces which he deems to see as having independent Auditors are Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Saskatchewan.

I think the bill probably does accomplish the plugging of those holes in the legislation where Mclnnes perceived that Ontario’s Auditor was not or could not be classified as independent. It is my sincere hope that adoption of this legislation will, in fact, accomplish that.

There are a couple of sections that I think should be stiffened up. Both of them are controversial; they have been around for many years and have been discussed at various levels. I’m speaking to the principle as enunciated in section 9 of the bill, having to do with audit of Crown corporations.

[3:30]

The bill, while it does improve the present legislation, gives the Auditor opportunity to intervene when private auditors are hired by Crown corporations to do their audit. The Provincial Auditor could, if he saw fit, go in and re-examine their presentation. But I would tend to go back to the basic principle of Aristotle’s time, when it’s said that the auditor of public moneys should handle “no other business.” That’s how long the argument has been in place about who should audit the expenditure of public funds.

Even back in those days they were determined, and did state, that the person who was auditing public funds should be engaged in no other business. We do not accomplish that principle when we allow Crown corporations to go out and hire a commercial auditor.

Mr. Foulds: Themistocles did some --

Hon. B. Stephenson: What about Diogenes?

Mr. Foulds: No, it was Themistocles.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But I think Diogenes was looking for the honest man too, wasn’t he?

Mr. Foulds: Diogenes was fooling around with the silver he found.

Mr. Germa: Is the Minister of Labour trying to disturb me?

Hon. B. Stephenson: As long as your vision and your hearing have improved today, Bud, I will be quiet.

Mr. Germa: They have, markedly. I recognize the difference, you know.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Good.

Mr. Germa: The report of the independent review committee on the office of the Auditor General of Canada, tabled in Ottawa -- in March, 1975, I think -- was the bible that was used by the people writing this legislation. I notice a lot of the wording of the recommendations of the report of the independent review committee are just transferred into the legislation. I think this was a very good report.

They did consider and speak to the subject of the audit of Crown corporations at that level. It says on page 55 of the report: “In the 1960s, for example, the standing committee on public accounts stated that the Auditor General should audit all Crown corporations.” That was back in 1960. They were of a very firm opinion.

“The committee,” and I’m quoting again, “consistently maintained its position in its report to the House of Commons between 1964 and 1969.” So we had a position that maintained for nine years that all Crown corporations should be audited by the Auditor General.

Then in 1970 it reversed its stand, proposing that there should be no change in existing arrangements; that is, and I’m quoting again: “the audit of some corporations should continue to be undertaken by accounting firms.”

Mr. Foulds: Shameful retreat.

Mr. Germa: Of course the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, I suspect, had some influence in changing the committee’s mind. I think that either position is valid, except that mine, I think, is a little more valid; mainly because I hold that opinion, I guess that’s all that makes it more valid.

So I propose to enter an amendment when we get to committee -- I’m presuming this is going to the public accounts committee for the clause by clause -- I propose to try to amend section 9 to accomplish that all Crown corporations shall be audited by the Provincial Auditor.

Another subject I would like to speak to is section 10. It provides that “every ministry of the public service and every agency of the Crown shall furnish the Auditor with such information regarding its powers, duties, activities,...” I am posing this as a question, and I am relating it to the difficulty the Auditor ran into last year when he attempted to extract certain information from the Ministry of Health as it related to the expenditures of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

Under the Act which established the Ontario Health Insurance Plan there is a section which apparently must supersede the section which I have just quoted, the one which says that every ministry must supply the Auditor with information. We know of the controversy that surrounded the attempt by the Provincial Auditor to get certain information so that he could make an evaluation as to the expenditures of that particular program. I am posing it as a question to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), that he clarify in my mind which Act has precedence; the OHIP Act which provides for the non-disclosure of very large expenditures, or this section of the Audit Act which says that no information can or will be withheld from the Auditor.

There is definitely a conflict between those two pieces of legislation. That concerns me, and I don’t know until the Treasurer responds whether an amendment would be advisable or not.

A new section and a new concept is that having to do with the Auditor not only going through the basic financial evaluation to ensure the money was legally spent, that legislation was complied with and that there is an accounting, but also that the Auditor now will have the authority, and is in fact commanded, to report on value for money expended. In the report of the independent review committee, which I referred to earlier, on that subject matter, under recommendation (iii), it states: “The Auditor General should report annually to the House of Commons if money has been expended other than for the purpose for which it was appropriated by Parliament, or if value for money has not been obtained for any expenditure or expenditures.”

That is one place where the person drafting the bill deviated from the recommendations. They used the clear and unadulterated term “value for money expended,” whereas in the present Act that we have before us they speak of “money expended with economy and efficiency.” I know some people will translate those three words and say they all mean the same thing. If money is expended with economy and efficiency, therefore we must have consequently received value for money. I tend to favour the wording of value for money, even though I suspect that if money is expended with efficiency and economy then I must have received value for money.

I myself, personally, would like the Treasurer to speak to that particular wording in the legislation. Why was value for money not lifted right out of the recommendation, as very many other parts of the bill in fact were? Otherwise, I am very happy to see this legislation before the assembly. We do intend to support Bill 43.

Mr. Peterson: I just want to make two or three points. I don’t intend to dwell on that which is self evident to every member of this House, and has been for the past few decades or so. I just want to say a couple of things.

First of all, we very clearly support the position of the independence of the Auditor, but I am personally somewhat disturbed by the way the public accounts committee functioned last year, because we do have the legislative power to undo what he can do through his independent good offices. I think that in spite of what is enshrined in the Act, despite any new provisions that are brought in through this Act, we have to always remember very strongly the responsibility of the public accounts committee. As one who was a member of that committee last year and suffered through some of the trials with that committee, I don’t look back with a great deal of pride on what transpired. I think we have to constantly remind ourselves that we have a very strong obligation as members of that committee to make sure that the credibility of the Auditor is at all times protected, because he certainly can’t do it alone. He needs the assistance of the legislators in this process.

There is one other point I want to make which pleases me a great deal. I wasn’t sure when I originally read the Act, but section 93, as I understand it after consultation with people more expert than I, says: “Where the accounts of a Crown-controlled corporation are audited by other than the Auditor, the person or persons performing the audit shall --” such and such and such.

That includes, I understand, various pension funds that have been a great source of concern to me. My understanding is that in the past the Auditor has audited the public service superannuation fund and the Legislative Assembly retirement fund; but according to the new provisions he will be in charge of auditing OMER’s fund and the teachers’ superannuation fund. I think that is a very progressive step, I want to see an independent corroboration for those numbers; but almost more important, I want to see an independent annual check on the unfunded liabilities of those funds. We have, in the past, so heavily leaned into those funds to finance provincial deficits; when they are not actuarily sound; when there are large deficits and unfunded liabilities -- depending on how you interpret it somewhere between $1.3 billion and $2 billion, depending on whether you take the optimistic or pessimistic view. It is my view that those things need an annual review.

Under the present provisions, I understand, there is a new actuarial report done every three years. I am told by certain ministry people -- and I believe it was the Treasurer, but I am not exactly sure and I don’t want to misquote him -- that they contemplate doing that on an annual basis, even though it may require an amendment to the Pension Benefits Act.

Given the perilous economic times we are living in, given the rapid change in demographics in this province and in this country, given the very high inflation we’re experiencing -- all of which are unfunded liabilities on a very substantial basis -- it is my opinion that those kinds of matters have to be brought under constant scrutiny; not only by the Treasurer, not only by the legislative process, but also by the Auditor. That is why I am going to continue to push, as best as I can, for an annual provision for the review of those unfunded liabilities.

In the past these funds have been a very easy source of credit to the province; I have said on other occasions, and I will continue to say, that they have probably been very substantially abused. We are going to have to pay a price for that sometime in the future, and that future is probably closer to us than we would like to admit.

I want to put this point before the Treasurer today on second reading so that he can consider it. We will have to satisfy ourselves that this is adequately dealt with in section 93. I am assured by my staff that it probably is, but I want to make sure that this other provision is dealt with and that the Auditor can give his independent assessment of these unfunded liabilities that appear no more than by way of footnote, or a note in financial statements. They appear on no consolidated balance sheet, no statement of accounts and no ledger in this province so that we can scrutinize it annually and understand it.

I think this Act, it appears to me at this point, is a progressive step. We start to get a clear overall picture on our total liability position in this province and I hope we can, through this Act and through amendments to other Acts, move towards that kind of view in the very near future.

[3:45]

Mr. Makarchuk: I’d also like to rise in support of the bill. I’d like to raise a few matters that are of concern to me, and they have been outlined by the previous speaker from our party.

One of the items that is of concern is section 9, subsection 2, which says the Auditor may perform on audit of Crown corporations and public corporations. I think this will probably be a matter for amendment, and that “may” should be changed to “shall.” I feel that the Provincial Auditor should be required to be responsible for auditing Crown corporations as well as public corporations, and this may and should include Ontario Hydro.

One of the things that did come out in the discussions of the public accounts committee, particularly on Minaki Lodge, was the fact that some of the provincial money was spent on the lodge inefficiently, if that’s the term that we use in this thing. We didn’t get value for money received, and they had a private auditor examine the books. I think there’s a difference in approach between how a public corporation shall function and how a private corporation shall function.

If a private individual within his own company decides to spend his money in any way he sees fit, perhaps frivolously, perhaps he may embark on some projects that may be more of an entertaining nature, shall we say, than a straight business nature, that can be charged to the business, that can be used as a business expense and a private auditor will consider that as a legitimate expense.

I do not think the same code of ethics or the same standards should apply for a public corporation. This is one of the reasons why I feel the Act should state that the Provincial Auditor “shall” audit the books of Crown corporations and public corporations, including Ontario Hydro. I think of the problems that have developed recently in the discussion stage regarding the heavy water plant, the Bruce plant and so on.

I think the air can be cleared to a great extent if we had the Provincial Auditor involved in this situation instead of an auditor who has been employed by Hydro for a great deal of time. In some cases there develops sort of what one would call a rather friendly relationship that exists between the two of them and things may just not quite be on the up and up.

