The House resumed at 2:03 p.m.

BIRTHDAY TRIBUTES TO QUEEN MOTHER

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform the House and seek the endorsation of all members for a letter that I have written and which I expect is in the process of being delivered. It is dated July 15, but is being sent somewhat in advance of her birthday to the Queen Mother. I would like to read the letter to the members of the House and I am sure the members opposite might wish to put one or two observations officially on the record.

“Madam:

“I have the honour of informing Your Majesty of the continuing deep respect and warm affection in which you are held by the people of the province of Ontario.

“We join with all Canadians, with citizens of the Commonwealth and with your countless friends and admirers at home and abroad in wishing you well as you mark a very special milestone in your rich and full life.

“For well over four decades, Your Majesty has had a special place in the hearts of those you have served with so much dedication. Many recall the example in courage, grace, fortitude and commitment with which you and His Majesty King George VI inspired your people in the dark days of World War II.

“As the years have passed, you have continued to exemplify those traditional virtues which have enabled families and nations to survive against great odds and which have enabled our forefathers and those who have followed to carve Canada out of a wilderness.

“Time has failed to diminish the charm and graciousness with which you walk amongst us. It is our fervent wish and prayer that you will be granted many more happy years and that you will continue to enjoy a generous measure of life’s blessings.

“I have the honour to remain, Madam, Your Majesty’s faithful and devoted servant.” Signed by the Premier of the province.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour, as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, to stand and associate ourselves with the words and sentiments included in the letter by the honourable Premier. It is an excellent letter and reflects very well the affection and esteem in which Her Majesty the Queen Mother is held by all citizens in Ontario, throughout the province, throughout the country and, as the Premier said, throughout the Commonwealth.

It was our privilege to meet Her Majesty the Queen Mother not long ago and it was surely heartwarming and in some ways amazing to see how that wonderful lady was able to review a regiment of troops, go to innumerable social and religious undertakings, meet with countless hundreds of people and, at the end of what must have been a long day for anyone at any age, still be full of vim, enthusiasm and sincere and genuine interest in every person to whom she spoke at a banquet that evening.

As a person, she is an example for everyone to emulate and as a royal person, in considering her life and her attitude towards life and towards the work which she undertakes, we realize just how fortunate we are to have the monarchy and to have the monarchy in such persons as Her. Majesty the Queen Mother and, of course, Her Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion of the 80th birthday of Her Majesty the Queen Mother, I too would like to join in the sentiments that have been expressed by the Premier.

I thought about this when I was coming into the House. I asked myself why it is that democratic Socialists in most parts of the world are republicans but democratic Socialists in the parliamentary countries, in Great Britain and in Canada in particular, are monarchists. Clearly, one of the differences is that we have had the Queen Mother as an example of monarchy and as a person who, after all the political battles are over, if the Queen Mother is coming to town, my goodness, they go out of the Labour Party halls in London to camp at 6 a.m. to watch the Queen Mother go by. Very much the same thing happens when she comes to make her visits to Canada.

I think there is a recognition that, amidst all of the pomp and the ceremony which royalty engages in, the Queen Mother maintains and has always maintained the ability to keep in touch and to communicate with ordinary people and working people, whether it is in Great Britain, here or anywhere else in the world.

2:10 p.m.

She is a great horsewoman. She likes horses and I think she likes to have the occasional flutter, even if she does not talk about it publicly. She is gracious at every level.

I know from the time that I lived in England there wasn’t a Cockney who did not think that if the Queen Mum came by that she would not be happy to come and sit down and have a cup of tea. She was able to do that and yet maintain the dignity that adheres to royalty and the dignity which in a parliamentary system is important to have, since royalty is an impartial symbol of parliamentary democracy. I contend it has brought many constructive values not just to this country but the world around.

I am proud of her. I’ve been delighted to meet the Queen Mother and have the chance to share, along with several thousand others, the chance of meeting with her and hearing her speak. It is always an honour to have her visit us in Canada. Would that we could be served in future as wisely, as soundly, as graciously as we have been in the past by Her Majesty.

Mr. Nixon: I hope you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, now that all three party leaders have expressed the views of their parties, to reminisce for one moment. Forty-one years ago almost to the day in this chamber Her Majesty, then Queen Elizabeth, and King George VI were ushered into, this room and occupied the dais, including perhaps the very chair you are sitting in.

We didn’t have the luxury of a protocol officer at that time. The then provincial secretary, who was my predecessor as member for Brant, was in charge of arrangements. It might have been why I and my sisters were sitting in the front row, right under the clock, and had an opportunity to observe the then Prime Minister in his striped trousers and claw-hammer coat welcome Their Majesties to Ontario.

The other special guests that day were the five Dionne quintuplets, who were beautifully dressed in long, southern belle gowns. They were just about my age, so I was particularly interested. I was 10; they might have been a little older. I can remember them coming in and making their curtsies before Their Majesties. It was a very exciting time indeed.

I suppose if there is any point to my interjection, it is that she was just as charming and charismatic in those days, 41 years ago, a few weeks before the Second World War started, as she is now. Of course, we wish her well.

DOMINION DAY CELEBRATIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the government this year has expanded its public observations of Dominion Day -- or Canada Day, as some of us prefer to call it -- which is July 1, to include activities at Queen’s Park and at three other locations in Ontario -- Old Fort William in Thunder Bay, Upper Canada Village in Morrisburg and at Ontario Place. I hope all members of this House will have the opportunity to attend one of these celebrations, and would urge them to do so.

We believe these expanded events planned for the 113th anniversary of the birthday of Canada will allow even more of our citizens to share in this day of happy commemoration of our nationhood.

In particular I would point out to the honourable members that the comments made by many of us during last month’s constitutional and Confederation debate in this chamber, comments which to some degree showed respect for the substantial degree of multiculturalism which now enriches Ontario, will be reflected in the events here at Queen’s Park. There will be performances by Scottish dancers and by a Franco-Ontarian group, to represent and to reflect our two founding peoples; but there will also be performances by groups whose backgrounds are from the Ukraine, Germany and the West Indies, representing the third force that has joined us so substantially since Confederation and which contributes so much to our society in this province.

Other entertainments are planned featuring jazz, country music, the Ontario Provincial Police pipes and drums and, for children, circus-style acts.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s entertainment!

Hon. Mr. Wells: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I know it will be of great interest to the members of this House that we will have the traditional nickel hot dogs and nickel glasses of pop.

Another very fitting and particular highlight of the celebrations here at Queen’s Park will be the ceremonial arrival of our gracious Lieutenant Governor, who is retiring in a few months. This will be her last official representation at a July 1 ceremony here. Her ceremonial arrival will in itself make it worth attending the ceremonies at Queen’s Park.

Following her arrival and during the program, the Premier will be introducing to all of those present the recipients of the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship for 1980.

Hon. Mr. Davis: After hot dogs.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say a word of appreciation to you because you are allowing the Legislative Buildings to be opened during that day, July 1, for public tours until 3 p.m. That means that all the guests here in front of the buildings will be able to come in, learn and appreciate more about the ongoing reality of our parliamentary system here in this province, which is a very integral part of Canadian life.

At the other locations that I mentioned there will be unique events. In eastern Ontario, at Upper Canada Village, the celebrations have been arranged through the Ministry of Natural Resources. They will follow the same program that was held on July 1 113 years ago in the town of Perth. Those ceremonies will feature a parade which will be led by my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld).

Mr. Foulds: Was he there 113 years ago?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, but I believe he will be suitably attired as a citizen of the town of Perth 113 years ago. There will be a display of antique fire engines, a band concert by the Governor General’s Foot Guards, a baseball game and, very importantly, homemade baking.

Mr. Speaker, we are now coming to your area, the north. In Old Fort William at Thunder Bay there will be a re-creation of the so-called “Rendezvous” that was held for voyageurs of the old North West Company who received food and cider when they arrived by canoe to exchange their cargoes at that fort. My colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) will be there to dispense the food and cider.

Mr. Makarchuk: Instead of fire-water, he will be giving them acid rain water.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let me say I am sure my friend the Minister of Northern Affairs will be happy to see all the members from the north there to exchange food, cider and goods.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All the Liberal members of the north -- all one of them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Finally, at Ontario Place there will be a day-long entertainment program, concluding at night with a huge and very magnificent fireworks display, which I am sure all will want to see.

Quite apart from these specific celebrations, I want to acknowledge, as I know all the members of this House would want to acknowledge, the contribution that many thousands of citizens of this province will make in events in hundreds of like ceremonies in communities and cities all across this province. They will be taking part in July 1 celebrations to show their profound and continuing faith in a single, united Canada under one flag and one central government which exercises leadership, with 10 provincial governments and their assemblies playing their rightful roles and parts.

2:20 p.m.

This year, we in this House can all say that our people have considered and reassessed their love, their devotion and their support for their united country, Canada, just as much as they did back in 1987, which was our centennial year. As we said during that debate, all of us are committed to keep Canada whole, and on July 1 this year we will be showing our faith in many ways to this objective.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the statement by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and in the spirit of Canada Day celebrations, we in eastern Ontario are prepared to host a very special event: a car race between Mo Carter’s Camaro and Mike Cassidy’s Peugeot.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously the prize for that race will be the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). That means no one wants to win.

Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement whereby, at this time, we would bring Her Honour into the House for what may be her last occasion to give royal assent to certain bills. Before the government House leader and I go to bring Her Honour into the assembly, I would just say that I listened very carefully to the anecdote given by the member for, oh, so many counties in southwestern Ontario. I listened to him with some degree of envy, because I did not attend that occasion; then, when he gave me the date, I understood it was because I was far too young -- and probably had not been born on that particular date.

I would also add, as I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) and his reference to Her Majesty’s enjoyment at the dinner a number of us attended, I think that if Her Majesty had an opportunity to reply in advance to my letter, she would have recalled for all of us her great enjoyment of that domestically produced liquid refreshment that was served at that dinner. As I was sitting next to her, I can say with real knowledge that she thoroughly enjoyed it and said it compared favourably to any wine she had consumed anywhere else in the world. I think those were her exact words.

Mr. Breithaupt: She said, “I never tasted anything like it in all me life.”

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took her seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mrs. McGibbon: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 1, An Act to amend the Libel and Slander Act;

Bill 46, An Act to amend the Municipal Act;

Bill 65, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act;

Bill 75, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act;

Bill 76, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act;

Bill 92, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in certain area municipalities in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton;

Bill 93, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth;

Bill 119, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act;

Bill 120, An Act respecting the City of Brantford, the Township of Brantford and the County of Brant;

Bill 121, An Act to vest Certain Lands in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton;

Bill 122, An Act respecting the Police Village of St. George;

Bill 129, An Act to amend the Public Vehicles Act;

Bill Pr12, An Act to revive Gothic Mines and Oils Limited;

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Windsor;

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Hamilton Foundation.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

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

2:30 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WORK INCENTIVES PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, in January of this year we implemented Ontario’s new Work Incentives Program. This program was designed to assist those persons in receipt of social assistance in Ontario who wished to go back to work. It particularly aimed to assist them to overcome the triple barriers they faced in some instances of low wages, the lack of fringe benefits and jobs which were less secure than the welfare they had been receiving. We have been monitoring the results of the program, and I would like to inform the members of the preliminary findings to date.

