Journal des débats 1982-juin-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to rise on a point of order that has, in fact, two points to it. One is that I would first like to apologize to --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Be clear about who it is you are going to apologize to first.

Mr. McClellan: Apologize to everybody.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Make it everybody; then you won't miss anybody.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We accept.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, now that I have everybody's attention, I would like to apologize to Robert Fleming, the administrator of the building, for remarks I made in regard to him during the debate over whether we should allow a television camera to remain in the House while the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) was speaking.

I have since checked the record and found that apparently it was the policy of your predecessor, I believe, to delegate the authority to Mr. Fleming to allow cameras into the House when individuals were speaking. I gather that that fount of sometimes ill-informed wisdom, the Board of Internal Economy, has supported that suggestion as well.

First, Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to Mr. Fleming for the remarks I made in regard to him; they were unwarranted and unfair, and I categorically withdraw them.

Second, I suggest to you that it should not be up to the Board of Internal Economy to decide a matter such as this; you as Speaker have absolute jurisdiction within the precincts of this assembly and the authority should come directly only from you in these matters.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly to the same point of order. I hope, sir, that as you review this matter, you and the rest of the members of the assembly will be able to move towards a fairer and more equitable policy with respect to televising the proceedings of the assembly.

The concern raised during private members' hour, to which my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) was referring, had to do with the fact that the camera was in a position such that it could record only the participation of a single member in the debate. Most of us, certainly most of those on this side of the House, hope we will be able to move towards the kind of system that exists in Ottawa in which the televised proceedings are part of an electronic Hansard, which guarantees fair coverage and equal access to the electronic Hansard to each and every member who participates in debate.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much, and I thank the member for Rainy River for his remarks.

Just for the information of all honourable members, the matter that was raised by the member for Rainy River does not fall within the jurisdiction or authority of the Board of Internal Economy; it is a responsibility that belongs to the Speaker. That has been firmly established. Guidelines have been established and I am sure there will be further announcements made as we proceed.

MINERAL WATER

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of interest or as a point of order, I would like to point out to members that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has provided for each of the members today a glass of a new product available on the market. It comes from an Ontario firm, which I believe is in the riding of the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston), and takes its place among the many fine products serving the Ontario market and, we hope, the export market as well. We also hope the members will try it, enjoy it and buy it.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to thank you for your generosity. However, I point out that it seems there is discrimination being practised; I hope the proper people will take note that I do not seem to have any.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) to confirm that this fine product is indeed produced in the riding of Huron-Bruce, in the famous hamlet of Formosa in the county of Bruce.

Mr. Speaker: I still do not have any, but I do have a lunch that was delivered. I thank the appropriate people for that.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members of the assembly to join with me in recognizing and welcoming, in the Speaker's gallery, Senator Norma L. Daniels of the 31st district of the state of Kansas, United States of America, and her husband, Dr. Robert M. Daniels.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville -- I am sorry, Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what you have against Windsor-Riverside.

On behalf of both the opposition parties, I would like to thank the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) for showing up in the Ontario Legislature today when we know he had other plans scheduled for today. But we hope his respect for the Legislature will start today and continue --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member resume his seat, please?

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CANADA WEEK

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of our colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), I want to make a statement, which is fairly lengthy, about our July 1 celebrations here. I am sure members will be happy to know that our colleague is in fine shape and is progressing very well indeed. In fact, he will be with us for the July 1 celebrations.

I wish to inform members of the House of some very special happenings planned during the celebration of Canada Week at the end of June, encompassing July 1. These events are very special this year because this is the first celebration of Confederation since the patriation of our Constitution.

2:10 p.m.

We are making this announcement now so that members may make their plans to join in the celebrations here at Queen's Park or in their home constituencies around the province. Other events will be highlighted as we get closer to July 1, our 115th birthday.