It’s the kind of a situation that happens in a lot of cases, not necessarily in Ontario Hydro, where things can be overlooked or it can be suggested that perhaps we can put this spending here and we can put that money there, we can hide it here; that kind of a thing. That’s a thing that does happen in private business.

The other item that is of concern is the value for money received. Again, this is a matter that was raised by my colleague, and it’s section 12(2)(f)(iv). I’m sure every member of the House has on many occasions received complaints from members of the public indicating that money was misspent or that money was wasted on this particular project or that project; or they felt that the province overpaid; or they come to you and say, “We’re spending so much money on certain things.”

There’s no way we could, in the estimates of the various departments, really go over this kind of information, but it seems to me that perhaps this kind of suggestion can be forwarded to the Auditor and the Auditor himself should have the authority to ensure that we actually are getting what we’re paying for.

As an example, one could possibly be buying batteries for some of the transceivers that people carry around, and paying something like $70 or $80 for batteries that are worth about 25 cents. When we get that kind of information those are the kind of things that worry me, because in many cases the people who are purchasing these things are not aware of the technology involved.

They are really not aware of what they’re buying, and in many cases when the equipment is purchased the decision is made that one is going to be buying this kind of equipment and only this kind of equipment will fit in here, when in fact similar equipment can be picked up anywhere for a lot less.

I’m sure each and every member of this House has on occasion received complaints from members of the public where they felt that there has been a misspending of government funds. Yet each member cannot in any way assure himself or prove it one way or the other. He just doesn’t have the resources, the time or the ability to dig into the reams and reams of paper, the invoices, the purchase order et cetera, to find out whether in fact it was well spent or not

I would like to see the Auditor empowered to do this kind of work and have the adequate staff to ensure that the province of Ontario is not taken to the cleaners. I have the feeling right now that the province of Ontario has on many occasions been taken to the cleaners. Basically, the reason for that is that we really have not done that kind of supervision or examination of our spending in many cases.

On another item, and this is not quite in the bill but it’s certainly a matter that has come out in the public accounts committee where we are concerned about provincial spending -- and I’m referring to the Ronto situation -- perhaps somewhere, sometime, somebody in this government or some authority, and I think the Provincial Auditor is the suitable person, should be able to look not at the government’s taxation policies but at whether the government is really collecting taxes according to its own policies or its own regulations or its own legislation.

Again, at this time we have indications -- in fact there was an editorial in the Toronto Star recently indicating it -- that the provincial government is not collecting tax that is lawfully due to be collected. There’s nobody who can sit up and say with detail or with certainty that this is going on or it is not going on. Although it’s not in this bill at this time, I think it should be discussed in the public accounts committee -- I will certainly raise it there -- that perhaps the Auditor should be empowered, not only to examine the spending of this government but also to see whether it is collecting the taxes it decides upon within its own regulations or legislation.

I would like to hear the minister’s comments on that matter.

Mr. Breithaupt: As we now proceed with a new Audit Act, I do want to congratulate the Treasurer in bringing forward this bill which has been some time in preparation. As my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) mentioned, I had the great pleasure of being the chairman of the public accounts committee for the six years between 1967 and 1973. Throughout that time, the deputy chairman was Mr. James Allan, the former member for Haldimand-Norfolk. I believe that between the two of us we were at all times anxious to see the Auditor given the strength and support which we believe that office deserved.

The whole procedure has changed, not only during those years but since then, as we have developed a new operation within the province of Ontario. The expectations that we all have of the Provincial Auditor have changed as well while this job has been developed. As members of the assembly are aware, while the Management Board of Cabinet deals with the review, basically, of estimates before they come to the House, the Auditor’s estimates are not included in that package. We have now developed the Board of Internal Economy to deal with those estimates and the ones of this assembly, as well as the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses and the office of the chief election officer. As a result, the first step towards independence comes when the estimates are removed from the general governmental or politically-oriented overview and brought to a board which has on it representatives of all three parties in the House.

We’ve seen as well a division of the duties of this office and an improvement in the whole operation, as I’ve mentioned before. When I first became chairman of the public accounts committee, Mr. George Spence, who had served in that office for many years, was near his retirement. His successor, Mr. Bill Groom, was a man of whom those of us who knew him thought most highly. The unfortunate death of Mr. Groom and his wife in an automobile accident was something which we found a very tragic occurrence.

And so Norman Scott came into this office, a man who had worked for many years in the operation of the audit office and is a distinguished public servant in Ontario. I might say, Mr. Speaker, with Mr. Scott being present under your gallery, he has proven to be independent, he has proven to be capable and loyal; and he certainly has proven to be an efficient auditor, one of whom the Legislature can, indeed, be proud, and one who has served the people of this province and will continue to serve the people of this province, I believe, most well.

Mr. Nixon: That’s in place of a raise.

Mr. Breithaupt: Another thing which is going to happen today, which perhaps hasn’t happened before, is that this bill dealing with the new Audit Act is going to be sent out of the House to standing committee; but instead of the procedures followed dealing with committees that we have known in the past, this bill is going to go to the public accounts committee. This is the first legislation that committee has had, just as other standing committees are now receiving legislation under this new approach in a way that is new to the operation of the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s where the last Audit Act went.

Mr. Breithaupt: I wasn’t aware of that; I didn’t recall that. In any event, we’re pleased to see the new Act. We welcome the information that the Treasurer has brought to us, and I’m sure members will be able to comment further in committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to comment on Bill 43? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I just want to comment briefly. I think the questions which have been raised will be better answered in committee. I would certainly associate myself with the remarks of the member for Kitchener and his comments about the three auditors with whom we have both served -- Messrs. Spence, Groom and Scott. Each has served the province in his own way, and very well indeed. I join in his tribute to those gentlemen.

This is a progressive piece of legislation. I was joking when I said to my friend from Rainy River that the 1971 move was a rather substantial move. The 1971 Audit Act, which I had the privilege of taking through the House, took us out of the dark and misty era of pre-audit and post-audit. Mr. McIntyre, who is also under the gallery, was the controller of accounts at that time. He was very much associated with that Act.

Mr. Nixon: Remember how your predecessors used to defend pre-audit?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: My friend from Kitchener made mention of a vice-chairman of the committee.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think you were chairman of that committee.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I was chairman of the public accounts committee, as was the former member for Northumberland-Durham, but the member for Kitchener made mention of a vice-chairman of the committee. On more than one occasion, he thought we had made a dreadful mistake by moving from pre-audit to post-audit.

Mr. Nixon: You really miss him.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will no doubt hear from him after saying that; I’ll leave it at that.

At any rate, I think it is a progressive piece of legislation, a piece of legislation which moves us forward. Although I will put on my curriculum vitae that I’m responsible for the Audit Act of 1977, it is fair to say that its drafting and much of what goes into it has come from the “independent” Auditor of this province, Mr. Scott, as you will learn from discussions with him when the bill does go to public accounts.

It is really a more progressive piece of legislation in several instances than that which has been adopted by Ottawa and passed by the Parliament of Canada. I think it puts us in most areas slightly ahead in terms of being progressive. I’m trying to avoid the word “left.”

Mr. Breithaupt: Progressively conservative.

Mr. Foulds: For you only, progressive is left.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The legislation depends completely, of course, on the occupant of the job. Whatever we may pass in this House, not to in any way take away from the prerogatives of the House or of this Legislature, it will be, in my judgement, how well or otherwise the Auditor interprets what words we give him to work with that will be the acid test of the new Act.

[4:00]

I could perhaps correct a couple of errors or omissions. The member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) knows full well -- we went through this during consideration of my estimates the other night -- that the actuarial liabilities are shown on the province’s balance sheet and on the balance sheets of OMERs, public service and other boards. Whether they are done every year, the Pension Benefits Act calls for them to be done every three years and it will be an individual decision of each of those boards as to whether it will be done more often than that. But that information is there and has been for some time.

I would say to my friend from Sudbury that the Provincial Auditor tells me that Mr. Mclnnes had based his comments on pre-audit. Well he is only six years out of date. He subsequently apologized to the Auditor for his comments. I haven’t seen the report. I look forward to seeing it in committee, but I guess it is a little out of date.

I do want to thank members who have spoken for their support of the bill, and I look forward to it being looked at in some detail in the public accounts committee.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for standing public accounts committee.

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Public Vehicles Act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Does the minister have any particular comments to make, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I made some brief comments at the time of the introduction of this bill. It is quite a simple, straightforward bill, the purpose of which is to exempt dual-purpose vehicles -- known more commonly to us, I guess, as vans -- while used as car pool or van pool vehicles. It is our proposal in this bill to exempt these vehicles from the regulations of the Public Vehicles Act. The purpose of this is to remove a problem that exists to some degree at the present time for individuals and companies that wish to use this type of vehicle for transportation of commuters to and from their employment on either a co-operative or individual basis. The purpose really is to remove any impediment to or restriction of the use of of this type of transportation, because we feel it is very advisable to encourage the use of car pools and the use of this fairly new vehicle, the small van, of which we see so many now, for this type of transportation. It will lead to energy conservation and to a reduction in the number of vehicles on our public highway system. Briefly, that is the background to this bill that I have introduced, which will assist in encouraging the use of this type of vehicle.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I would concur with the aim of this bill. This is something that has caught on to some extent in our area, where the Chrysler Corporation has started car pools with its new modem vans and is using them throughout Detroit and in the Windsor area. I think there are about 12 in the Windsor area, and some of them are being used already as far as Kingsville, which is about a 30-mile drive each way. There was a write-up in the local paper not long ago which reported that many of the people found a new enjoyment in going to work because a driver was taking on the responsibility and it gave them a chance to relax while they were getting to work. It seems to be an excellent idea, and I certainly would agree with the principle of the bill. I am sure the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) will have something more to say on it, but I just wanted to say that in my own area, an automobile centre, we feel very good that a bill like this is here today before us.

Mr. Philip: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the principle of the bill. It seems reasonable to exempt car and van pools, provided that adequate safeguards are taken and that we are not opening the doors for those who would violate the PCV Act.