As of the end of May, 913 clients had entered this new program, 782 of whom are still on the case load. Each one of these clients is required to submit a monthly income statement to establish their entitlement to the Win allowance. At the time we prepared the report, 182 clients had not yet submitted their financial statements for the previous month. But in view of our experience of previous months that is not surprising. We will of course determine the benefits for those recipients once their statements have been processed. Consequently, our report at this point is based on the complete data we have on the 600 recipients as of the end of May.

First, I would like to provide some general statistics on the 600 cases. Their average earnings are $590 a month. Their average income from other sources is $36 a month. They are receiving an average allowance under our new program of $83 a month. Their total average monthly income is $709 a month. Five hundred and two of the persons in the program, or 84 per cent, are sole-support mothers with dependent children. Forty seven, or eight per cent, are disabled persons and 45, also some eight per cent of the case load, had previously been classified as permanently unemployable.

I would like to give some indication of the income levels of some groups within the program. Of the 502 single mothers with dependent children currently on the program, 410, or 82 per cent, are earning in excess of $500 a month. The average earnings of this group are some $630 a month. If the allowances and other sources of income are taken into account, their average total income increases to some $740 a month. While 18 per cent of the single mothers on the program are earning less than $500 a month, their total income averages $602 a month, substantially in excess of social assistance levels.

There are 39 single disabled persons currently on the program. More than 50 per cent of this group earn more than $500 per month. Their total income averages $700 a month, or twice as much as their social assistance entitlement would have been. There are currently 45 clients previously classed as permanently unemployable on the program, 26 of whom are single persons. They are currently earning $577 per month on average, and if one includes the allowances under the Win program and other income, their average income is some $708 per month.

Another interesting aspect of the program is that the response has been province-wide. In fact, two thirds of current recipients reside outside of Metropolitan Toronto. Clients also appear to be relatively successful in maintaining full-time employment. For example, of the 47 recipients who entered the program in January, the first month of its operation, a full 83 per cent were still employed as of the reporting date in May. Of the 297 recipients who entered the program in February, 73 per cent are still employed.

In addition, one out of every eight clients entering the program has returned to social assistance to date. This is considerably below our initial expectations. However, I recognize the difficulties involved in the transition from social assistance to independence. Indeed, some recipients may attempt this transition several times before they are ultimately successful in maintaining full employment. While our initial results are promising, I believe it is still too early to determine whether this rate is representative in the longer term.

Finally, I would like to provide some specific data in regard to day care. Members may recall that some concern was expressed over the difficulties that single mothers entering the program might have in obtaining day care. Consequently, we designed our application forms to provide data on day-care requirements. Thirty six per cent of single mothers indicate that they did not require day care. Forty per cent reported that they made private arrangements. The remaining 24 per cent indicated their children were placed in day-care centres and of that group 83 per cent reported they were receiving some form of subsidy. It might also be of interest to the members that 54 per cent of the mothers on the program did not have a pre-school-age child.

It is still early to judge the success of the program or to make long-term projections. However, I have indicated to the House in the past that I am optimistic about the initial response --

Mr. McClellan: I thought the minister was cautiously ecstatic.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I used that expression once in responding to a question in the House, and some people in my ministry have seized upon that expression as perhaps a constant state in which I live: cautious ecstasy.

However, I intend to continue to monitor this program and to introduce either design or administrative improvements, as required.

One particular area which we will continue to pursue is that of cost sharing. As the members will recall, the program was launched entirely on our own initiative as a provincial government. Although all the other provinces have accepted the need for positive work incentives and have supported our request to Ottawa, we have not yet been able to obtain cost sharing for this program. We hope that the federal government will be able to. find a way to cost share these initiatives with us in the future.

Obviously we cannot judge the success of any program on the basis of the first five months. However, if there is one thing the program has demonstrated it is the fact that we cannot simply provide social assistance to those who are in need; we must also focus upon initiatives that encourage and reward self-sufficiency. In effect, we need to redesign our programs to provide incentives that help people to help themselves.

I acknowledge that the program will not eliminate all the difficulties which might stand in the way of employment for all family benefits recipients. However, I regard this program as a positive first step in developing a new system to help people attain independence. Given the encouraging initial results, I think it is clear we are proceeding in the right direction.

COMMERCIAL REGISTRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for London Centre (Mr Peterson) rose on a point of privilege. He suggested that I had probably inadvertently or mistakenly misled the members of the House and would want to correct the record.

The honourable member, referring to the decision and order of the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal of December 10, 1973, in respect of Argosy Investments Limited, said: “There is no date. There is no term or condition. There is no end to those terms or conditions, as the minister was under the impression...”

I said that those terms and conditions were only applicable until December 31, 1974. I stand by what I said on Tuesday. I was advised on this matter by the ministry counsel, who pursued this matter with the tribunal as counsel to the then registrar. This same counsel appears frequently before the tribunal and is well informed as to the manner and meaning of tribunal orders.

The member for London Centre should, when reading the tribunal order, also make reference to exhibit 3 of the document, which contains 12 consented terms and conditions. Term number 11 reads as follows: “Subject to the terms and conditions herein, the registration of Argosy Investments Limited shall be renewed during a probationary period ending December 31, 1974.”

The tribunal decided to impose an additional term, and that term appears on page two of the tribunal order as item 2. That term, relating to shareholdings, was obviously the one which the member for London Centre believes had no time limitations.

Ministry counsel believes and has advised that the additional term imposed by the tribunal ought to be read and construed in the context of exhibit 3, which was attached to the tribunal order. In addition, the final sentence in the order reads as follows: “The breaching of said terms and conditions shall immediately result in the revocation of said registration at the time of said breach.”

To sum it all up, the tribunal in item 2 of its order first referred to the terms and conditions in exhibit 3, then went on in the same paragraph to add a term relating to shareholding and wrapped the paragraph up by the sentence which I just read referring to the consequences of breaching the said terms and conditions. Counsel has reiterated that all terms and conditions were subject to the same time limitation, namely, December 31, 1974.

I hope I have now cleared up the matter.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, was the minister speaking on a point of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: No. It is a ministerial statement, and you will be given an opportunity during question period.

Mr. Peterson: May I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: If you have one.

Mr. Peterson: In response thereto, Mr. Speaker: I certainly understand the minister’s point of view, but there is very serious legal interpretation the other way. Exhibit 3 applies to the first sentence of the second clause in the order, and that says: “The continuing registration of Argosy Investments Limited shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in attached exhibit 3.” Then it goes on to say, “and subject also to the condition that John David Carnie shall forthwith surrender and give up his shares.”

I would respectfully submit, legally and every other way, that this order has to stand on its own. Exhibit 3 does not refer to the clause about John David Carnie and, in fact, there is a very serious misinterpretation. It is not my intention to read motives into why or how this is being done, but it is a very serious misinterpretation of this legal order. It speaks in a broader sense to the follow-up by the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal and the scrutiny they make over their own judgements.

To that end it is a very serious matter which has been brought before this House. I respectfully submit the minister’s interpretation is incorrect in these circumstances for the reasons I have outlined.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the counsel mentioned in here advised me what was contained in the consent order, and that is the interpretation I have placed on it.

Mr. Peterson: All the minister has to do is read it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member says all I have to do is read it. I went to the counsel who was before that tribunal. That was the interpretation the registrar at the time and the counsel for the registrar took from the tribunal order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Obviously there is a difference of opinion, a difference in legal interpretation, and it is not within the purview of this House or myself as a presiding officer to adjudicate that. There is obviously a difference of opinion and the honourable member can pursue it in the normal channels outside this House. It is not within my purview to interpret legal documents. You obviously have a divergence of views and it is nothing this House can resolve.

LAND REGISTRATION REVISIONS

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to revise the Boundaries Act and two bills to amend the Land Titles Act and the Registry Act. This is the first significant revision of the Boundaries Act since it was introduced in 1959.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Why has the minister got so many statements?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Because I gave a commitment to the member that the next one is the Business Corporations Act

Mr. M. N. Davison: Why is the member trying to weasel out of the justice committee? Send it out as a press release.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the member blocked one bill this morning. Perhaps he does not want these introduced.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I want the minister in the justice committee.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this is the first significant revision of the Boundaries Act since it was introduced in 1959. Since then the passage of bills such as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act of 1971 has changed many terms of reference, and these revisions to the Boundaries Act are designed to reflect those changes.

Two aspects in particular are worthy of note. First, it will no longer be necessary to convene a public hearing if an application for confirmation of a boundary is unopposed. Second, the new act will allow applications for confirmation of public highway boundaries even where the true location of the boundary is not necessarily in doubt.

The amendments to the Land Titles Act and the Registry Act are basically housekeeping in nature and are generally intended to clarify wording and remove obsolete provisions. One amendment common to both acts modifies the common-law restriction that applies to the creation of easements for staged condominium developments. It allows a builder owning two or more adjoining parcels of land to grant a right of way to an adjoining property to be developed at a later time and assures the legal status of that easement.

May I say before closing that these revisions and amendments are in keeping with the government’s commitment to improve the efficiency of the land registration system in Ontario.

SUPERMARKET PRICING SYSTEMS

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement concerning computerized checkout systems, on which I made a commitment to the House.

Today, I would like to table the Interim Report on Computerized Checkout Systems in Food Supermarkets in Ontario. The members will recall that in my statement on computerized checkouts last December, I said that we would review very carefully the use of computerized checkouts in Ontario and report on our research before the session ended. I also indicated in that statement that the ultimate decision on the operation of computerized checkouts lies with the consumer, not with the industry or government

The interim report on computerized checkout systems in Ontario is the result of a survey in London, Ottawa and Stoney Creek, and of input from consumer organizations, labour and industry.

A little background explanation may be in order. The use of computerized checkout systems in some Ontario supermarkets has made it technologically possible to eliminate marketing prices on individual food items. Instead, the price can be determined at the checkout counter by using electronic scanning equipment, the universal product code markings on food products and the store’s computer price file. Under this arrangement, shoppers have to rely on shelf price markers in the store and itemized tape receipts for price information. This has resulted in some concern regarding possible abuses of the computerized prices-off system, such as more frequent changes in food prices and price increases on old stock to match prices on new shipments. The food industry, on the other hand, is convinced of the benefits of larger shelf labels and expanded tape receipts. They maintain that these will compensate for lack of item price marketing.

I need not describe the universal product code again but, by way of background, I should explain that, under the auspices of the Retail Council of Canada, three committees were set up to study the issue in 1975. One of them, the public advisory committee, created a set of guidelines under which the companies could test computerized checkouts. These were revised and presented to food chains and the public by the Retail Council of Canada in July 1977. The supermarkets involved never did commit themselves to these guidelines or comment on them publicly, after the Retail Council of Canada committees became inactive after the summer of 1977.

This brings us to November 1979, when Loblaws informed my ministry that it had discontinued the practice of item price marking in the three new Ontario stores equipped with computerized checkouts, to test consumer reaction to this policy. The other food chains then indicated their desire to eliminate item price marking, and two of these chains designated some locations as prices-off test stores.

My ministry endeavours to ensure that consumers have access to full, accurate and up-to-date information essential to making informed purchasing decisions. As a result of technological developments, many interested groups have come out strongly against the removal of prices from individual food items. The position of the Consumers’ Association of Canada is that consumers want and need item prices to compare and to detect errors in the store and at home. They feel the item price is a consumer right and favour a legislative solution.