The criteria seem reasonable: a seating capacity of not more than 12 persons, none of whom pay more than on a weekly basis; not used by more than one driver nor more than one trip; and the owner does not own more than one vehicle, unless he is an employer.

The first criterion does raise some questions with me. It is a question that I raised with the minister prior to discussing this in the House. Under the Highway Traffic Act, the motor vehicle is defined as including an automobile, motorcycle and any other vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power; but does not include the cars of electric or steam railways, or other motor vehicles running only on rails; or a motorized snow vehicle, a motor-assisted bicycle, traction engine, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry or road-building machine within the meaning of this Act.

This raises the question that, as we see municipalities such as Etobicoke and North York, in terms of their school buses, moving toward very stringent enforcement when it comes to offering tenders to private operators of small vehicles like this, sometimes of 12 seats or less, for transporting children who have learning disabilities or other children that have special needs from one school to another, when these people are enforcing fairly rigid standards on their tenders, what kind of standards can we expect on these vehicles that will be used for transporting as many as 12 people.

The question I would ask of the minister is: Can we be assured that at least people who are driving in these vehicles will be required to wear seatbelts in the same way that they are in any other motor vehicle as defined in the Act?

In supporting the bill, I must also express my concern at the introduction of what I would describe as piecemeal legislation in the absence of any idenitifiable people-transportation policy in this province. I would like to know where the bill fits into the overall people transportation gestalt or picture?

Mr. Speaker, the kind of chaos we are experiencing in the transportation of goods is quickly on the horizon in the area of the transportation of people. We needn’t go into the whole problem that has been caused lately with the Greyhound-Gray Coach affair, but it is merely a symbol of the kind of chaos that we could have forecast, and is the same kind of forecast that we could have made -- and that we are making -- about the transportation of goods.

As a result of the Select Committee on the Highway Transportation of Goods, we can now see some concrete policy and policy directions coming from the minister. In particular we were very happy to see the policy direction in terms of reciprocity. The minister informs me that other bills and policy thrusts will be evident later in this session.

When I see bills like this under consideration, I cannot help but feel perhaps we may need a select committee on people transportation to at least give us some kind of direction as to where we are going with this bill and with other bills, particularly with Bill 35 which we will be looking at in a minute.

I wonder also where we go in a very specific way after this bill. The amount of experiments that are documented at places like the transportation centre in Knoxville have shown that car pooling can be a very effective method of saving both energy and of transporting people, and that it has worked in a number of places in the United States. I would wonder where we go after this bill has passed.

Does the minister intend to back it up with a promotion of any particular model which may have been successful elsewhere? If so, which model can we expect, and what kind of commitment can we expect from the government? It’s not just good enough to pass this kind of bill and leave it.

One of the previous speakers talked about the success of the Chrysler experiment and my question would be, what is the minister going to do to encourage other types of experiments and to put together the kind of evidence that we have coming out of the States and other places as to the way in which these kinds of car pooling systems can be used to reduce traffic and to reduce energy costs.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we are in agreement with the bill. We would hope that the minister might care to address himself to some of those questions.

Mr. Cunningham: I, too, rise in support of the passage of Bill 34, the intent of which I gather is to exempt the operators of car pool vehicles from provisions specified under the PCV Act.

We in the Liberal Party welcome the initiative taken by government in recognition of both the efforts by corporate entities and as well the collective efforts, I suppose, by individual commuters to minimize the amount of traffic on public roadways during peak periods.

We further lend our support to the suggestion by government that promotional information be released possibly by the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Transportation and Communications with a view to encouraging higher vehicle occupancy rates. The steps we take to deal with the present energy shortage that I know the minister is aware of, will directly, I think, affect our lives and those of future generations.

As a means of providing transportation in urban areas, the automobile certainly has its drawbacks. Most obvious are the demands on limited urban space and the unwanted side effects of noise, pollution and injury. Both city and suburban dwellers however, are very heavily dependent on the private automobile and beyond a certain point conventional public transport fails to provide a practical substitute.

The solution for urban transportation problems, including that of energy conservation, will depend heavily on the public’s willingness to participate in seemingly minor efficiencies such as car pooling, the wider implications of these measures being increased public awareness of the need for energy conservation.

Transportation investment alone has not helped resolve the problems of urban congestion, however, and there is strong evidence to suggest that consumer education may be the first step in making the shift from automobile transportation to rapid transit. The cost of building, maintaining and operating transit facilities are growing more rapidly than available financial resources in most Canadian cities.

Serious consideration should be given, I would think, to an increased role for the commuter in planning and executing certain transit objectives in providing an acceptable level of service.

We recognize the problems inherent in the exemption of car pool vehicles from the licensing requirements specified under the Act, particularly those of liability insurance and vehicle safety standards. The government admits that effective enforcement of such requirements would be difficult and to that end we concur. These problems may be offset, however, by an appeal to voluntary adherence to certain common sense precautions provided in the promotional material.

I must associate my remarks with those of the member for Etobicoke, I believe, as they relate to the absence of a policy though, Mr. Speaker. In the past I would say that we have from time to time communicated in this House our collective concern as opposition members about the absence of not only a policy as it relates to the transportation of goods, but also the transportation of people. Certainly the Minister of Transportation and Communications, representing a largely urban riding and one that I suppose has a great constituency of commuters, is well aware of the difficulties and traffic congestion on the QEW, in and out of Toronto, and other highways. To that end I think he should be addressing himself not only to a more efficient system of rapid transit, but possibly conveying his ideas and his government’s ideas to the Ontario Highway Transport Board to effect and recognize the changing nature of transportation in the province of Ontario.

[4:15J

It wasn’t that long ago that I appeared at the Ontario Highway Transport Board -- in fact the only occasion I have done so -- on behalf of the owner and operator of such a vehicle, a 12-passenger bus. It was his intention to make application to the Highway Transport Board to allow him to carry passengers periodically from the town of Dundas to the city of Toronto for various cultural and sports events. The fact that the individual had to make an application and participate in the intervention process and argue public necessity convenience when obviously his intent was to save his clients and save himself from bringing a large bus down to the city of Toronto indicates in part, I suppose, the lack of policy as it relates to the transportation of people.

In short, I commend the minister for bringing the legislation in and I support it.

Mr. Young: In rising to support the general principle of this bill I would express a couple of concerns; one in connection with the safety of the vehicle. I take it from conversation with the minister that this vehicle will have to conform with all the safety standards set up by the federal government. I hope there is no way that this can be circumvented in the way that the old school buses used to be constructed. That is, a person might buy a chassis and then build a bit of a tin roof over the top of it, put some seats in and he has a vehicle. I take it from the definition given us and by the legislation before us that that just can’t happen, that these would have to conform and therefore would be vehicles in which there would be a real safety factor built in.

The matter of seatbelts has already been raised by my colleague. I would like to ask the minister, too, whether or not the mini- buses that have been developed in this province recently would fit in there. I have ridden in those buses but I am not sure how many people they seat. It seems to me that 12- passenger limitation might well fit within these, although I suspect they might be just a bit too expensive for the kind of transportation envisaged here. Although if they are used by different drivers and used for different shifts in a plant I can see that the mini-bus as developed by Ontario might well fit into the pattern here and might provide an outlet for this kind of a vehicle.

Those are the only observations I want to make, Mr. Speaker. I think that all in all if we can get this kind of co-operative endeavour on our highways and cut down on the traffic there then we are getting some place, not only in the cutting down of the number of vehicles on the highway but in conservation of energy in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in this debate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to respond to the points that have been raised by the members opposite. The vehicle that we are dealing with here today, the commonly known van, I believe falls into the category of a utility vehicle. This vehicle, like all other motor vehicles manufactured or imported into Canada, comes under the design criteria and specifications of the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the federal legislation.

It is my understanding that of course the vehicle has to meet the specifications of that Act, has to have the normal safety and other equipment that would be required on any other vehicle. If this utility vehicle is purchased as a mini-bus, with the seating arrangement to handle eight or 10 or 12 passengers, then it is my understanding that seatbelts must be installed for all seats.

There is one possible loophole, though, in that it may be from time to time that a person would buy a van type vehicle -- although I doubt if this would happen very often -- with only the driver and passenger seats in the front and then add seats in the back of the vehicle; in this way the additional seats would not be required to have seatbelts. This is something we will have to monitor. I don’t know whether we would have the jurisdiction to require seatbelts in a case like that; this is an after-manufacture modification. But certainly I wish to assure the member that I have questioned this fact that the utility vehicle that will normally be bought for this purpose with the seats installed will have the seatbelts there.

The hon. member for Essex North mentioned the Chrysler experiment at the present time. This we are aware of and this is the type of use that we want to encourage. Once we have this legislation in effect we propose to plan a demonstration pooling project within our own ministry, out of the Downsview office. We have a great number of employees coming to that particular location and quite a number coming from out in the more rural areas that don’t necessarily have good public transportation. We haven’t worked out exact details on that yet but we propose to have a demonstration project there.

We propose also to do some publicity advising the public of this legislation, because there has been some concern voiced. Some individuals have been operating this type of service for the last couple of years not knowing whether they were legal or not and there have been objections raised by public bus companies to people using these vans. Not so long ago my ministry officials were attempting to charge people doing just this because they were in conflict with the Public Vehicles Act. I might say this bill was introduced last spring and did not get passed, unfortunately, or we could have had it into use sooner.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, too bad the Premier called the election.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Something came along there about the last weeks of April, just about the time that I was going to get the bill up for debate that delayed it a few months unfortunately.

Mr. Foulds: Too bad that election was called. It wasn’t necessary; the House could have been sitting and we would have had this stuff.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We intend to advise the public that the legal impediment to using this type of service has been removed and we intend to encourage it. We will also, to the degree possible, be meeting with large employers to encourage them to encourage this type of commuter service to their place of employment.

Mr. Foulds: Is this because dial-a-bus has failed?

Mr. Speaker: Questions are not permitted on second reading.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I can’t help it but that interjection on the type of operation we are considering here shows how much the hon. member knows about public transit when he compares dial-a-bus to this type of regular commuter vehicle.

There are changing needs with regard to public transportation. We have made considerable advances over the past 10 years. The hon. member for Wentworth North referred to my own riding of Oakville. I don’t think there’s a riding anywhere in Ontario that is more involved with the needs of commuters. I look back to May 1967 when the first GO Transit train pulled out of Oakville and I take a look at the statistics today indicating a continuing increase in the number of passengers carried by GO Transit, both by rail and bus. We’re continuing to expand that service.

I also look at the great improvements that have been made in communities such as Oakville, Burlington, Brampton, and Mississauga in municipal public transit systems -- greatly assisted, I might say, by the policies of this government. Those on the opposite side seem to keep saying that we have no policy in the movement of people.

Mr. Foulds: Toronto and Ontario aren’t synonymous. That was certainly a slip of the tongue.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It’s very interesting travelling around and meeting people from other jurisdictions. No matter where I go and meet municipal or federal or state representatives in the United States or in other provinces, when I say I’m from Toronto or from Ontario, the first thing you hear from them is what a great transit system we have in Toronto --

Mr. Cunningham: Did they ask about UTDC?

Mr. Foulds: What are you doing for communities in the north?

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- and how great they think the GO Transit system is. The GO Transit system we operate here in the Toronto area is well known around the world.

Mr. Cunningham: Did they ask about UTDC?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have nothing to apologize for on behalf of UTDC at all. I think you will be pleasantly surprised --

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a principle of this bill.

Mr. Cunningham: I will be amazed.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You will be pleasantly surprised in a very few weeks when you see the new UTDC light rapid transit vehicles on the streets of Toronto.

I’m planning at this time to introduce another bill before the end of this session, an amendment to the Public Vehicles Act, dealing with policy matters. At that time, I expect I will be making a statement at some length on passenger policy as it relates to the busing industry.

I know we’ve all ridden in these types of vehicles from time to time. Many of the motels and hotels use them as courtesy vehicles from airports in many communities now. Some are more comfortable than others. I know I had the necessity to ride in one just last week --

Mr. Foulds: What happened to your limousine?

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- 12-passenger vehicle. I just forget the make of it at this time. It was most comfortable and rode well. It was roomy and an ideal vehicle for this type of use. I thank the hon. members for their support for the second reading of this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I didn’t feel it was necessary to go to committee but if the hon. members do, it will be committee of the whole House then.

[4:30]

AIRPORTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 35, An Act to amend the Airports Act.

Mr. Cunningham: We on this side will be supporting this legislation. Certainly during the next election, I hope that it is remembered how co-operative we are.

Mr. Swart: It will be by the public.

Mr. Cunningham: I see in the bill that it enables the province to co-operate with the federal government, a municipality, a corporation or an individual with regard to the establishment of airports. I think that makes sense, although I question the necessity to establish any more airports in the province at this time. I’m wondering if the minister would indicate to me just what airports he’s contemplating, specifically -- possibly Mount Hope in my area, or Pickering -- and where these airports are being contemplated and why at this time, if that is the intention of this legislation.

Mr. Philip: We have some apprehensions about what we consider to be rather large blanket, enabling legislation, which this is. We can see certain influential people in certain communities lobbying for airports on grounds that the provincial government will now pick up a larger share of the cost. I think that this bill should go into committee to answer some questions about where the government is going, in terms of this kind of people transportation mode. A number of our members have a number of specific questions concerning the powers that the government is assigning to itself with this bill and what it intends to do with them.

While we can find nothing specific in the bill that we wish to oppose, we would like it to go to committee so that the minister might be able to answer some questions.

Ms. Bryden: This amendment to the Airports Act appears to broaden the present Act in several senses. It includes authorizing the government to undertake construction of airports, as opposed to simply acquiring, leasing, operating, maintaining, extending, and so on. I think this is a fairly significant change and could indicate a fairly significant policy plan to get into the airport business on a much wider scale, but we can’t tell from this bill and therefore we hope that in committee we will get more information as to why this particular extension is required.

It also authorizes the government to set apart a part of an airport for a limited use. The intent of that section is not very clear.

It also allows the government to lease part of an airport for a limited use. I’m wondering whether this is tied to the proposal to set up a STOL network operating out of Toronto Island Airport. I wonder, too, whether the government is contemplating leasing a part of that airport for a STOL network, leasing it from the federal government which is the present owner -- I think it’s the present owner, unless it’s the Harbour Commission.

These are some of the questions that we would like to know about. What are the plans in regard to this?

In addition, the bill allows for the extension of the subsidization power of the government, not just to subsidize the acquisition of airports and their extension and operation and maintenance, but to subsidize any matters in an agreement about airports. Again, we would like to know the intent of this particular broadening of the words. What kind of additional subsidies not already provided for in the present airports legislation are contemplated?

Particularly, I noticed that under the previous Act as well as under this subsidization of corporations is allowed. We always seem ready to provide a welfare state for corporations but when it comes to providing money for handicapped persons to allow them to become mobile or to allow them to be able to take jobs, or children with learning disabilities, we can’t seem to find the money. But this bill certainly allows for the government to subsidize private corporations. Presumably it could subsidize private air carriers, and yet the bill does not tell us what the plans of the government are in this sense.

If the purse-strings are going to be opened for these kinds of handouts to private industry, we would like to have an opportunity for such subsidies to be brought before the Legislature, subsidy by subsidy, so that we could vote on each one individually rather than just a lump sum being put in the estimates for the ministry which could be used for subsidization for any group that is contemplated in the legislation.

We think there is a need for subsidization of municipally operated airports, particularly in the north country where air transportation is very vital to some communities there, but we want to know what other kinds of subsidies are contemplated in this bill.

As my colleague mentioned, we feel that this sort of piecemeal legislation that is being brought in -- the previous bill, this bill and the one on TATOA -- indicates a piecemeal approach to our transportation policy. We have never had an overall transportation policy from this government which indicates how the various modes fit into each other and what modes we think we should put stress on when we start to think about energy conservation and the ecological effects of transportation or whether trips of less than 500 miles in southern Ontario should be in the air at all, when you consider the amount of energy that aircraft use as well as the noise factor of airports and other ecological disadvantages.

We’re still looking for an overall transportation policy rather than amendments to pieces of legislation. I hope that the minister will not think that these pieces of legislation are the answer to the transportation policy which we need for both northern and southern Ontario and which should be adapted to the needs of those regions.

One important reason for this going to committee is that if the development of a STOL network is contemplated under this legislation, it would give us an opportunity to find out from the minister something more about the government’s plans in this area. Up until now, there has been no statement from the government on its policy for a STOL network. It has produced a book which contained no specific recommendations. It has participated in the intergovernmental staff forum of various levels of government to look at the future uses of the Toronto Island Airport, which included the possibility of a STOL network. But, up until now, the government has not revealed its position at all on the possibility of a STOL network for southern Ontario. Nor has it really studied the alternatives to a STOL network for southern Ontario, although various alternatives are developing, such as in the TATOA area, which we will be dealing with later.

Certainly one thing that people will want to know, if a STOL network is considered under this legislation, is how much will be required to subsidize it, both in terms of new airport facilities which will be needed in southern Ontario and in terms of subsidies for the carriers. I think we want to know whether these subsidies are being contemplated simply perhaps to save a few minutes for businessmen and senior civil servants travelling between cities in southern Ontario or whether that sort of money should be reserved for some of the more urgent needs of our province which are being denied at the present time. I mentioned money for children with learning disabilities and for increasing our very low public assistance rates to people who are unable to work.

I think we also want to know from the minister if his ministry is considering the ecological costs of each project that it plans to subsidize or fund under this bill. We cannot ignore the effects of transportation on our environment.

One thing that also disturbs me in the bill is the provision for leasing for periods longer than 21 years. It seems to me that 21 years should be the limit of any lease arrangement. I wonder why that provision is put in. Is there any good reason for contemplating a lease of over 21 years?

In conclusion, I would say I hope the minister will give us a statement on what his government’s plans are in regard to air transportation for both northern and southern Ontario and, particularly, respond to some of the concerns that were expressed about the STOL possibilities in the long series of public hearings which were held in the Toronto area by this intergovernmental staff forum on the Toronto Island airport. These hearings indicated there is great public concern over the results of a possible STOL network for southern Ontario. I think the consensus of those hearings was that Toronto Island airport should be left to its present uses and that a STOL network was not really needed in southern Ontario.

It may be the answer to some of the problems of northern Ontario. The Dash 7 plane may be a useful plane for certain uses in this province and in this country, but the consensus of those hearings, I think, was that it was not the answer to southern Ontario’s transportation problems. At any rate, these are some of the questions we would hope the minister would deal with when the bill is in committee.

Mr. Foulds: There are a number of points I would like to raise on the second reading debate on principle because I too have some sense of unease about the bill. As I look at the legislation that is in front of us and see the legislation that it is basically replacing -- because in effect the minister is gutting the Airports Act of 1971 and replacing it with this one -- the question that leaps immediately to mind is why is this trip necessary? Why is this Act necessary at all? It would appear to a layman like myself -- I am not a lawyer and I am not a transportation expert -- on reading the original Act that was passed in 1970 that that would be sufficient for the government’s present purposes.

It strikes me that the provincial government may very well be getting into the airport business in a wholesale way. That is probably necessary in certain sections of the north, particularly for towns such as Manitouwadge, Geraldton and so on where the federal government has shamelessly abdicated its responsibility to provide those people with adequate plane service. If that is the purpose of the province taking an initiative, then I am wholeheartedly in support of it. However, the minister has failed to outline that to us on second reading and I think that he could understand why our questions arise.

Hon. Mr. Snow: With every respect, I didn’t get a chance. The member for Wentworth North was on his feet before I got a chance to make my opening remarks.

[4:45]

Mr. Foulds: That obviously was an error in judgement on the part of the Chair in failing to see that the minister was assisted to his feet quickly enough so that he could make his opening remarks.

If I recall the genealogy of the legislation, it is rather significant that the provincial government didn’t really think it necessary to get into the business of legislating with regard to airports until 1970. I wouldn’t be surprised if that didn’t have something to do with the push of a former cabinet minister of the Ontario government who is now in the federal House -- one Allan Lawrence, who was briefly the minister of northern affairs -- and the public relations program that the Ontario government conducted in 1969-70 having to do with what it called its highways-in-the-sky program.