To determine how consumers actually feel about item pricing, we surveyed 900 consumers. The major results of this survey are as follows:

Consumers have a strong preference for keeping item prices on. Although computerized checkouts and the elimination of item price markings are not significant factors in consumers’ overall evaluation of test stores, almost 90 per cent (87.9 per cent) of respondents, when asked the question directly, said it is important to keep prices on.

Mr. Cassidy: The consumer is right and you are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, I am not. Let me finish. Don’t interrupt.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Only six per cent of the respondents favoured a computerized prices-off system. The remainder were equally divided between the computerized and manual systems, so long as the prices remained on the items.

Although the respondents recognized the benefits of the new technology, such as greater efficiency, more accurate pricing and expanded information on the tape receipts, they questioned whether this increased efficiency would translate into lower food prices.

2:50 p.m.

Most respondents found that comparative shopping and price verification are more difficult in those stores which do not have item pricing. In other words, what consumers have told us is they are not now in favour of removing prices from individual items.

Before everyone begins asking me what I intend to do about the electronic checkouts, let me ask the real question: What is the supermarket industry going to do about it? Bear in mind that this was introduced for the benefit of the consumer. I want to know what they are going to do about it by August 1.

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, big deal. They will be trembling between now and August 1.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Are you in favour of it all?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: I wanted to know what the minister was going to do to stop them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You will find out August 2.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have another statement?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to table these. I was going to make another statement concerning the Business Corporations Act, but in the light of the extended time for statements today, I will do that in another manner.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Simcoe Centre have something bothering him?

THE TIN DRUM

Mr. G. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege or clarification, or to correct the record: In the media reports of the justice committee yesterday, certain statements were attributed to me. In an article in the Globe and Mail dated June 18, under the heading “Felt Intimidated on Drum Cuts, Two Censor Board Members Say,” by Sylvia Stead, the last paragraph -- of what I will describe as the censored version says:

“‘This is wasting this government’s time. We’ve got more important things to do than this....” -- the four dots indicate a four-letter word -- “said George Taylor (PC, Simcoe Centre).”

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House of the four-letter word I said. I will spell the word so as not to offend the ears of those in this place. It is c-r-a-p. I have canvassed numerous dictionaries, including Funk and Wagnalls, Oxford English and Webster’s Third, and it is described as statements that lie, mislead or exaggerate; bull, things that are worthless, inferior or junk; nonsense; rubbish. That is the context within which I used that word to describe what was taking place in the standing administration of justice committee yesterday. So I correct the record on that, Mr. Speaker.

Second, in the same newspaper of the same date, in a column I seldom read -- and if I were to use all the privileges of this House, I would naturally describe to that writer my full thoughts on the subject; however, I will not -- in a column by Hugh Winsor, there is a comment attributed to the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner). “John Turner, a particularly bucolic member from Peterborough, actually tried to defend the practice ... ” It goes on to state what he said. The honourable member was not in that committee meeting. He did not make those statements. The tried and true publication, with its great reputation for accuracy, is again inaccurate, as is that writer. If it is attributed to me that I am bucolic, I will accept that. The member for Peterborough may not

In describing the controversial film we are discussing, The Tin Drum, a Canadian Press report stated: “Controversial aspects of the film include a 12-year-old boy watching a couple have sexual intercourse and a boy presumably engaged in oral sex with a young woman,”

If I am supportive of that I am wrong. If they feel that is bucolic, then they are totally wrong. The people I represent would be disgusted to see such a film passed by any operation in this province. The Ontario Board of Censors was right and my feelings and my position are right. That should be stopped. If that is what the Globe and Mail considers as good reading and has its editorial and columnists’ support, then that is not the paper for families of this province.

TRENTON CELEBRATIONS

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have information I would like to present to the members. In the riding of Quinte, which I am very proud to represent, is located the town of Trenton. This year, Trenton has two very special causes for celebration. First, the community is 100 years old and, second, on July 1, Trenton will be proclaimed a city, the 44th city of Ontario.

Throughout the year there have been many wonderful celebrations of Trenton’s centennial. These will, of course, reach their climax on July 1 with a proclamation of Trenton as a city.

Trenton is located on the beautiful Bay of Quinte at the head of the renowned Trent Canal system. It is a picturesque and historic community which originated as a centre for the lumber industry. In recent years, the town has become an active and vital focus for diversified industry. Trenton, in my view, is typical of all that is fine and worthwhile in our Canadian communities.

As the member representing Trenton in this Legislature, I am delighted to extend an invitation to the members, their families and friends to visit Trenton during this exciting and historic year which celebrates a colourful past and marks the beginning of an even more challenging future.

NORTHERN ONTARIO AIR SERVICE

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), who is in Sudbury today attending the funeral of the late chairman of the regional municipality of Sudbury, I would like to inform the House of the results of a study dealing with continuing development of local air services in northern Ontario. The study, conducted by representatives of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and staff from the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, dealt with a number of policy issues currently affecting norOntair.

Since its inception in 1971, norOntair has enjoyed wide public acceptance throughout all of northern Ontario. The service, operating with eight Twin Otters, now serves 20 communities and this year is forecast to carry 125,000 passengers.

The growth of norOntair has always been paced by a blending of community requirements and the interests of northern Ontario’s local air carrier industry. The government’s approach to the extension of norOntair services to a particular community has been, and will continue to be, guided by the principle that the private sector should be encouraged to offer those services it feels can be commercially viable. The option of subsidizing services directly through norOntair will only be considered if demand warrants and if the private sector is not prepared to provide the necessary service.

In the recent past, a number of communities have approached the government with respect to having norOntair provide services to each of those communities. The study has considered all of these, as well as others, and has found sufficient demand to warrant the consideration of some form of scheduled air service to the following very important points: Cochrane, Hearst, Manitouwadge, Marathon, Ignace and Sioux Lookout.

In the case of Cochrane and Sioux Lookout, where scheduled services are currently available, the private sector will be encouraged to work in association with norOntair so as to offer improved services.

I would also add that the community of Armstrong has recently asked that it be considered for inclusion in the norOntair system for a weekend-only service in order to attract workers into the community. That is the initial stage. My colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs has therefore asked the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, the agency responsible for norOntair, to review the feasibility of providing this service as part of the service now operated between Thunder Bay and Pickle lake.

With respect to the provision of scheduled services to all of these points, the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission will be considering ways by which the commission could extend its corporate services to those carriers wishing to operate scheduled services to communities such as those I have identified. This assistance could include increased carrier identity through the publication of a joint northern Ontario air service schedule, extension of norOntair’s reservation system, plus ground and passenger handling provisions at common terminals. It is anticipated that the participating or hosted carriers would be charged a rate commensurate with ONTC costs. Under such an arrangement, I am confident that the carriers will find themselves in a strong position to more effectively offer services with their own resources.

With regard to the role that norOntair itself has played in the development of northern Ontario, I can assure members that every effort will be taken to maintain current levels of service. The norOntair standard has always been to provide class 2 regularly scheduled air services with aircraft of at least the calibre of the de Havilland Twin Otter. This standard will not be compromised; however, aircraft of similar size and seating configuration as the Twin Otter, or larger, will continue to be considered on an as-required basis. In 1984, as has been announced, norOntair will inaugurate services over its high density routes with two de Havilland Dash 8 aircraft.

3 p.m.

The function of norOntair has always been to ensure mobility between points in the north and to facilitate air service connections with southern Ontario. The airline currently enjoys a very positive working relationship with Air Canada and Nordair with respect to interline requirements of Ontario’s northern regional air service hubs. In this regard, norOntair will continue to provide feeder services to northern Ontario’s regional hub airports of Dryden, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, Sudbury and North Bay. The government will also encourage the use of these airports by other local carriers to strengthen the viability of regional air services at these points.

In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm the government’s intention of having norOntair remain as an intra-Ontario air service. It is felt that regularly scheduled air services across provincial boundaries should be offered by the private sector where considered appropriate.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: For 17 years, the minister has been ignoring the airport at Owen Sound. We have a Department of Transport airport there but this minister cannot give us any service. That is a point of privilege, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order, if you could call the House to order. It is so seldom that the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development makes a statement that when a major one such as this is made it would be appreciated if he would supply the opposition parties with copies. That was not done according to the standing orders, and we would like an opportunity to read the statement in detail. We found what we were able to hear encouraging.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I had asked to make sure that was done. I am sorry if it has not been done, and I have copies now.

CIVIL PROCEDURE REVISION COMMITTEE REPORT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the report of the Civil Procedure Revision Committee prepared under the very distinguished chairmanship of Walter B. Williston, QC, whom I am delighted to see in the Speaker’s gallery with some of his committee members.

I think we can take some pride in the improvements that have been made in the administration of justice in the field of procedures during the past five years. We have seen the creation of a Unified Family Court project in Hamilton and the adoption of a new set of procedures for use in the provincial court, family division, across the province. We will shortly be embarking on a new provincial court (civil division) project here in the city of Toronto. These measures have all been aimed at making the court system more accessible and responsive to the needs of the people of Ontario.

We have also seen the introduction of a new system for the adjudication of provincial offences aimed at simplifying and expediting the legal process. The report of the Williston committee is another example of the importance which we attach to the modernization and rationalization of the procedures in use in our courts.

The Civil Procedure Revision Committee report represents the achievement of a monumental task over the course of the past four years. The report is the result of many months of research by the committee into the rules of civil procedure governing actions in the county and Supreme Courts of this province.

In the course of their study, the committee members had occasion to consider reforms recently undertaken in many other jurisdictions. The result is a report which takes the form of a proposed new Judicature Act, County Courts Act and amendments to other pieces of legislation, as well as a completely new set of rules of practice and procedure to govern actions in the county and Supreme Courts. The committee engaged in extensive consultation with members of the practising bar and judiciary in the course of the preparation of its report.

I intend to send copies of the report to the judiciary and to representative groups of the bar having a particular interest in litigation, in order to give them one last opportunity for comment before we proceed to implement the recommendations of the committee. My ministry is already working on the necessary legislation to accomplish the very desirable reforms recommended by the committee, although we realize there is still some additional work to be done before we can have a new set of procedures for civil actions in our courts.

We propose as well to take advantage of the opportunity to make other improvements in our legislation in areas which did not fall within the purview of the Williston committee.

I would like to express my appreciation to the chairman and the members of the Williston committee and their staff, who devoted a great deal of time, energy and scholarship to the production of a report that will have a tremendous impact on the future administration of justice in Ontario by rationalizing and modernizing the rules and procedures by which civil litigation is conducted in this province.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes the importance of comprehensive human rights legislation which effectively addresses the problems of the minorities and disadvantaged groups in society. In fact, as members know, Ontario pioneered human rights legislation in Canada in the early 1960s, and has been in the forefront in the fight against discrimination ever since.

Despite our record, no one suggests that discrimination has been eradicated or that improvements ought not to be made to the existing Ontario Human Rights Code. Recognizing this, we have been working conscientiously for some time to assemble a package of amendments to respond to important issues raised by various concerned groups. The process, which has included intensive consultations with a number of organizations, has been complex and time-consuming but none the less essential in ensuring that all points of view are known and carefully weighed.

It had been our hope to introduce the amending legislation before the summer recess. However, because of the magnitude and complexity of the task, this will not be possible. At this point, I see no reason why we will not be able to proceed with the legislation when the session resumes in the fall.