Only within the last two or three years has that program begun to get off the ground, if I may mash or mix a metaphor. I would certainly like to know, in some detail, what benefit the extension of the legislation, as it is outlined, will add to that program. Because I don’t really see that as being necessary from the original Act.

It would also seem to me that the province is in some subtle and fundamentally constitutional way edging itself towards some kind of confrontation with the federal government It would appear that both jurisdictions will be getting into the business of air transport. Obviously, up until 1970 this province did not see that as being necessary. As I say, the federal government does seem to have abdicated its responsibility in providing that kind of service in the northern part of this province, and hopefully this will be the Act that the government will use to develop that program.

The important question that the minister must answer for me when we get to committee stage is whether section 5 of the old Act still applies. I assume that it does; I think it is the only section of the old Act that is still intact. I would certainly want a clear and unequivocal statement to that effect.

Because it is worrying that in the present Act it would appear that the minister has much wider powers though the Lieutenant Governor in Council to dole out the patronage. It has been, unfortunately, the history of the precursor of this ministry -- the Ministry of Highways -- that it was fondly known around the province in many towns, communities and hamlets, as the ministry of patronage. I would certainly hate to see that happen under the present incumbent and in its present incarnation.

Mr. Nixon: That was back in the 1930s.

Mr. Foulds: I would certainly hate to see an extension of that, if the government is getting into the airport business.

I would also certainly like far clearer indication of the kinds of relationships that the minister sees between government and the private sector with regard to leasing and responsibilities there. The arrangements that the present minister’s former ministry, Government Services, had in some of its leaseback arrangements haven’t been all that happy and successful.

Hon. Mr. Snow: These leases go the other way.

Mr. Foulds: If he bungled it in one ministry going one way, it’s perfectly conceivable that he would bungle it in this ministry going the other way. I would certainly like some ironclad assurances in that regard.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Nothing was bungled.

Mr. Foulds: Finally, I think that our party reserves the right to vote against the bill on third reading if we do not get satisfactory explanations or amendments in committee stage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Mr. Cunningham: We’re going to give you double time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I regret that I did not get an opportunity, and I didn’t want to interrupt the hon. member for Wentworth North when he got started in his remarks. I think I could have clarified a lot of the points if I’d have had a moment before second reading.

The hon. member for Wentworth North says that in his mind there is no need for additional airports in Ontario. I’ve just got to say that’s the greatest example of a transportation critic in the Liberal Party not knowing what he’s talking about that I --

Mr. Cunningham: You build airports all over the place.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- that I’ve ever seen. Because, and I’m sure if the Speaker himself, the hon. member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), and my colleague, the hon. member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle), were here that they and other northern members would agree on the importance of this policy of the government, that was implemented back in the late 1960s. I think the first Act was passed about 1968, if I recall. The member for Port Arthur said 1970. I recall this Act coming in the year after I was elected in 1968.

Since that time, great improvements have been made in transportation in northern Ontario. I well remember that Act because when the Act was first drafted, I believe it was called the Northern Ontario Airport Development Act. I had something to do at that time with having it changed to the Ontario Airport Development Act or just the Airport Development Act.

In those past eight to 10 years, great improvements have been made in northern Ontario. First might I say that the policy of the government and the ministry is to construct and assist in the construction of airports in northern Ontario. That was the policy up until about a year ago.

About a year ago it was decided that if there was a good cause, for industrial purposes or for transportation purposes, that the Act or the policy could be expanded to assist with development of municipal airports in eastern Ontario as well. The policy of the government at this time is not to involve itself financially either capital-wise or maintenance-wise of any airport in southern Ontario.

In those past 10 years there has been quite a number of airports. I guess most are in the ridings of the members for Cochrane North, Lake Nipigon, and Kenora (Mr. Bernier). I have visited quite a number of those airports myself. We have several under construction right now. I happened to open the one in Fort Hope last year and visited Red Lake -- another one that we built. We have also constructed airports at Attawaspiskat, Round Lake, Big Trout Lake, Sandy Lake, Fort Severn, Fort Albany, Moosonee, Kashechewan.

Mr. Cunningham: Did you take your fishing rod?

Hon. Mr. Snow: About 10, I think it is, of those remote airports have been developed in northern Ontario. Those were built totally by the ministry and maintained totally by the ministry using native help from the reserves.

When the airport is constructed, it’s basically constructed by the natives with the equipment that we send in. When the airport is completed, we employ two natives, one as airport manager and one as assistant airport manager, to operate that equipment and maintain the airport.

Some of these are more remote than others. Pickle Lake is another one of our airports. It’s not a remote airport; there’s a road to Pickle Lake, but it’s still pretty necessary to have an airport there. In fact this year we’re paving that airport to upgrade the facility. When we have the paving contractor in the area doing the road, we’re putting a coat of asphalt on the runway.

About 10 or 12 of those airports have been built -- we have been building one or two per year -- and although my ministry is still responsible for building and maintaining them, the Minister of Northern Affairs is working with the establishment of the priorities.

The hon. member for Wentworth North says we don’t need any more airports. I have a list of agreements from Treaty No. 9 and Treaty No. 3 native communities, for 12 more airstrips to be developed at their communities. That is under the remote airport program, which is funded 100 per cent provincially. In addition to that, my predecessors established a policy of assisting municipalities in the construction of municipal airports. Right now there is one going in at Hornepayne and one at Hearst is in the planning.

Mr. Foulds: See how easy it is, Rene? If he doesn’t know you tell him. You get it sooner.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There is one at Geraldton under construction. We built one at Fort Frances and at Atikokan.

Mr. Cunningham: How about Hudson?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t believe Hudson has one. I think Sioux Lookout has. These are municipal airports where the ministry has, in the previous legislation, had the authority to subsidize municipalities to assist in the construction of airports.

Cochrane is another one. This last year we gave a subsidy to Iroquois Fails, I believe it was, for the paving of their municipal airport. Kirkland Lake was another municipal airport that was constructed.

Up until this time, most of those airports are connected with the norOntair system. Not all, but most. Geraldton, when it is completed, will be a larger airport than we normally build. We are putting in a 5,000-foot runway there to allow the Speaker to get up and down into his riding.

Mr. Foulds: It’s still 200 miles away.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It will also serve as a water bomber base for Natural Resources. That is why instead of a 3,000- or 3,500-foot runway we have gone to 5,000 feet, I believe.

We are negotiating with the federal government to take over the airport at Armstrong. It was going to abandon it and let it go to pot. I say, when we are building new airports why let an existing one go to pot? So we are negotiating now to take over that airport so that it can be maintained. It has a decent runway and with a little maintenance it can be used as another air base for Natural Re- sources. My colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) also has some interest in maintaining an airport at Armstrong for health purposes -- getting people out to Thunder Bay hospitals and so on. That is our municipal airport program.

One of the main reasons for this bill is that many of these municipalities, although they have our subsidy to help build the airport and to help make improvements to it, or to put in a small terminal ramp area, did not get any money for maintenance. The municipalities -- Wawa is another one -- have approached the ministry asking for some assistance for maintenance in maintaining the airport. I have no authority under the legislation to give a subsidy for maintenance. According to the legislative counsel and the Provincial Auditor we cannot do so.

I announced earlier this year a program under which we were going to give subsidies for maintenance of municipal airports. There are two levels: up to $10,000 a year subsidy for municipal airports where there is no scheduled service; and up to $25,000 a year for municipal airports where there is a scheduled service, which are basically the ones that serve norOntair or some of the other smaller scheduled operators.

That is the major purpose of this bill, to allow the ministry to pay a subsidy to the municipality to maintain the airport, an integral part of its transportation system, the same as we pay the municipality a subsidy to maintain its roads system.

[5:00]

The second main purpose of the bill is that we have certain situations on ministry airports. In the municipal airport, the airport is owned by the municipality. For instance Pickle Lake is a ministry owned airport. Perhaps there are other similar ones where a private operator will want to establish some facility. Perhaps a small flying service, a charter operator, or bush operator, will want to build a small hangar to maintain his aircraft and to operate out of, and the obvious place to put a hangar for an airplane is on an airport. We own the land. Under the present bill all these things weren’t foreseen by my predecessors and there’s no provision for us to lease airport land to an operator.

If you go out to Malton airport you’ll see Field Aviation, Sky Charter, Skyport, Leavens Brothers, Millard Air, even Air Canada, CP Air -- all of their hangars are built on federal government airport land, land that those operators have leased from Transport Canada. The intention of the lease provision in this bill is to allow us, for instance in a municipality like Pickle Lake, to lease an acre of land to an operator in the area either to build a hangar or put in fuelling facilities, if there are none there, to sell fuel to serve the community. Of course, if there was need, it would also provide for leasing of land for a restaurant or some other facility to serve the public on the airport.

The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine posed many questions. The lease -- I think I have explained that. About the STOL island airport, I assure the hon. member that as far as the government of Ontario is concerned we do not have any plans to get into the operation of any air service in southern Ontario.

Since the meeting with the island airport committee last May, when Mr. Lang and myself attended the windup of their public hearings, I have not heard anything further from Mr. Lang. He has said that he wanted time to study and so on. I have not had any conversations with him pertaining to Toronto Island Airport or what his plans may be. But I assure you that we as the Ontario government have no plans to get financially or otherwise involved in the implementation of a STOL service in southern Ontario.

In fact our airport policy does not allow us, at this time at least, to make any grants for either construction or maintenance of an airport in southern Ontario. That’s government policy at this time. We have no intent under this Act to get involved in the subsidy of any air operation. We do subsidize, through the Ministry of Northern Affairs and through the Ontario Northland transportation system, the norOntair air service. Here the contracts are let for the operating of seven Twin Otter aircraft serving some 16 communities. This will be expanded, I believe, in the next year to probably 18 or 20 communities that will be served with those aircraft, and there is a subsidy of $1 million a year or so. At least there’s about $1 million, as I recall, shortfall of revenue to operating costs.

But the way norOntair has grown there are some routes of the norOntair service that are now almost to the break-even point over the past year. The member was critical for our “piecemeal” approach in bringing in three different bills. I don’t know how I can amend three different Acts without bringing in three different bills. If she can tell me I’ll be happy to put them all together.

The member referred to a study of other types of transportation. As I announced in this House almost two years ago now, we entered into an agreement with the federal Minister of Transport for the federal-provincial central Ontario passenger transportation study. This has been under way for close to two years now; it was supposed to be completed at the end of December of this year. The most recent report I have, mainly from the federal parties that are involved in it, is that the report will probably not be ready until about the end of the first quarter of 1978.

That study is looking at all types of passenger transportation in southern Ontario -- air, rail, bus, automobile and so on. There is a considerable amount of work going on and needless to say, we’re very interested. We think the route -- and this has nothing to do with this bill -- within Canada that has the most possibilities of supplying a good rail transportation service, where there is high density and short distances, is the Toronto-to-Windsor segment of the Quebec City-to-Windsor corridor.

Mr. Davidson: With a stop in Cambridge.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I’m sure all hon. members know, we have been waiting for some years now, periodically hearing federal announcements about upgrading rail service and calling for tenders for trains, which was about a year ago now and still no contract has been awarded; nor has there been any announcement of any work being done on that corridor. If there’s any corridor in Canada that could support an improved rail service, that’s the one.

I share to some degree the frustrations of some of the members opposite in seeing improved rail transportation brought about.

I think I have answered most of the questions of the hon. member for Port Arthur. He was concerned about why we need this Act. There are two main reasons: to allow us to lease land and to allow us to pay maintenance subsidies.

If all of the hon. members’ questions aren’t answered and they still want to go to committee, we’ll go to committee.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, there are just one or two questions.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

TORONTO AREA TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 44, An Act to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This bill is very self-explanatory, Mr. Speaker. When the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority was established a number of years ago, at that time it was made up of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the regional municipalities of Peel and York. In addition to that, at that time the bill provided for the regional chairmen from Halton and Hamilton-Wentworth to sit on the board in an advisory, non-voting capacity. At that time, the region of Durham did not wish to be a part of the TATOA organization.

Since that time, of course, the TATOA operations of GO Transit bus and rail have expanded considerably. The advice and participation of the regional chairmen from Hamilton-Wentworth and from Halton have been most helpful. All three of these regional municipalities have passed resolutions and forwarded them to me asking that their representatives become full members on the board of TATOA, and this Act implements those requests.

There are some other minor matters involved. One is that it legalizes something that has been going on anyway for some period of time, and that is the carriage of parcel freight on the buses that TATOA operates. As hon. members may or may not be aware, many of the TATOA bus routes were former Gray Coach routes. Those routes supply a parcel express service to the communities they go through. TATOA has maintained to supply this parcel express service that a bus normally supplies. But it has been brought to our attention that the Act doesn’t specifically provide for TATOA to carry parcel freight. That’s covered in this bill.

Mr. Cunningham: I appreciate the housekeeping nature of the bill. As I see it, it expands TATOA’s area over Durham, which I gather now from the minister’s remarks is pleased to participate in TATOA. As well, he will get advice, I suppose, from the regional chairmen of Halton and Hamilton-Wentworth. My only concern there is that there is a lack of political accountability by those individuals and the addition by an appointment by the Lieutenant Governor in Council certainly won’t assist in the accountability aspect of the advisory board here. But that’s not the function of this particular piece of legislation.

I’d like to indicate to the minister that I’m concerned about section 4 of this bill.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In due respect, those regional chairmen are now elected by their regional councils.

Mr. Cunningham: That in no way makes them necessarily politically accountable to the individual constituents. If the hon. minister is harbouring illusions that that amounts to accountability, then so be it. He hasn’t been accountable for a while himself.

I am concerned, and I’d like the minister to appreciate this, about section 4 of this bill. While I can appreciate that it’s been the habit, albeit illegal, for some of these buses to participate in a form of parcel express, I’m not entirely certain that that should be, at least from a policy point of view, a function of TATOA. I find some ideological inconsistencies there as it relates to the remarks by the Treasurer of the province, remarks that I must say I associate myself with from time to time as they relate to private enterprise.

I find the government getting involved here in an area that at least it would indicate to me is well served by the private sector, specifically people who are involved in the cartage of goods -- the myriad of various cart- age companies and transportation companies that must apply to the Ontario Highway Transport Board for a certificate of public necessity or convenience. I’m sure the minister has probably, at least indirectly, been given some pressure by the various people involved in the United Parcel application which seems to be quite a contentious matter before the Ontario Highway Transport Board. I’m sure he’s well aware of the great extent and the number of various companies that serve us, at least in the private sector. I’m not entirely sure that this is an area where government involvement would be to the advantage of the people of the province of Ontario.

At the same time, I’m concerned that TATOA wouldn’t have to go to the Ontario Highway Transport Board for such a certificate. I’m also concerned about increasing the scope of TATOA at this time in the absence of an express policy on the transportation of not only goods but, more specifically, people. It’s obvious to members on this side of the House that there really is no policy in this particular ministry with regard to the transportation either of goods or people. The Greyhound-Gray Coach fiasco that we saw last year is certainly but one example of this. Again, the current dilemma that people are facing as it relates to increased transit fares in the city of Toronto further demonstrates this lack of a comprehensive transportation system.

I never cease to be amazed at the great progress that we hear verbally at least about the improvement of GO facilities. They usually are immediately followed by an election. For the last two elections we’ve heard nothing but the great things that are going to happen in the area of the city of Hamilton and surrounding districts with regard to the expansion of GO facilities. I want to tell the minister at this time that I don’t think they’re particularly impressive and certainly come nowhere near the nature and the scope of the promises made before elections.

Mr. Philip: I see this primarily as a housekeeping bill. I think that it’s self-explanatory. As the minister stated, the three municipalities that are chiefly involved or are being involved as a result of this bill have requested it. It was a change in the attitude that they previously held.

[5:15]

I share with the member for Wentworth North some of the concerns about accountability under this system. I am concerned about section 4, but in a different subsection than the member for Wentworth North, the first subsection. I am wondering what the implications are to Gray Coach Lines as a result of this, and I would suggest that possibly by going to committee we may be able to look at some of these questions.

Ms. Bryden: I have one or two questions that I would like the minister to clarify on this bill, particularly that section which gives them power to operate transit services within a regional area at the request of and under an agreement with the council of the regional area. This is in areas where the TATOA is operating an inter-regional route or an inter-regional transit service.

Does this new power which is added by this amendment give TATOA the power to operate, for example, the TTC? Does it give it the power to operate any other municipal transportation service, and if it does, under what terms are we contemplating that TATOA could enter into this? Would the objective be to provide a sort of integrated service within as well as between municipalities, or would it be to possibly bring all public transit in this area under one operating authority?

I am also concerned about the addition of the section that provides that the fares for such services would be established by agreement. Presumably this would be an agreement between the municipality and TATOA, but it seems to me that all public charges of this sort should be subject to some sort of review, some sort of public input on the rates, and on the extent to which the operating costs would be paid by the riders and the extent to which they would be paid for out of general taxation, either provincial or municipal.

We now require that hydro rates be reviewed and I think it would be legitimate to request that transit fares should also be reviewed. At the moment, as everybody in the Toronto area knows there is a discussion of what percentage of the transit costs should be carried by the riders of the TTC, and the province has intervened in this dispute by promising its grants to the TTC this year on the insistence that the riders in the Toronto area must pay 70 per cent of the cost of operating the TTC.

I am not going to argue whether 70 per cent is the right or wrong figure. I think it’s a figure that should be determined by the local municipality, particularly when the local municipality is operating the service, and the province should be expected to contribute to public transit in local municipalities as it has made it a policy in the past because it saves expenditures on roads and it promotes the use of public transit, which is environmentally a good thing and also saves energy. I think the province should determine what percentage of subsidy it will give to municipal transit operations, independently of the amount which the municipality then decides to charge to the riders.

This year the province had agreed to carry 15 per cent of the operating costs of the TTC --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thirteen and three quarters per cent.

Ms. Bryden: I was just at a meeting of the Metro executive committee where they were praising the minister for having raised it from 13.9 to 15 per cent this year. There had been some negotiations, I understand. Perhaps you haven’t been as generous as I thought you were. But I would think 15 per cent is hardly adequate when you consider that encouraging people to use the TTC in the Toronto area is one of the highest priority items we should have, in this very congested area. Especially so if we want to cut down on traffic congestion, wasted energy, and the pollution that occurs from excessive use of the automobile in these highly concentrated population areas.

At any rate, I would like the minister to comment on the premise that he is telling the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto what percentage they should charge to the riders before he is willing to subsidize them at all. Or maybe before he is willing to make this increase, I am not sure at what stage this requirement was imposed, but they seemed to be quite convinced that it had been imposed.

Those are some of the questions that I hope the minister would deal with. As to what is the meaning of this extension to section 6 -- which is under section 4 of the Act -- regarding the operating of transit services within a regional area, and whether he would contemplate an amendment which would allow for the review of the fare schedules, the fare tariffs, that are to be set in any operation that TATOA takes on.

We all know that GO Transit is heavily subsidized, but I think we would like to know to what extent and have some public input as to whether the subsidies should be increased or decreased -- at least what the policy is behind the subsidies.

Mr. Ashe: I will try to confine my remarks to Bill 44, to do with TATOA. I am not quite sure what the TTC has to do with it, but I will try to maintain my remarks in that context.

I rise in support of Bill 44, particularly on two aspects of it that I can speak very specifically and knowledgeably about, as it affects my riding of Durham West.

The first one is the inclusion of Durham into the expanded area that is recognized in the TATOA jurisdiction. This has been something that we have been trying to accomplish out in that area for many, many years. Unfortunately, many of the regional councillors failed to recognize the reality that in fact TATOA was operating within the confines of Durham region, and it was much better to have some voice in its operation than to criticize it from afar.