In the meantime, I wish to share with honourable members our intentions concerning those amendments to the code which will provide protection for our handicapped citizens.

Discrimination on the grounds of handicap will be prohibited in all sections of the code, including employment, accommodation, contracts, services, and membership in vocational associations. In response to representations from groups representing the handicapped, the definition of handicapped will be expanded to include not only past, present and perceived physical disability in its broadest interpretation, but also mental illness, mental retardation and learning disability. Exceptions will apply to those situations in which a particular handicap renders the person incapable of carrying out essential functions associated with the particular activity in question.

In addition to the general prohibition against discrimination in employment, the amendments will prohibit an employer from refusing to employ a handicapped person on the grounds that he or she cannot enrol in an employee benefit plan or pension fund.

Mr. S. Smith: How does the minister know that? Show us --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know the Leader of the Opposition knows everything, but he should just be quiet and learn something else.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t tell us how. Do it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Oh, keep quiet over there. Just keep quiet and listen to something for a change.

The amendments will also provide that where a bona fide ground is established excluding the handicapped person from such a plan, the employer must pay to the handicapped employee an amount equivalent to the contribution the employer would otherwise have paid to the plan on the employee’s behalf. Handicapped persons will have the right, as well, to equal treatment in insurance, subject to certain limited exceptions,

In addition, where discrimination against a handicapped person is established in relation to employment, accommodation or services, a board of inquiry will be entitled to address the question of access to premises, equipment or facilities as the case may be and, subject to reasonable cost considerations, may make access orders. I might also say that the amended act will have primacy over other legislation except legislation establishing programs designed to assist disadvantaged persons.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Leader of the Opposition please be quiet?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am convinced that, as a result of our intensive and productive meetings, we have arrived at provisions that will afford protection to our handicapped citizens. While the revised act will deal with a number of other important issues, both substantive and procedural, many of which have already been approved by cabinet, I did want to emphasize the priority that this government attaches to protection for the handicapped as one of the most important elements in a broad package of amendments to the code, and to assure the House of our resolve to provide that protection, in very specific and comprehensive terms, at the earliest possible date. In addition, I shall be having meetings with the handicapped to discuss the proposed legislation with them.

3:10 p.m.

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House, I would like to tell the members that we are not going to proceed today with Bill 5, which concerns the Toronto Islands and which is sitting waiting for second reading. I am profoundly sorry that the opposition parties have not seen fit to support this bill. It sat here for quite a considerable time, and I think I can say this bill presents a fair compromise. It is a compromise bill, particularly with the amendment that I had suggested. It is a bill that would have prevented the eviction of the present occupants and would have guaranteed life tenure to those people. However, this bill will remain on the Order Paper and it can be considered during the fall session.

With the summer before us, I hope we can use it fruitfully to overcome some of the impasses that have been reached. .I am therefore proposing that we do two things over the summer recess. First of all, I am going to ask Metropolitan Toronto not to proceed with the writs of possession at this time. I have asked them several times on behalf of the members of this House not to proceed with those writs and, in fairness, they have not proceeded with the writs when we have asked them. The reason I am going to ask them not to proceed with the writs is that I am going to see whether we cannot find some way over the summer to find a solution to this impasse. My bill is a logical solution. The only thing holding up resolution of this problem is the two parties sitting over there.

I am going to propose, therefore, at our next cabinet meeting that the Lieutenant Governor in Council establish a commission under section 249 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act to inquire into the future uses of those lands on Wards and Algonquin Islands, which were occupied on October 19, 1979, and used for residential purposes.

In addition to the chairman of the commission, four other commissioners will be appointed. This is very similar to the amendment I suggested to the bill which the members opposite did not accept. This commission will have two people appointed on the advice of the city of Toronto and two on the advice of Metropolitan Toronto. I am asking this commission to report to me as soon as possible, and I am happy to tell the House that the chairman of the commission will be Barry Swadron, QC, a lawyer of Toronto.

GRANT TO RACING CAR DRIVER

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, just before I ask a question, I want to raise a matter of privilege. The House was assured by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) that he would table immediately -- this was last Monday, I believe -- the letter upon which he based his contention that he could recover $15,000 from one Maurice Carter. In fact, I have asked the minister again for that in person twice since then, but the letter has not been tabled and we are about to leave for the summer.

It seems to me the House has been given a promise, and that promise has not been kept. I am not sure what the Speaker feels he can do in the circumstances, but it is difficult for us to understand or accept the credibility of statements if the basis upon which they are made is being refused to us in the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order, which I think he could have asked a question about, it would have been very simple --

Mr. Breithaupt: The Minister for Industry and Tourism is not here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to say to the member for Kitchener that neither he nor his leader have ever been reluctant to ask other people, when ministers have not been here, questions that may or may not --

Mr. S. Smith: Why should I waste a question, because he does not keep a promise?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, some of the Leader of the Opposition’s colleagues are trying to advise him to keep his cool as he is getting a little touchy these days. They may even suggest he get a little psychiatric help. I do not know whether it is possible.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk will be delighted to know the minister was in Brantford dealing with some very serious matters. I know the member prefers he not go to Brantford to try to deal with serious matters, but anyway that is where he was. Knowing that the member was going to make these accusations about this very distinguished member of the government, he is here to reply. I think the Leader of the Opposition should make that the subject of his first question. Why does he not make that a question?

Mr. S. Smith: When you become Leader of the Opposition, that is how you can do it.

Mr. Speaker: In terms of the question period, the duration of the question period in this House is one hour, including time spent on points of order and points of privilege. While we have still not had a question we have already expended three minutes of the question period time. Does the Minister of Industry and Tourism have a response to the point of privilege?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have not heard the point of privilege; however, I have a response. I was just kidding when I said I had a response. I have not heard it.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: If I may repeat it, it is simply that the minister promised to table the letter -- which I asked him for twice, as he knows, as well as in the House -- upon which he based his statement that he can recover the money from Mr. Carter. He promised to table that letter or that agreement, either one, and it is just not there. We believe the promise has not been kept.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can report to the House that my staff has been in contact with everyone involved. During the day today I was trying to deal with matters relating to Massey Ferguson and the city of Brantford, which I thought took priority.

The simple answer is that I have not been in touch with my staff on the matter today. I will get on the phone to them and as soon as the letters are brought here the Leader of the Opposition can have them. He may even have the cheque today; one can never tell.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL INTERNS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the assessor -- I believe his name is Mr. Teplitsky -- appointed by the minister to inquire into the matter of remuneration for hospital house staff positions has made his report, and since the minister has seven days to respond to this particular report, can the minister tell us whether he will go ahead, and will he give an undertaking to this House that the recommendations of the assessor will be accepted?

The minister is aware of the very thorny nature of this matter, which has gone on now for several years -- it goes back decades in fact -- in terms of trying to define the role of house staff. Finally there is what looks to be a reasonable report; a recommendation has been made and the minister has seven days to respond. Can the minister tell us now that he will, in fact, accept that report?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, having been an intern and a resident myself, along with the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure he and I both have a certain amount of --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Along with him?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: At different times. I did not want to get into that kind of problem, Mr. Premier, but we always had a certain deal of some kind of respect for those in psychiatry. I am sure we share a common concern for the work and the hours spent by interns serving the public, but I think there is some misunderstanding about the process.

For several years now the Minister of Labour has, on a voluntary ad hoc basis, without any statutory basis for it, co-operated in trying to resolve disputes between the Professional Association of Interns and Residents of Ontario and the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals. We have done it very diligently with a great deal of interest in spite of the absence of a statutory base. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition understands that. In 1978, I believe it was, PAIRO and OCATH came to an agreement between themselves which outlined the steps that could be taken and should be taken to resolve a dispute. One of those steps involved the appointment of an assessor who may make recommendations which he shall forward to the Minister of Labour, who was not a party to the agreement between the two parties, as I am sure the member understands.

3:20 p.m.

Following the forwarding of that recommendation the intern staff then have seven days before they may do certain things -- during that period of seven days after the Minister of Labour has received the assessor’s report. It is true, we do have a report. I don’t want to comment on it. Surely comments should first of all come from the parties.

We have heard from PAIRO. I understand their views, and I understand the anxiety of having had a year and a half go by in which nothing happened, but I am sure they would also agree that one should take the opportunity to receive a response from OCATH to see what its view is of the report, before one gives consideration to what steps might be taken by the Minister of Labour who, I might add again, has no statutory responsibility.

However, we will continue to offer every reasonable service we can and will continue to be involved. I am simply awaiting a response from OCATH to determine what their feelings are about this recommendation.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Given the number of obstacles that seem to have been set in the path of the interns and residents as they have attempted to get the raise they have not had in two and a half years, given the number of difficulties they have encountered in trying to get compulsory, binding arbitration, something which in my view they should have, and given the fact that finally there is an assessor who has spent an exhaustive amount of time and energy and has come up with a report, how long is the matter going to be left in abeyance while the teaching hospitals talk among themselves and perhaps agree or disagree, leaving the interns in a situation in which they either have to work to rule, go on strike or take some other kind of measure if they are ever going to get an increase, having waited this unconscionably long period of time?

This happened before. This is a chronic problem. Why does the minister not move now to resolve the issue, get a clear definition, binding arbitration, something with which we can live from now on, and not have to repeat this exercise every year ad infinitum?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not hear what the member felt about whether OCATH should have an opportunity to review the assessor’s report and comment on it. I would have thought he and I would have understood that that was sort of part of the natural-justice concept of life that we all understand in negotiations. That is what I indicated we were awaiting, that is, the viewpoints of OCATH.

For instance, they may well have some comments on the statement in the Teplitsky report that only 10 per cent of an intern’s time is devoted to teaching. The member may have some views on that and I may have some views on that, but surely we should hear from the parties on the substance of the report before making any decisions about where one goes from here.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would remind members that it is now 17 months since the date on which this contract between the interns and the hospitals across the province should have gone into force.

Is the minister at least prepared to say whether he considers the financial recommendations of the assessor’s report to be a fair and equitable settlement for the interns and house staff across the province? Will the minister also say what steps the Ministry of Labour intends to take in order to prevent these unconscionable delays in negotiations between interns and residents and the hospitals across the province? Does he think it fair for any group of workers in the province to have to go through 17 months without a contract because of the intransigence of its employers?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, again, as I mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition, it would be most inappropriate for the minister to comment on the substance of the Teplitsky report. I don’t really think the member for Ottawa Centre expected me to comment on it.

Mr. Cassidy: Sure, I do.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Well then, that is another problem he has in life: he does not appreciate the role that the Minister of Labour plays in situations like this.

But I may say that the steps we will recommend to our cabinet colleagues and to our caucus will follow upon the receipt of information with regard to OCATH’s response to the Teplitsky report. Surely that is a pretty logical way to approach life.

On the other matter: I have to agree that I have a great deal of sympathy with the fact that there has been since 1974, to my knowledge, a long series of protracted negotiations, and I think we have to give fairly serious consideration to some better means of resolving them.

Mr. Van Horne: The minister still has not answered the question. We understand that PAIRO is very much accepting the recommendations of the report, but we do not know what OCATH is going to do. We want to know what the minister can do, what power he has or what recommendations he would have if in fact OCATH did not accept that report. That is what the interns also want to know. He should tell them what he is going to do.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think I understand the interns pretty well. I think their teaching has taught them to understand and deal with problems logically, and one goes at problems step by step. When one receives the OCATH response, then one will decide what path to follow.

THE TIN DRUM

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Speaker, relating to the procedure by which the Ontario Board of Censors has dealt with The Tin Drum. Would the minister care to correct any of the statements he has made in the House in which he indicated that correct procedure had been followed and that there were no votes taken between the two so-called official votes that were taken on The Tin Drum? Sworn testimony yesterday would indicate that both intimidation and manipulation of board members by the administrators may have occurred. Would the minister now wish to correct his view of how many votes were taken on this matter and say whether he believes the procedures being followed by the board of censors in this province are adequate in his regard?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I said in the estimates committee yesterday when I was asked that question -- or when it was referred to -- that I am. At no time did I ever attempt to confuse the Leader of the Opposition, or anybody else. I answered his questions.

I read a chronology. We went through this at great length yesterday in the committee. There was a vote and a decision. There was a decision reached in the beginning. Everybody initialled the sheet. That is the decision.

I have that chronology here -- the same one I used before. On April 22 -- and this is what I told the Leader of the Opposition in response to his question -- there was a consensus reached by the board, and the decision came about because it was an issue. On May 15, there was a decision reached on the review because the people signed the document. Either here, or in my estimates previous to yesterday, we went through all of the various -- some people call them straw -- votes. I refer to the procedure as something akin to a jury system in the way they make a decision.

I have constantly said there were a number of ponderings, there were a number of samplings, a number of anything. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to call them votes, that is fine, but the important thing is there was a decision April 22 and a decision May 15.

I am satisfied with the procedures of the board.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister may well be in a minority of one in this regard.

Does the minister find it acceptable that votes are taken of a straw nature, or any other kind, repeatedly, over and over again, until finally -- possibly as a result of people feeling manipulated, possibly as a result of their feeling intimidated -- they get a result that is acceptable to the head of the board, at which point the matter is then put to them for initialling? Is he satisfied with that kind of procedure? Does it bother the minister at all that it would appear that the people of Ontario are not going to see this film when it would appear that the majority of the board of censors at various times favoured showing that film with one cut?

Does it bother him that it was only because of the continued demands on the part of the chairman and his assistant that eventually they were worn down -- or whatever word they used; manipulated, intimidated -- to come up with a decision that they particularly wanted? It must have been a very difficult and arduous procedure for the chairman, given the problems he has and so on. I would simply say to the minister it would appear that the board was polled and repolled until it came up with the results the chairman wanted. How can the minister be satisfied with that?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, that is as much nonsense as saying that a jury polled and repolled among its members until they agreed upon a verdict. The reason the board took these votes or discussed and it came back again is, by their own admission, that they had reached no consensus; by their own admission, not by the minister’s, not by anybody else’s.

Mr. S. Smith: They were intimidated.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Who intimidated them? Who? Is the member saying that I did? If not, he should say it into his microphone that I did not.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister did not intimidate anyone.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Poor, shy people.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the evidence yesterday, and I do not want to evaluate evidence, one person testified under oath that he “felt intimidated.” The answer to who was intimidating him was “management.” I hope this afternoon that that witness or anybody else --

Mr. M. N. Davison: You have pretty well stopped that, haven’t you?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The honourable member filibustered it all day long yesterday. He got himself in a jackpot. Now, let him live with it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will look at the Hansard when it is available. I will look at today’s Hansard when it is available. If there is any reason to believe that somebody was intimidated, then I will do something about it. But I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the person who said, “I felt intimidated,” never changed his vote, and that is a matter of record.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister put information before both the House and its standing committee on the administration of justice which was totally inaccurate in this regard, and since he refuses either to correct the record or to apologize to the members of this assembly for breaching their privileges in such a fashion, which means either that the minister was a dupe or was involved in the entire unsavoury process, either of which is unacceptable behaviour in a minister of the crown, will he not at least have the decency to resign his portfolio so we can get a minister who will be committed to cleaning up the procedures at that board?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Since it is the last day of the session, I take a lot of things into account. The member bungled very badly on a bill this morning, and I suppose he feels a bit uncertain.

I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker. I am going to tell you something, and I am going to tell this assembly something. The sun has never yet risen on a day and it never will rise on a day when this minister is a dupe or when this minister is part of any unsavoury practice.

I am going to treat the rest of the question with the contempt that it deserves.

Mr. Roy: Given that the minister does not warrant the adjectives which have been directed to him from the New Democratic Party, does it not bother him nevertheless that a board that is supposed to be making decisions independently is still coming to the public -- one member at least, and we will hear more probably -- or coming to a legislative committee and making statements that they feel they are intimidated -- at least one feels he is being intimidated? How can the minister compare the process that takes place in the board with the jury system when he knows very well that in the jury system, if there were such evidence about intimidation, the verdict would be overturned?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I talked about the procedure as being identical to a jury system without discussing the merits of the particular event. The member should keep that very clearly in mind.

All the evidence is not in. A person said he felt intimidated. I made some statements to the press yesterday about how seriously I regarded that, if indeed it was true.

Mr. Roy: You should be concerned about it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I just said that. Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I just said it. I don’t understand what’s the matter with the member.

All the Hansards are not here. I told the Leader of the Opposition I will look at the Hansard. You see what happens to me when I am a nice guy and I am friendly, Mr. Speaker. Harold Ballard is right; I get in trouble when I am a nice guy.

WILD RICE

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to treat a serious issue in northwestern Ontario, the question of the moratorium on wild rice licences that was declared a couple of years ago. I do so in the presence of Chief Robin Greene, chief of the Grand Council of Treaty No. 3, who is in the gallery today.

The Premier will recall having committed the government two years ago to provide assistance to Indian wild rice licensees, and I quote, “with the primary objective of establishing an economic base for the Indian communities in northwestern Ontario.”

Given that commitment to assistance, which was made two years ago, could the Premier explain why it is that in the first and second years of the moratorium, the only material assistance that has been offered to the Indian communities has been the provision of two mechanical harvesters on loan from the Ministry of Natural Resources?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of discussions with the native people in that part of the northwestern part of Ontario. I think the discussions really have gone beyond the offering of two mechanical harvesters.

I have not been involved in the discussions in the past two or three months, but I believe the minister has, and I think there are some further recommendations coming forward some time this coming month. When I say “month,” I think that will be in July. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) may have further information for the honourable member if he wishes to redirect a supplementary to him.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to continue to talk to the Premier about this particular issue, particularly in view of the fact that neither has there been assistance forthcoming from the government nor, in view of the disastrous harvests of wild rice of the last couple of years which were due to high water, has there been the means or the wherewithal for the Indian communities to embark on the technological and other changes that might have been required to ensure the economic base the Premier spoke of two years ago.

Since programs of financial assistance to the non-native community normally have a budget and specific criteria for the way one may apply, could the Premier give a commitment that a specific amount of money will be set aside to assist native communities in the wild rice harvest beginning this summer, and will the Premier also make a commitment that there will be specific means by which those native communities can apply for assistance in such areas as seeding, the acquisition of boats and equipment, marketing, and processing facilities?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Once again I am going a little bit by memory. The amount of money, I guess, is always subject to some negotiation or debate on occasion, but my recollection is that it has not been a question of money or the amount of money in determining in exactly what ways we as a government can be helpful.

3:40 p.m.

I would not want, Mr. Speaker, to give the honourable member a commitment on any specifics. In this situation, I do not think we want a program where hard and fast guidelines are laid down, because it is not that type of situation. I would think the honourable member should be urging us to exercise as much flexibility as possible in terms of dealing with this situation, because that is the approach we believe is correct and the one we will be taking.

Mr. Cassidy: I would point out to the Premier that is the case of the Employment Development Fund and other programs like that, there is a specific budget and it does give people an idea of the degree of commitment that exists by the government, something that has not been done in this particular case.

Since the wild rice crop in northwestern Ontario has been virtually wiped out in the last couple of years because of the high water levels and since, despite instructions from the minister, the government’s representative on the Lake of the Woods control board has consistently continued to oppose the appointment of an Indian wild rice adviser to that control board, which determines the water levels in the water system up there, could the Premier tell the House exactly what steps the government intends to take to ensure that the control board has the benefit of the expertise possessed by Treaty No. 3 Indians concerning the effect of water levels on the rice crop?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Once again, my recollection was that in discussions with some of the members of the native band in that area, and I do not know whether it is the present chief or the former chief, I personally made it very clear in all of the discussions on wild rice that the advice of the native people would be sought and this would include the question of water levels.

I cannot inform the honourable member whether there is some disagreement with respect to the water levels; I personally am not aware of it. But I did give the assurance of the government as it related to these issues that the native people would be consulted.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the Premier’s statement about consultation with the native peoples, is he not aware that the Lake of the Woods control board, which regulates the water levels in the Lake of the Woods and all of the other major waterways where the wild rice is grown, has consistently refused to have a nonvoting adviser from Treaty No. 3 Indians who would be able to advise on the water levels?

Is the Premier also not aware that, unless that adviser is present and able to bring the case for wild rice before the control board whenever they are making decisions about water levels, we will continue to have the case of the problems which have existed over the last couple of years where the control board maintains the water levels so high that the wild rice harvest is effectively wiped out year after year.

If the government has made a commitment to making wild rice an economic base for Indians in northwestern Ontario, why will the government not ensure that there is that adviser who can consult, not when somebody chooses to talk to them, but on a consistent basis with the most important governmental agency that determines water levels which affect the wild rice harvest?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not attempting to draw a distinction between being a member of a board and being in a position to offer one’s point of view. I cannot guarantee the honourable member that advice that is offered is necessarily accepted.

I believe, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, that the ministry actually made a suggestion that the question the honourable member has raised be accommodated. I gather that there was not any agreement on this, but the ministry personnel --

Mr. Cassidy: The government’s representative voted against what the minister said.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish. I am trying to be as helpful as I can. If the member does not want to listen to me, then let him go ahead and interrupt. Does he want to listen? In other words, is he going to be quiet for a moment or two? That is a tremendous sacrifice on his part; I know that.

My understanding is that the Ministry of Natural Resources people are not under instructions, those who are members of the board but have been asked to do it. I do not know the makeup of the board and this is why I say, with great respect, that the member might have asked the Minister of Natural Resources, but he seems reluctant to do so. They are instructed or requested to consult or speak to the members of the native community when these matters are being discussed.

If my impression is erroneous, I suggest that the member ask a supplementary to the minister, who I know is always most agreeable in trying to get information for the member, and he will be prepared to do it.

ONTARIO BUSINESS BUY-BACK PROGRAM

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier about the buy-back proposals announced earlier this week by the Minister of Industry and Tourism and which the minister called “the key to increasing Canadian participation in the economy...”