I appreciate that it is always easier to criticize something when you are not a part of it, so maybe that’s why it went down the drain from time to time. The previous concern of some of the elected people in Durham in the past was the provision that called for the seating of the regional chairman as the representative on TATOA board by the particular region. Again, there was some concern expressed from time to time by some representatives that that person did not represent an elected voice and therefore should not be seated. This was overcome by the election of the regional chairman in Durham, as in most other regions, earlier this year.

It was that particular instance along with the realities of the situation that finally prompted, in my opinion, the correct decision of Durham to petition the minister to be included in an expanded bill, which is now before us, known as Bill 44.

I think this is something that has been long overdue, and I am pleased to see that Durham is now in it.

Secondly, in the portion of the bill that speaks to the parcel service that is provided by TATOA and, in effect, shall we say, legalizing it, I can say that out in my area, where for economy reasons there was going to be a reduction in the hours of service provided by one of the TATOA stations for the pick-up and delivery of parcels, I had a great hue and cry from within that municipality as to how useful that service was and how it could not be provided by alternative services at any reasonable price and at any reasonable level of service.

Upon negotiation we were able to get a somewhat expanded service compared to what the cutback was going to be. It is a recognized area of service that can logically be provided, it is well appreciated by the users and I don’t think is infringing in any way upon the private sector. As a matter of fact, in many instances it seems to complement the private sector. I support Bill 44 in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 44.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Do you want me to respond?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I by all means.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, you cut me off before I got started on the other bill and before I got stopped on this one.

Mr. Foulds: You are slow on your feet.

Hon. Mr. Snow: My remarks will be brief, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth is concerned about the private sector and the cartage of goods by buses. The hon. member for Etobicoke was concerned about what effect this would have on Gray Coach.

First of all, it will have no effect on Gray Coach because Gray Coach does not operate on the same routes that TATOA does.

Mr. Nixon: You haven’t got many of those routes left.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Secondly, I would like to say that it has been a tradition that the public expects a parcel service to be carried by the bus that’s operating through the area. Our TATOA buses, for instance, cover from Toronto out through Brampton, Georgetown, Acton, to Guelph. There are no other buses running on that particular route and the people who require a parcel service to Guelph expect it to be supplied by TATOA. TATOA is not in the business of promoting parcel service but is carrying on a tradition that the public expects, as has been explained by my colleague, the hon. member for Durham West.

I regret the point brought up by the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine at some length. Perhaps if I had given a more detailed explanation at the beginning -- there is one area of the bill, sections 5 and 6 that I did not explain in my opening remarks.

Section 5 provides for the leasing of transit vehicles owned by the authority with drivers for any purpose related to objects or powers of the authority. This minor amendment allows for the use of GO Transit vehicles that are basically used mostly in the rush hours for commuter services during the off-peak hours. This would allow arrangements where GO buses could be leased to a municipal transit service for use in the off-peak hours if they are needed.

Section 6 provides for the authority to enter into an agreement with the council of that regional area or with the council of an area municipality within the regional area, and that the tariff of fares of the service shall be established by the agreement.

The reason for that amendment is, for instance, on the Yonge Street corridor where we have, I guess it’s the town of Markham -- Markham Transit operating within the municipal bounds of the town of Markham, and we have GO Transit providing service on the Yonge Street corridor. Invariably, we have a GO Transit bus and a Markham Transit bus going end to end up the street, which is not a very efficient way of running transit. So on an experimental basis, TATOA has entered into an agreement with Markham Transit where TATOA will supply the local service on that particular route so that there’s no duplication of buses.

[5:30]

TATOA accepts the normal fare that Markham Transit would charge. TATOA charges certain operating costs of supplying that service to Markham Transit which puts that in as part of its cost of transit and applies for subsidy on it as part of their operating costs, as far as our provincial subsidy is concerned, for Markham Transit.

That is why we have put in this amendment to allow for that type of service agreement, which has been put in as an experiment and which is working very well. This will allow us to formalize that agreement and enter into similar agreements in other municipalities where there is a need to do so because of that duplication of service and where there will be efficiencies and lower costs for the taxpayers, whether they be municipal or provincial taxpayers.

I am sure in a few weeks when we get to my estimates the hon. member and I will have great opportunities to discuss the TTC fare policy. I don’t think it is part of the principle of this bill, so I won’t respond to her remarks on that issue.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 34, An Act to amend the Public Vehicles Act.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any questions or comments?

Mr. Philip: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: On which clause?

Mr. Philip: On the minister’s answers to a previous question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Which section of the bill are you talking about?

Mr. Philip: I don’t know. I don’t have the bill down here.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There is only one section.

Mr. Philip: I am sure that the minister will recognize which section I am talking about.

Mr. Cunningham: If you start talking about it, he will recognize it.

On section 1:

Mr. Philip: In the minister’s remarks about the possible expansion of the system through the experimental project and through various forms of public education and so forth, does the minister not foresee that as this kind of system increases, so too does the possibility or the probability of gipsy-type operations? I wonder if the minister would tell us of any precautions he is taking to ensure proper enforcement will be carried out so that we don’t have a duplication of the kind of gipsy system that we have seen over the years in the trucking industry?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not that concerned really with regard to gipsy systems. If we are talking about commuters who are presently using a car pool, I don’t think you have any gipsies in car pools that I know of. A car has always been considered exempt by the Highway Transport Board. If you want to take three or four of your neighbours to work with you that has been an accepted practice as long as I can remember.

We have taken the alternative route to what we have done in the past. The bill exempts van pools. If someone starts running a bus business, using one of these vans, and charging individual fares then that operator is not within the terms of reference of this exemption. Obviously, we would find out about that and that person could then be prosecuted for running a bus service without a public vehicle’s licence.

Mr. Cunningham: The question is how.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As long as he operates under the manner of this exemption, he is exempt from the Act and from any inspection.

Mr. Young: On section 1, clause 1(aa), in the description of the vehicle, I asked the minister before in connection with the vehicle that has been developed by the organization headed by Mr. Foley here in Ontario, as to whether that vehicle would qualify under this section of the Act. I’ve forgotten how many seats -- the minister didn’t answer my question -- but I just wanted to get that clear. I was rather interested to know whether or not that would fit into this scheme of things.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t believe it would. I can’t tell you either -- I’m sorry, there are 17 seats in that small transit bus so it would not fall within this exemption. I don’t think unless it were a very deluxe service that it would be practical in any case. The cost of that type of a vehicle -- a diesel-powered, heavy vehicle meant for public transportation use -- I am sure would be above the budget of most people who would want to operate this type of van.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill 34 reported.

AIRPORTS AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 35, An Act to amend the Airports Act.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments on Bill 35?

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Foulds: The minister didn’t entirely clarify to my satisfaction the reason why he has to add the words in line six of subsection 1, “construction, operation or maintenance of airports” to the previous Act. I really don’t see why that is necessary when you may already enter into an agreement, in the former Act, “with respect to any matter in relation to establishment, extension, improvement or maintenance of airports.”

In other words, the main argument the minister made is that he had to expand his powers with this section in order to subsidize municipalities for the maintenance of airports. That’s a laudable aim, particularly in the northern communities that he mentioned. But I don’t understand why he needs the extension of the authority as it is outlined in section 2(1).

I also would like to find out from the minister why he needed the addition of the last two and a half lines “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may provide funds to the municipality, corporation or individual for such purposes.” In other words, during the second readings the minister indicated that his officials told him that he could not supply funds to municipalities for maintenance and operational costs of airports. I want to know what this wording does that the wording in the original Act does not do.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If you want a legal terminology I guess we’ll have to try and get you one. But I am advised by the solicitors of my ministry, who are very competent people, by the legislative counsel and by the Provincial Auditor that we need this different authority to pay a subsidy to municipalities. I have taken their word for it and we have included it in this amendment. If you are not prepared to take the word of those gentlemen, then we will have to get you more information.

Mr. Foulds: I am just saying that that is exactly my position. I’m sorry, but I don’t want a long legal explanation -- I just want a legal explanation in layman’s language.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have deleted in this Act section 3 of the old Act. “Section 3 of the said Act is repealed” and the subsidy was payable under section 3. I am told by my solicitor that the wording is too limited in the former section 3.

With regard to your question about the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the Lieutenant Governor in Council has always been involved in the Act in approving airports. Airports are handled somewhat differently in the ministry than are roads. I do not have to go to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for an order in council to build a bridge or pave a mile of road. That’s within the authority of the minister. But as far as an airport is concerned I cannot give a $50,000 grant, or whatever, to a municipality to build an airport, the same as I can to build a bridge, without getting authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That’s the way the existing Act is set out.

Mr. Foulds: I’m sorry but the minister has not satisfied my question. He tells me that his advisers tell him that the authority is too limited. He has not explained to the House in what way that is limited and what extension he needs. In others words this House is granting to him authority to spend public funds. I would like to know why that extension is necessary and what are those limits on his authority as it is now outlined in this Act in contrast to the former Act?

Hon. Mr. Snow: From the compendium that was provided as background information with the Act I will, if I may, read the last two paragraphs:

“The minister has for some years been subsidizing the construction of certain municipal airports. These municipalities have found that the cost involved in maintaining and operating these airports, once built, strain their resources and the government plans to pay subsidies for the maintenance and the operation of specific airports, where authorized by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

“Such subsidies are possible under the existing wording of the Act. But the Act refers only to the acquisition of land or any equipment apparatus or thing that may be required for the establishment, extension, improvement or maintenance of a municipal airport. Under the rules of the statutory interpretation ‘thing’ as used here can only apply to physical goods, which would include fuel for the heating of buildings and electrical power supply but would not properly apply to services including salaries and wages.

“At the same time sections 2 and 3 of the Act are being merged in the interest of simplicity.”

So the ruling is that we could not pay for wages of people pertaining to maintenance of airports under the old Act.