Given the fact that takeovers by foreign corporations in Ontario amounted to $2.5 billion worth of assets last year, can the Premier explain why the government has apparently allotted only about $10 million to the buy-back program announced this week? Can he explain how the government expects to ensure that Canadians regain control of our industry when the government is putting up only $1 for buy-backs for every $250 being spent by foreign corporations on takeovers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think there may be some misunderstanding as to the limits. I quite seriously suggest that the member ask the Minister of Industry and Tourism, who is very familiar with it and who will give him the answers.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would redirect the question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism, in that case.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In essence, Mr. Speaker, we have developed a program that can be used by as many companies as present viable business proposals to us. There is no $10-million cap on it. In fact this government would be delighted if it found there were enough good investment opportunities for Canadians to buy back foreign branch plants so as to require more than $10 million. We would be delighted to go over the figure the member is talking about.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister not aware that his own media representatives are estimating that perhaps five or six of these buy-backs might take place every year? That is a maximum of about $9 million, if the maximum of $1.5 million were spent each time. Is he also not aware that the Globe and Mail has reported, presumably on the basis of information from the ministry, that about $10 million will be spent every year?

I repeat the question. How does the government expect Ontarians to regain control of their economy if the government is prepared to put up only $1 for every $250 being spent by foreign corporations on acquisitions in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again I can only say that the figures quoted were based on the amount of business we have traditionally done year after year. As I said in my statement the other day, this government has always made money available for those instances, particularly in employee purchasing situations, where Canadians can buy out foreign subsidiaries.

On the basis of the activities in which we have been involved in the last few years -- I think of the situation with Pioneer Chainsaw corporation, I think of the Prestolite Company plant, I think of Lockwood Manufacturing Inc. in Brantford -- in looking at our track record, one sees we have done about five or six a year. On that basis, if the level did not increase, the payment every year would be close to the figures you are talking about.

Quite simply, one thing this government is not going to do -- and perhaps the member might advocate it -- is to go out with a wad of money to try to buy out plants; this inevitably would force up the price of some of those plants that are currently not for sale. In fact, it would lead to the very thing we would be sensitive about; that is, the bailing out of foreign entrepreneurs involved in bad projects.

What we are saying is that where there is a branch plant, a good viable one, available for purchase, we will help that purchase occur. If it is $10 million --

Mr. S. Smith: So will any bank.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not true. The Leader of the Opposition says “any bank.” That is patently not true. The fact is that if it were $10 million, $30 million, $50 million, or if we were to double the amount, we would find the amount of money available.

I would point out one other thing to the leader of the third party. When he acknowledges that there are not enough opportunities for Canadians to buy out branch plants that are becoming available, he is, of course, acknowledging that a lot of those branch plants are still in business here, are still employing people, are still creating employment for Ontarians and therefore are operating to the benefit of our economy while they are in business. If they were not, they might be for sale.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain why it is that the government has so categorically rejected the recommendations of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism, in which my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) was involved six years ago? It was a report that was endorsed by the members of the Conservative caucus who were present, as well as by the Liberals and the NDP at the time.

Why is it that the government was not prepared to go along with the recommendation that there not only be a buy-back program, but that the Ontario Development Corporation be empowered to buy a Canadian presence in selected industries, to buy enterprises coming up for sale from foreign owners for which no Canadian buyers could be found, and to acquire assets on a temporary basis until a Canadian owner could be found?

Why is it that the select committee, six years ago, put forward proposals that this government is not prepared to adopt even today?

3:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with respect, if I heard all three of those questions accurately, I want to emphasize that the Ontario development corporations are currently authorized to do all of those things and if a good business proposition was brought to us ODC would do any of those things.

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. I see him behind the seats over there. I would like to ask him if he is aware of the existence of a concrete water tower which stores nuclear waste left over from the Manhattan Project, a project that developed the first atomic bomb that was dropped on Japan? Is he aware of the fact that the waste from that project is buried along the Niagara River, on the United States side immediately adjacent to the river?

Also, has he ever asked for and received information from our American friends in the Department of Environmental Conservation, and is he satisfied that we are not facing a real disaster in the event of some lightning or other catastrophe striking that structure, which seems to be makeshift, to say the very least, in an area of extreme danger as it relates to nuclear waste?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I am not aware of it, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared, on the member’s behalf, to ask and get the information and forward it to him.

Mr. Kerrio: I would appreciate that very much. The reason I posed the question is that there was a report following the Three Mile Island incident and there was some concern that it may have affected the infant mortality rate in the areas of Kingston and that area upwind. The reason I am hoping the minister would come back with a report is that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is very concerned about the tornado resistance to our nuclear plants. Are our American friends aware that this poses a great threat to the people in the area?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, I will get that information in that light. I do not really think it is wise to compare those two. I think we should dissociate Three Mile Island, the Kingston report and that possibility. But given that preamble, I will get the information.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in the same vein, regarding the pollution of our fresh water system in the Love Canal area: In view of the fact that two thirds of the world is covered by water and only 2.5 per cent of that is fresh water and 90 per cent of the world’s supply of fresh water is our Great Lakes system here, why will he not establish an institute of technology that would give us a marine geology and engineering institute, say in the Owen Sound area, where we have the freshest, purest water in the world? Why could he not establish an institution to go after fresh water right now at a time when it is so precious to us?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the honourable member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed) says we do have that kind of facility here in Ontario. It is under the federal jurisdiction. I would remind the member that not that many years ago the Premier (Mr. Davis), along with the government of Michigan, signed some agreements that eventually led to the international agreement. I would think it is pretty well known in the international scene that Ontario is not only always co-operative, but frequently leads the way in establishing these commissions that will look into it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Always leads the way.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Always leads the way, Mr. Premier, I accept that correction. But we do, frequently, by our own negotiations on an individual state, prompt the international agreements. We have always been a party to that and frequently have given resources. I believe I can honestly say, in the matter of protecting the Great Lakes and the agreements that have been necessary to do so, we have been leaders.

SUGAR PRICES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware that the main supermarket chains today raised the price for two kilograms of white granular sugar by 30 cents, even though no corresponding increase took place in the raw sugar price or even in the wholesale price? In view of the minister’s pseudo conversion to concern about consumer prices, as he indicated last night in speaking to the Consumers’ Association of Canada, why has he not intervened in sugar prices when the supermarket price on this --

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: It is no joke when the price on this two-kilogram package has risen from $1.25 less than a year ago to $3.09 now.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any speech I made last night. I was at a boxing club and then I was at a dinner with the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy). I presume the honourable member is referring to remarks I made on Tuesday night.

I have been watching the price of sugar for some time. I could not hear the honourable member’s question, but I would be very glad to take the five pounds or whatever it is -- what is it? The honourable member is not offering it to me? He gives me a pair of chintzy oranges when he knows I do not eat them, but he will not give me sugar. I will look into the details of the member’s question and I will reply to him as soon as possible.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Because of the long delay while the minister says he has been looking into it, will he explain now why the markup from the price of raw sugar in this package to the retail price, which was only 45 cents last summer, is now three times that much? Will he also explain why this five-pound bag of sugar, 12 per cent more than the two-kilogram bag, sells currently for an average price in New York State of $2.25? This means our retail price is 50 per cent above theirs, when the raw sugar price difference, because of the dollar value, can account for only 10 per cent of it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the honourable member in answer to his previous question, I will look into it and respond to him forthwith. It would be helpful, perhaps, in the future, if instead of sending me things like chintzy weatherbeaten oranges, he might give me those. They are worth something.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: While the minister is looking into food prices, would he check to ascertain why there was a 175 per cent markup on such products as asparagus, hothouse cucumbers and field rhubarb. It is my understanding the asparagus was even broken down into packages that amounted to a 350 per cent markup. I wonder if the minister would look into that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, that was on the basis of allegations made on a radio program, I think. I do not have the exact details with me today, but I will supply them to the member. We did check into that, particularly through the Asparagus Growers’ Marketing Board, and we found that some of that was incorrect. Some of the things were based upon some specialty store items. But I will be very glad to provide the member with that detail.

4 p.m.

I am glad he asked that, because we had some interesting conversations with the asparagus marketing board. One of the problems they brought to my attention -- and I am certainly bringing it forcibly to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) -- is that they feel they could supply a much larger market in Ontario if there were some prodding given to the supermarkets and the big buyers. Rather than them giving preference in the early spring to long-term contracts from the United States, the producers could supply them on the basis of expanded acreage and expanded production if they had this commitment so that they could increase the acreage.

I want to pursue that very quickly with the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Together, we may be able to use our good offices to see if that can be accomplished to increase the sales potential and acreage potential for asparagus growers in particular.

GAS SALES TO AMERICANS

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Premier. Is he aware that a large number of American motorists, averaging 75,000 additional entries per mouth into Canada at Fort Erie are using available means to obtain additional sources of Canadian gasoline? What steps, if any, has this government taken to provide measures to stop the hoarding of highly subsidized Canadian gasoline to certain American motorists who are abusing their privileges?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the government of Canada, where the jurisdiction properly lies, is looking into it. I would question that one should use the phrase “highly subsidized.”

Mr. Haggerty: It is about $8 per tankful of gas.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know who is subsidizing it. The member is not, I am not; we are not as taxpayers. I just do not want the member to create an erroneous impression. The Premier of Alberta might argue that it is being subsidized by the taxpayers of Alberta. That might be closer to reality than the suggestion the member is making that they are buying gasoline subsidized by ourselves, because we are not. It is a difficult problem.

Mr. Haggerty: We could take sugar for gasoline.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand, Mr. Speaker, but I think the member also comes from an area that is relatively sensitive in terms of the tourist industry. I know the member can differentiate in his own mind between an American tourist who is coming here and is going to drive from his community perhaps to Brampton, spend a few dollars, go on up into the riding of the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) and so on. I think one has to be very careful in terms of how one deals with it. I really do think it is a matter for the government of Canada in terms of their policies related to the United States.

We are quite aware of it, we are concerned about it; but I think it has to be handled very carefully in the context of our relationships with our neighbours to the south.

EXTRADITION OF JULIUS NAGY

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. I would like to know why the Attorney General is stalling on the extradition of Mr. Julius Nagy of the Apico fraud situation. As the Attorney General knows, Mr. Nagy is in the United States -- I believe in New Jersey. He should be here to face RCMP charges of fraud involving $350,000 that has been taken from a number of our ordinary citizens living in this province. I would like to know why he is stalling and when he can make sure that the extradition proceedings begin.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, it is nonsense -- but not surprising given the source of the question -- to say we are stalling. I am not sure where the matter stands, but I will look into it and advise the honourable member accordingly.

Mr. Warner: The answer is not surprising based on the source from which it comes.

I would like to know if the minister, while he may be in such a sanguine mood about this, is aware that those crooks are still alive and well and operating back here again in our good province, only this time under the name of Waco.

In fact, they had a nice ad in the Toronto Daily Star of last Saturday, June 14, in which they offered a booming $94-billion inflation/depression-proof automotive parts aftermarket. To sign up for the opportunity to throw in $11,000, people should phone Miami, Florida. The crooks are alive and well and back here. When is the minister going to begin the extradition of Mr. Nagy so we can stop the ripoff of our citizens here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have nothing further to add to that.

ST. CATHARINES GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. As the minister is aware, yesterday the Ontario Nurses’ Association took what is probably an unusual step by providing to the public a report of the nursing assessment committee, which is an independent committee, on the safety of patient care at the St. Catharines General Hospital amongst other things.

Will the minister indicate to the House what action he intends to take as a result of the great concern that has been expressed by the ONA about patient safety at night and on the weekends, particularly in the cardiac care and intensive care units of the St. Catharines General Hospital. This situation involves, I understand from news reports and this report, only three nurses being on duty in the intensive care unit on weekends and on holidays and at nights.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member raised the question, because yesterday I received two letters. One was from Miss Gribben of the Ontario Nurses’ Association giving me some of the background to this, an exchange of correspondence and the report. I am sure she sent this to all members in the Niagara region. I also received yesterday a four-page letter from the administrator of the hospital alerting me to the fact that this other letter was coming. Of course, as with all things, there are two sides.

One of the more interesting parts of the letter from the hospital administrator was this on page three: “At the time the assessment committee studied the area, prior to renovations, it consisted of 37 beds, including 11 ICU-CCU [that is, intensive care unit, coronary care unit], wards with a staff of 44.6.” The 0.6 is part-time or its equivalent. “After renovating, the same area now consists of 24 beds, including 12 ICU-CCU beds, whereas the staff has been increased to 53.6. We feel that 13 less beds and 19 more staff members, comprised of one ward secretary and eight nurses, certainly shows a willingness to adjust.”

I think what we have here is obviously a labour-management dispute. This is one of the few hospitals that has a provision for an assessment committee process. In this letter from the hospital it asks our assistance in appointing a “high-quality assessment and evaluation team.” I will be responding to both the parties indicating that we are prepared to assist them in resolving their dispute.

CARLETON PLACE OBSTETRICAL UNIT

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. It concerns the petition that was tabled in this Legislature a few days back by my leader in which more than 50 per cent of the community of Carleton Place lodged their objection to the decision by the Smiths Falls, Lanark, Leeds and Grenville District Health Council to close the maternity ward at the Carleton Place and District Memorial Hospital. Can the minister give us a report on his review of that petition and tell us his intent?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Smiths Falls, Lanark, Leeds and Grenville District Health Council did not decide to close the obstetrics unit. The decision was made by the board of the hospital in Carleton Place on the advice of their medical advisory committee. What we have here is a very interesting but nevertheless difficult situation whereby the medical staff of that hospital, looking at the number of live births in any given year, have concluded that, in their opinion as physicians, it is not safe. It would not be safe, particularly in cases of high-risk pregnancies, premature babies and pregnancies with other complications to continue to deliver babies at that hospital.

If I remember correctly, the volume of deliveries was something of the order on average of one a week, or maybe two a week, but it is not very many. What we have here is a situation where doctors are saying: “It is not safe and we do not think we should be delivering babies here any more. Therefore, we recommend that we get out of obstetrics.”

4:10 p.m.

Putting aside this petition for the moment, I have to tell the member that if there were a headline in the Ottawa Citizen slaying “Doctors Say Deliveries Unsafe,” members on both sides would be on their feet saying, “When are you going to close it?” We have here a situation where the doctors have said it should be closed. The board, which is elected in the community and is responsible to the community, has accepted their advice and so advised the health council.

I am not entirely satisfied that the public relations was all that great in terms of taking the community through the steps and letting the community know earlier about this advice, but I think the decision is a sound one.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister seems to treat this problem as a public relations problem and seems to accept a very vague generalization by a group of doctors and their rationalization for wishing to get out of the maternity business in Carleton Place.

Will the minister make a commitment that he will not permit the closure of any maternity wards in Ontario hospitals until at least the time when he has made public his policy concerning the future of maternity services in the province? Second, will he also make a commitment that his to-be-announced policy will not lead to totally mechanized and centralized child-birth services in Ontario, because that is where we are heading?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That may be where the honourable member is heading, I don’t know. Of the reports I have had on high-risk pregnancy, neither has recommended the closing out of small obstetrics units as a uniform policy. What we have here is a situation where, within 20 or 25 minutes, and this has obviously been a factor in the consideration of the medical staff, there are much larger, much better equipped and much more highly skilled obstetrics units, particularly to deal with the high-risk pregnancies.

It is ironic that the day I was asked about this was the day after I had come back from looking at the obstetrics units at the Jewish General, the Montreal Children’s and the Royal Victoria hospitals in Montreal, in particular, their neonatal and perinatal units. There they told us that with high-risk pregnancies, the chances of a baby surviving, when delivered anywhere but in a hospital with a perinatal or neonatal unit, were very, very slim.

What we have here is that they said, “We are here to provide the best possible medical care for this community, and we the doctors think it is not in the interests of our patients to continue to deliver here when there is a better alternative readily available.” To go on from there, they have made it clear that emergencies will, of course, be looked after but that, in their opinion, which I think we have to respect, it is more in the interests of their patients to make use of the better equipped, better qualified, larger obstetrics units available in Ottawa.

LIAISON COMMITTEE ON BATTERED WIVES

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the liaison committee on battered wives. Could the Attorney General advise whether all of the members have now been selected for that committee and, if so, why he has not made a public statement concerning the committee so those concerned about this problem could bring their concerns forward?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I was of the view, having met with the member for St. George and some of the practitioners in the area of family law from this community, that the liaison committee was largely a matter between the ministry and practitioners in the family law field. I am not just sure what she means by an announcement to the public generally. I think the fact of this liaison committee is quite well known to the practising profession in this area, and I thought that was the principal purpose of the committee.

My understanding is that the committee has been constituted, but I will certainly verify that and report back to the honourable member.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: In keeping with past practice and in recognition of the service that our pages have given us, I am going to read their names and their ridings into the record: Christopher Albinson, Frontenac-Addington; Susie Boyles, Riverdale; Alison Brown, Wentworth North; Paul Brown, Mississauga South; Donald Cole, Brampton; Gavin Cramer, Carleton-Grenville; Katie Fisher, York East; John Gilhuly, Cambridge; Kevin Goldthorp, Muskoka; Krista Goodman, Kenora; Stephen Howe, Quinte; Christopher Kemp, Dufferin-Simcoe; Lynda Kirk, Erie; Jennifer Kirkham, Waterloo North; Carolyn Lawless, Durham West; Molly Machamer, Oakville; Stephen McInerney, Simcoe East; Brian Misiaszek, Simcoe Centre; Laura Myers, Haldimand-Norfolk; Suzanne Scotland, Scarborough West; Gregory Southgate, Chatham-Kent; and Nancy Spring, Burlington South.

Would you please thank them for their services?

LIMITATIONS LEGISLATION

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on May 20, 1980, I asked the Attorney General -- and I am reading from Hansard at page 2008 -- about the possible introduction of amendments to the Limitations Act for which we have been waiting for 10 years. The Attorney General said: “I think it was announced earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the new limitations legislation will be introduced this spring.” I have waited -- and I understand this is the last day -- and I think, given that answer, that my privileges have been affected. The legislation, as I read the Order Paper, has not been introduced and I would comment that the Attorney General should not make promises, which obviously, unless he is going to introduce it this afternoon, he is not keeping.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, it certainly had been my intention to introduce amendments to the Limitations Act. At the last minute the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) communicated to me a request from a patients’ rights group that wanted to make some representations with respect to some of the limitations periods which are very complex matters. They apply to the medical profession and, given the importance we give to their request, we are going to meet with the group. It will be introduced certainly during the session and I am disappointed, personally very disappointed, not to have introduced it, because an enormous amount of work has gone into it. But this particular group, I was told, felt it had not had an adequate opportunity even though it would have had the opportunity prior to second reading. So it is not being introduced, and I regret that fact.

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, while we are on this point, I thought I would mention the fact that we have had Michigan interns assisting us here in the Legislature for the past five weeks. I thought it was only appropriate that we thank them and pay tribute to them. I would like to do so at this time and thank in a particular way my own legislative intern from Michigan, Larry Kehoe. These young people are very helpful, very pleasant and intelligent and they have been of great assistance to us as we conduct our business from day to day.

Mr. Speaker: I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the member for Huron-Bruce. I have met with them on a couple of occasions, but how does one get one assigned to one’s office?

PETITIONS

MEMBERS OF PAIRO

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), I present a petition signed by 628 members of the Professional Association of Interns and Residents of Ontario.

4:20 p.m.

ST. NORBERT SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition with 520 signatures collected in the community of 1,200 people in my riding, which says: “The Parent-Teachers’ Association of St. Norbert’s Catholic School feels the building of an addition to St Norbert’s has become an urgent matter that requires immediate attention. As a result we approached Mr. Odouardo Di Santo, MPP, who has consented to present the proposal to the minister responsible. The proposed additions were: two classrooms, two kindergartens, boys’ and girls’ change rooms, shower room, and the conversion of existing classrooms to provide a larger library.”

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMPANY LAW

Mr. Breithaupt presented the fourth report of the select committee on company law on the insurance industry of Ontario.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, this report deals with the operations of life insurance companies in our province. At this time, I have three unbound copies of the report for the Clerk. The bound copies of the report will be available next week and will be delivered to all members then. Copies of our chapter on recommendations are available today to any member who wishes one, and to the public and the press. They are available from the clerk of the committee in room 110.

There are many representatives of the Ontario insurance industry with us today, and I am certain they will be interested in reviewing our recommendations.

There are four persons whom I should particularly thank for the work they have done on this committee. First of all, our clerk, Mrs. Fran Nokes, who has been with the committee since it was first formed in 1965, and secondly, our two consultants, Paul Boddy, CA, and Ludmila Jagiellicz, MBA, who are in the gallery and who have been of exceptional help. Also I should comment on the fact that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has served on this committee since it was formed in 1965; however, he is now moving on to the select committee on constitutional reform which, no doubt, will last almost as long as this committee has done.

The public sessions of hearings on this part of our report were held last summer, and the report was written in the early part of this year. There were some 36 days of sessions. There have been more than 140 witnesses who have come before us with their opinions on various aspects of life insurance. We received more than 50 separate exhibits and more than 100 additional reference materials.

In the report there are 135 recommendations which the committee makes in 10 specific areas. First, we have 21 recommendations on the matter of individual life insurance providing death benefits. We also refer at length to annuities and individual retirement plans and to group insurance. The underwriting process in individual life insurance and the price of life insurance are also considered. We have a series of recommendations on disclosure, which is, in my view, the most important series of all of our conclusions. We then turn to recommendations that concern the marketing of life insurance and the agency system.

The other major series of our recommendations concerns the licensing, qualification, training and conduct of life insurance agents. The 25 recommendations here would make substantial changes to the present system. The last two areas of our report concern, first, remuneration methods for life insurance agents and, finally, the subject of profit emergence and profit distribution in the companies.

This summer the members of the select committee will review the area of accident and sickness insurance. Our fifth report will then complete the entire review of the insurance industry in Ontario that was referred to this committee on May 25, 1976.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO HYDRO AFFAIRS

Mr. MacDonald from the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs presented the final report on the safety of Ontario’s nuclear reactors and moved its adoption.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the members will recall that an interim report was submitted to the Legislature last December. There were five or six areas in which testimony was completed. This is a final report, but it does not yet include the appendices. Shortly, within a matter of weeks, when the copy has gone to the printer, the total report, the final report including appendices, will be available -- including dissents to it, as has been indicated to me.

On motion by Mr. MacDonald, the debate was adjourned.

Mr. MacDonald presented the final report of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs on the management of nuclear fuel wastes and moved its adoption.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I say with regard to this report that it is the second in a trinity of reports which will ultimately provide a comprehensive review of safety in the nuclear field. We have had the report on nuclear safety, that is the report on waste management, and this summer the committee hopes to take a look at the front end of the fuel cycle, the safety problems in relation to mine tailings and processing.

With that report, we hope that by the end of the year we will have total coverage of safety in the nuclear field.