Mr. Warner: I’m wondering if the minister, in the interest of time, will go over section 2 very briefly? Does the wording of that mean that you can, or want to, or it’s possible for you to get involved, embroiled in that whole hassle out at Toronto International Airport with regard to the taxi problem? The licensing procedures have been a problem in the municipality of Mississauga. They were a problem for Metropolitan Toronto for a while. They then became a problem for the federal government. If I interpret “operation and maintenance of airports” in a certain way, it would include the licensing of taxis as well. I’m wondering if that does and what your intention is that regard?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have nothing as a province to do with the federal government airports at all. The Toronto International Airport at Malton is a federal airport. It’s federal property; we contribute to it financially in no way. The municipality may supply some services, water or sewers, to it. We build roads to the boundary of the airport, they build the roads within the boundary of the airport. The taxis, of course, are licensed by the municipality wherein they operate and those that operate on federal property are to be licensed by the federal minister and it has nothing to do with this bill whatsoever.

[5:45]

Ms. Bryden: With regard to section 2, Mr. Minister, I appreciate that it is broadening the power to subsidize so there is no doubt that any matter covered in an agreement between the ministry and a municipality, corporation, individual and so on, can be subject to subsidy. If that is correct, at least we know where we stand on the question of subsidization. But as I mentioned earlier, I would hope that each individual subsidy would be brought before this Legislature rather than having a lump sum voted for subsidization so that we know exactly what we are subsidizing under this section.

I was very glad to hear the minister state in his reply on second reading that the government was not contemplating the operation of any airports in southern Ontario nor the subsidization of any carriers in southern Ontario. That is a clarification of government transportation policy that we have been waiting for a long time, and I think it does clarify a good deal of the concerns that were being expressed at the hearings about the future of the Toronto Island Airport. So I was glad that he was very clear in making his position evident to us on this matter.

With regard to this section, I would just like to make that suggestion that when the estimates come in, that we have each subsidy shown to us.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Let’s be a little bit reasonable. When we bring in the estimates to the House, our estimates are very small for this part of the program; I think we have something like $250,000 for all the municipal subsidies this year. During consideration of my estimates, I’ll be able to give the hon. members a breakdown of municipalities to which that subsidy would go. But for me to bring this information to the Legislature every time we want to give a $5,000 subsidy to a municipality, I think is somewhat beyond reasonable. To debate each municipal subsidy in this Legislature if the hon. member wanted to do that for the 900 municipalities and all the road and transit subsidies, we would be sitting 24 hours a day, 365 dollars a year, just debating the subsidies my ministry gives to municipalities.

Mr. Foulds: Dollars a year?

Ms. Bryden: What I was really suggesting was that either in the detail of the estimates or in any compendium that is provided to the opposition parties, that there should be a list of the breakdown of subsidies. The minister mentioned subsidies only to municipalities, but this particular section gives the power to give subsidies to individuals, private corporations and all sorts of other bodies, and we would like that information at the time of the estimates.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That will certainly be available. It’s available any time. All the hon. member has to do is ask a question in the House every day between 2 and 3 if she wants information on any subsidy that this ministry gives out. My life is an open book. Everything’s available to you.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, boy!

Mr. Cunningham: It won’t be a best seller, I’ll tell you that.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I’d simply ask the minister to outline to us at this time the conditions under which his ministry could contemplate such an arrangement with an individual.

Hon. Mr. Snow: To my knowledge, we have not to this date made any arrangements with an individual or subsidized an individual for a private airport. There is a possibility that some time in the future there could be such arrangements. In some municipalities in the north, and in eastern Ontario, there are some small airports operated by private individuals, I guess you would say -- perhaps a flying club that has bought land.

As an example, near here we have the Brampton Flying Club, which owns 200 acres of land at Snelgrove, north of Brampton, and has quite a nice little airport there. They have had no subsidy whatsoever. They never applied for any. I’m not talking about any for that. But there could be instances where there is an airport at a community that is not a municipally owned airport, where some type of improvement might be needed and whereby, maybe for $100,000, you could fix up that airport under some agreement where it would become available to the public rather than spend $1 million to build an airport across the road owned by a municipality. I’ve got no examples -- we have not done it -- but this would allow that type of a thing and it would be under special circumstances that it would happen.

Section 2 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall the balance of the bill carry?

Mr. Foulds: I have one question for information from the minister. In what would be the consolidated Act once this bill passes, what number does section 5 of the original Act become? That is, the clause in the original Act which reads: “The moneys required for the purposes of the Act shall be paid out of the moneys appropriated therefor by the Legislature.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: There is no change.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, what section does that become? Does it remain section 5?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It remains section 5 of the main bill.

Bill 35 reported.

TORONTO AREA TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 44, An Act to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act, 1974.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments on this bill?

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

On section 1:

Mr. Warner: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, there are a few terms missing from the bill -- words such as ad hoc, Band-Aid, piecemeal. Frankly, I get tired of seeing bills that come in front of us that are not a part of an overall planning strategy.

Mr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is not on the bill.

Mr. Ruston: What section is he dealing with, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Could I ask the member what section he is dealing with?

Mr. Warner: I’m referring to section 1, subsection 2(g), where it starts to define the regional areas. I would like to know, first, in his defining, why he uses that particular kind of description.

Secondly, what is the effect it is going to have on the existing transit facilities that are in those areas, whether it’s Markham Transit or what? I listened to your description of the Yonge corridor and the crossover with Markham Transit, but how do you envisage it affecting those other areas?

The Chairman may want me to leave the question about subsidy until section 6. It seems to me to be related, because if you’re going to talk about the region that it affects and the transit system that is already presently in place in that region, then surely that also involves a discussion of the subsidies which it now receives versus the subsidies that are handed out to GO Transit or whatever else the province wants to operate, because there are some real conflicts in all of that?

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if we can proceed one step at a time I would like if the minister could explain the reasons for selecting those particular regions as described and whether or not he means the entire regional area, and the effect it will have on the existing transit facilities in each of those regions.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I must admit that I have some difficulty in understanding what the hon. member wants to know.

First of all, this is for the GO Transit system which operates now in Hamilton-Wentworth, in the region of Halton, the region of Peel, the region of Metropolitan Toronto, the region of York and the region of Durham, and, in some cases, in very minor instances, extends outside those regions to supply the commuter service. It has nothing to do whatsoever with local transit other than the interconnections. Oakville Transit and Mississauga Transit interconnect their buses with the GO Transit stations at Oakville, Clarkson or Port Credit. This has nothing to do with it and it will make no change to the local transit system.

Basically, what this bill is doing -- other than the minor part that we discussed before about parcel express -- is making Hamilton-Wentworth, Halton and Durham full partners or full participants in TATOA, as their municipalities have voted and passed resolutions, forwarding them to me and asking that this be done.

Mr. Warner: In explanatory notes, you certainly say you are “expanding the meaning of ‘area of jurisdiction of the authority’.” I would like to know what the intent of all of that is then. You are doing one of two things. You are either becoming more aggressively involved in providing good public transit -- that’s why you are expanding the meaning of area of jurisdiction -- or you are going to put some pressure on people like Gray Coach or whoever else is operating there. It is either one or the other. I would like to know definitively what it is that you are about when you want to expand the area of jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We are not expanding the area of jurisdiction. Two regional chairmen sit on TATOA board meetings now but are not voting members under the old Act. This will make the regional chairman from Hamilton-Wentworth, the regional chairman from Halton and the regional chairman from Durham voting members on the TATOA board of directors.

TATOA presently services those areas. The lakeshore GO trains go from Pickering to Hamilton. The buses travel as far as Hamilton, as far as Oshawa, up as far as Sutton, the north end of Durham and as far as Guelph on the northwest route. There’s no intention other than expanding service to meet the demand within the present service areas. This does not really change that at all.

Mr. Warner: Perhaps you should have added an explanation to the explanatory note because under explanatory notes it clearly says, at least in the copy I have, “The amendment expands the meaning of ‘area of jurisdiction of the authority.’” At the bottom of the page again, it says, “the amendment expands the meaning of ‘regional area’.”

I take that at face value in the explanatory notes that you are in fact expanding the area of jurisdiction. I want to know, if that’s so, what the purpose of it is. If it is not that way, if it is in fact as you have described, that you are not really expanding the area of jurisdiction but what you are doing is more directly involving the regions, that’s a different kind of explanation. I don’t wish to get into --

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the hon. member would read the explanatory notes. It says at the beginning, “the Act presently reads as follows: ... ‘area of jurisdiction of the authority’ means the area composed of,” (i) the regional municipality of Peel, (ii) the regional municipality of York, and (iii) the regional municipality of Toronto.

“The amendment expands the meaning of ‘area of jurisdiction of the authority’” by including, in addition to that, the regional municipalities of Halton, Hamilton-Wentworth and Durham.

Mr. Warner: Then it concludes by saying, “The amendment expands the meaning of ‘regional area.’” I don’t wish to get into an argument over semantics. It is just that if it is as you have stated, then I suggest that that’s what it should have been in the explanatory note instead of trying to suggest or leave the impression that you are expanding the jurisdiction, because that becomes an entirely different matter. I shall leave it at that on that point.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Just to further explain it, this Act expands the area of full membership; maybe that would be a better explanation of TATOA. It does not really expand the area of authority because TATOA operates in these regions. The region of Halton has several GO routes through the north, the middle and the south, as does Peel and as does Durham. It includes them as full members of the authority now which they weren’t before.

Section 1 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Mr. Warner: No, I have further discussion.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. Could I ask the member is it a brief comment or will he take some time?

Mr. Warner: I have one question pertaining to section 6.

Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Warner: Section 6 talks about the tariff for fares established by an agreement. I am wondering if the agreement that you have in mind is similar to the one which you have foisted upon Metro Toronto, namely, that 70 per cent of the operational cost must come from the fare box before any subsidy comes from the province of Ontario. Is that the intent in section 6 that you wish to establish by agreement?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I explained this whole thing fully a few minutes ago to the member for Beaches-Woodbine. I am sorry you weren’t here.

This is the agreement between, for instance, Markham Transit and TATOA for the use of the TATOA buses to ply the transit service to the town of Markham. This would be an agreement between TATOA and the city of Markham for the cost of operating that bus, not the fares paid by the riders.

Section 6 agreed to.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

Bill 44 reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House begs to report three bills without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 34, An Act to amend the Public Vehicles Act.

Bill 35, An Act to amend the Airports Act.

Bill 44, An Act to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act, 1974.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 22, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.