On motion by Mr. MacDonald, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Gaunt from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Social Development policy program, $2,353,000.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following standing committees be authorized to Sit during the summer recess of the House in accordance with the schedule of meetings agreed to by the three party whips to consider matters referred to them by the House.

The standing committee on social development, to consider Bill 82, An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974;

The standing committee on resources development, to consider Bill 127, An Act to revise the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971, and to resume consideration of the annual report of the Minister of Natural Resources for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, upon receipt of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario with respect to the question of possible bias at the inquest into the Nakina fire;

The standing committee on procedural affairs;

The standing committee on public accounts, to consider the land assembly development project of the government;

The standing committee on the administration of justice, to consider the annual report of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, and that on the request of a standing committee, the committee while sitting during the recess may, if necessary, ask Mr. Speaker, through the offices of the Clerk to issue his warrant or warrants for the attendance of a witness or for the production of papers and things deemed necessary by the committee.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, would it be appropriate to ask, and perhaps I should have checked with my own House leader, if it is expected that the standing committee on social development deal with Bill Pr31 prior to the House resuming in the fall? That is the Canadian School of Management bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not have any knowledge of that, Mr. Speaker.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitutions be made:

On the select committee on company law: Mr. Sterling for Mr. MacBeth, Mr. Watson for Mr. G. Taylor, Mr. Lawlor for Mr. Renwick;

On the select committee on Hydro affairs: Mr. Havrot for Mr. Leluk, Mr. Bounsall for Ms. Gigantes, Mr. Bradley for Mr. J. Reed, Mr. McGuigan for Mr. Conway;

On the select committee on the Ombudsman: Mr. Eaton for Mr. Havrot, Mr. Kerr for Mr. J. A. Taylor, Mrs. Scrivener for Mr. Villeneuve;

On the standing committee on the administration of justice: Mr. Eaton for Mr. Havrot, Mr. J. Johnson for Mr. McCaffrey, Mr. Lane for Mr. Rotenberg, Mr. W. Newman for Mr. Sterling, Mrs. Scrivener for Mr. G. Taylor, Mr. Turner for Mr. Williams, Mr. Young for Mr. Renwick, Mr. Cooke for Mr. Ziemba;

On the standing committee on procedural affairs: Mr. Kennedy for Mr. Rotenberg;

On the standing committee on public accounts: Mr. Hennessy for Mr. Leluk, Mr. Kerr for Mr. MacBeth, Mr. Lane for Mr. Ramsey, Mr. W. Newman for Mr. G. Taylor, Mrs. Scrivener for Mr. Turner;

4:30 p.m.

On the standing committee on resources development: Mr. Jones for Mr. J. A. Taylor, Mr. Kennedy for Mr. Yakabuski, Mr. Turner for Mr. Villeneuve, Mr. Swart for Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Makarchuk for Mr. Di Santo, Mr. Lupusella for Ms. Gigantes;

On the standing committee on social development, Mr. Eaton for Mr. Belanger, Mr. J. Johnson for Mr. Leluk, Mr. McNeil for Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Rollins for Mr. Rowe and Mr. Martel for Mr. R. F. Johnston.

Mr. Foulds: Those of us who have enjoyed her company on the select committee on Hydro affairs will regret the absence of the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) this summer. We note that she will be engaged in probably far more productive and profitable activities than will the committee, and we wish her well.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I note a small problem. I understand that the substitutions for the justice committee were to be effective as of today. I move that the substitutions for the justice committee be effective as of tomorrow, which will allow today’s committee hearing, which will begin shortly, to go ahead without those substitutions.

Mr. Nixon: Of course it is understood that there are substitutions permitted during the summer on standing committees.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh yes.

COMMITTEE TRAVEL SCHEDULES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the chairman of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments be authorized to travel on behalf of the committee to the delegated legislation conference in Canberra, Australia; that the standing committee on the administration of justice be authorized to adjourn from place to place in Ontario during its consideration of the annual report of the Ministry of Housing for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979; that members of the standing committee on procedural affairs be authorized to travel to Ottawa and the United Kingdom in considering their review of the committee system of this Legislature; that the select committee on Hydro affairs be authorized to travel to Elliot Lake and such other locations in Ontario as the committee may determine for the purposes of studying environmental impact and health considerations related to nuclear power, as set forth in the committee’s terms of reference from the House on November 24, 1977, and that the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to travel on August 19, 1980, to Townsend and South Cayuga.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, the standing committee on the administration of justice be authorized to continue to meet until 6 p.m. today.

RESUMPTION OF HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned until Monday, October 6, provided that if it appears to Mr. Speaker, on the advice of the government, that the public interest require the House to meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice; and that should Mr. Speaker be unable to act, owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of committees of the whole House shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just before we vote on that motion I thought it might be of interest to the House to know that between the time Her Honour delivered the throne speech until today we’ve passed 46 government bills and 30 private bills; we’ve had an historic Confederation debate, which lasted a week; we’ve spent 144 hours on estimates, at which time we have considered about $11 billion -- and we’ve considered 22 items of private government business, only two of which were vetoed.

It is also interesting that as we adjourn for what we are calling the summer recess there are already scheduled 135 meetings of the committees of this House over the summer recess period.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAND TITLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 136, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act.

Motion agreed to.

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 137, An Act to amend the Registry Act.

Motion agreed to.

BOUNDARIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 138, An Act to revise the Boundaries Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that with those three bills of today, my colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) obviously provided the new legislation for this ministry for the 1980s with the introduction of the report of the select committee on company law. I would like to raise a flag, because we will be doing things in the future as we have in the past, based on that.

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 139, An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to correct errors made by a number of municipalities where bylaws have been passed and loans and debentures have been issued without the prior approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. The bill will validate all these bylaws, loans and debentures with the exception of four specific loans relating to lands which were acquired without proper notice of the existence of the loans.

The bill will also eliminate the problem of improper notice in future by requiring municipalities to register the bylaws imposing annual rates on land for which loans have been issued. In addition to dealing with these past difficulties, the bill proposes to make some minor changes affecting the administration of the act.

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 140, An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act, 1977.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this bill today is essentially the same as Bill 205 which I brought before the Legislature last December and therefore represents a comprehensive reform and consolidation of child custody law and procedures.

4:40 p.m.

Although Bill 205 died on the Order Paper when the session ended, we were interested in receiving public comments and arranged to have it distributed to more than 2,000 lawyers who are practising family law in Ontario. The bill was also distributed to other interested groups and individuals.

We have been very pleased by the favourable reaction that Bill 205 generated, and accordingly, the principles contained in the bill I have just introduced remain the same in all substantial respects. The bill continues to focus on the best interests of the child as a governing factor in private custody disputes. In furthering this principle, the bill sets out guidelines to assist the court in determining the best interests of the child and strengthens the right of the child to have his needs and views taken into consideration.

A major concern of the bill is the problem of child abduction. The bill contains a number of provisions for more effective enforcement of custody orders in Ontario, including provisions to deter kidnapping of children from Ontario. The bill also contains provisions for recognition and the enforcement of custody orders outside Ontario, so that Ontario does not become a haven for kidnappers from other jurisdictions.

Although there are no major policy changes between the previous bill and today’s bill, I should point out that this bill has been given quite a new look. In preparing the bill for introduction this session, we have taken the opportunity to reorganize the bill and to make our intentions clearer and more explicit in quite a number of sections. As we benefited from the public comments we received on the previous bill, I expect we will similarly benefit from comments we will receive over the summer before this bill proceeds in the fall.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

FIRE MARSHALS ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 141, An Act to amend the Fire Marshals Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation provides for the establishment of a code governing fire safety standards in existing buildings. In November 1976, the Ontario Fire Code Advisory Committee was established to develop a draft Ontario fire code for public comment by the end of 1978. Members of the committee included representatives of the fire services, architects, engineers, the building and insurance industries, and the provincial ministries of the Solicitor General, Consumer and Commercial Relations, Housing, Community and Social Services, and Industry and Tourism.

The draft code was published in the Ontario Gazette of January 13, 1979. Public comment has been received. The ministries of the Solicitor General and Consumer and Commercial Relations are continuing with their work of codifying fire safety standards in full consultation with the public and private sectors. It is hoped a consensus will be reached and the fire code can be promulgated as soon as possible.

The Fire Marshals Act, RSO 1970, chapter 172, as amended, is appended hereto, together with the draft fire code.

FOODLANDS PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Swart moved first reading of Bill 142, An Act to provide for the Designation and Retention of Foodlands.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the classifications of Ontario agricultural food lands into classifications one to four of the Agricultural and Rural Development Act, Canada, and for the surveying, designation and preservation of such food lands.

WEDDING ANNIVERSARY OF FORMER MEMBER

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, a point of information to the House: I would like to inform the House that a former member of this Legislature, Farquhar Oliver, who was here for 41 years, is continuing to show his goodwill and co-operation by celebrating his 50th wedding anniversary, which is coming up on August 2.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston, on behalf of Mr. Philip, moved first reading of Bill 143, An Act to amend the Condominium Act, 1978.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I will waive the right to read the explanatory note.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston, on behalf of Mr. Philip, moved first reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend the Municipal Amendment Act.

Motion agreed to.

FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved first reading of Bill 145, An Act to ensure the Regeneration and Reforestation of Forests in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, this bill does for all of the crown lands of Ontario what the famous Martel-Davis amendment did for those lands under the jurisdiction of the forest management agreement.

The bill requires the minister to make a complete inventory of present forest timber, to describe the location and extent of forest land in Ontario which has been “denuded and not been restocked,” or which is producing below its potential. It requires the minister to analyse and forecast international demand for forest resources and forest products. It requires the minister to indicate the relationship between forests grown in Ontario and manufactured forest products produced in Ontario, and it requires the minister to outline a five-year plan as well as a 10-year plan for restocking forest lands, increasing productivity of forest lands and improving forest resources, and the cost of such a program in Ontario.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston, on behalf of Mr. Philip, moved first reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to require that the appeal commissioners on the Residential Tenancies Act, 1979, consist of an equal number of representatives of landlords and tenants.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston, on behalf of Mr. Philip, moved first reading of Bill 147, An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

4:50 p.m.

JURIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McGuigan moved first reading of Bill 148, An Act to amend the Juries Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to remove the prohibition against blind persons serving as jurors under the Juries Act, 1974.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McGuigan moved first reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to constitute a podiatrist as a self-governing profession under the Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

ROAD ACCESS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved first reading of Bill 150, An Act to amend the Road Access Act, 1978.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to clarify that the Road Access Act, 1978, applies to public and private forest roads, so that the ministry cannot arbitrarily close them as it does now.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the city of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO HOUSING CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Warner moved first reading of Bill 151, An Act to amend the Ontario Housing Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this excellent bill is to clarify the authority of the Ontario Housing Corporation to fix rents for units in residential complexes owned or operated by the corporation.

RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the response to a petition presented to the House as sessional paper 138. (See appendix A, page 3091.)

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 8, 102, 148, 233 and 234, and the interim answers to 155, 224, 225, 236 to 238, 240 to 248 and 255 to 258 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix A, page 3091.)

Mr. Speaker: I want to extend thanks to all honourable members for their co-operation during the past session and to wish them a very healthy, happy and contented summer.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the House adjourned until Monday, October 6, 1980.

The House adjourned at 4:56 p.m.