On Thursday, July 1, we will again be holding a giant family picnic here at Queen's Park on the lawns of the Legislative Building and the Frost Building. The event will bring together thousands of residents of Ontario and the many cultures they represent. Master of ceremonies will be television star Bruno Gerussi. Along with our traditional five-cent hot dogs and 10-cent ice cream, there will be special entertainment that should appeal to all ages.

The program gets under way at 10 a.m., with the official ceremony beginning at 11:30. As part of the celebration, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor will introduce the outstanding Ontario citizens who have been honoured with receiving the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship this year. At noon all those in the park will be asked to join in the singing of O Canada, while 115 balloons will be released and there will be a 21-gun salute.

Canada Week and the July 1 celebrations are not limited to Queen's Park. Throughout our province, Ontarians will find a multitude of organized events to mark this birthday celebration. At Ontario Place on Toronto's waterfront the program on July 1 will feature the group Sharon, Lois and Bram, of special interest to children, at 3 p.m., and the Toronto Symphony with guest artist Hagood Hardy at 8 p.m. The day there will be topped off with a huge fireworks display at 9:45 in the evening.

Also at Ontario Place the province is looking to establish a permanent display that will recognize the patriation of our Constitution and the part Ontario played in it. Plans are under way for the construction of the Constitution Circle at the centre entrance of Ontario Place, which will feature a bronze reproduction of the proclamation signed by Her Majesty the Queen of Canada on April 17 while taking part in the historic occasion in Ottawa.

During Canada Week, in places such as Sarnia, London, Cobourg, Niagara, Hamilton, Dresden, Forest, Port Stanley and Cornwall, there will be parades, band concerts, arts and crafts shows, fireworks and ethnic festivals, all in celebration of this great country, Canada.

On July 1, at Old Fort Henry in Kingston, there will be a military ceremony originally performed by the British army to celebrate great occasions. This celebration is a salute to the Dominion of Canada, and the procedure comes right out of the drill book used by the troops stationed at that fort in 1867.

This spectacular drill gets under way at 3 p.m. and, as a special part of this year's celebration, which is the 150th year for the fort, the new Garrison Theatre in the fort will hold its official opening at 7 p.m. The play that will be performed at that opening and during all of July is a Canadian one, "1837 -- The Farmers' Revolt," by playwright Rick Salutin.

If honourable members would like to get the feel of Canada 115 years ago, they may visit Upper Canada Village in Morrisburg, where life goes on in the style of 1867; or, if they find themselves in the nation's capital, they may join in the birthday celebrations planned for Parliament Hill.

Members should know that Ontario has not forgotten the original merchants who travelled this great province. At Old Fort William in Thunder Bay there will be a re-creation of the so-called Rendezvous held for the voyageurs of the old North West Co. when they arrived for the annual company meeting at the lakehead. There will be food and cider, and everyone will be invited to participate in singalongs and friendship dances. July 1 is the first day of the Great Rendezvous Pageant.

Members are also aware, I am sure, of the group that is paddling the centuries in Destination Sainte-Marie. In 1648, 25 Frenchmen, accompanied by some 200 Huron Indians, paddled the 1,250 kilometres separating Quebec City and Sainte-Marie, just outside Midland. It was the last flotilla to reach the mission before the Jesuits departed the following year.

On June 1 this year, 16 men, each of whom has assumed the identity of one of the original group, started out from Quebec City to travel the same water routes in four canoes as an intrepid historical re-enactment of this 17th-century voyage. By July 1, it is expected the voyageurs will be in North Bay and will take part in that community's birthday celebrations. It is expected that travellers will reach Sainte-Marie about July 10.

These are some of the planned events. Members should also be aware that children visiting any of Ontario's provincial parks on July 1 will receive miniature Canadian flags as part of our birthday celebration.

I again want to emphasize that we feel this is a very special party this year for Canada as our country celebrates its birthday for the first time since the proclamation of our Constitution. Therefore, I invite all members to attend the special celebrations and to mark this important birthday as our province celebrates its participation in the great community of Canada.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, it has just been brought to my attention that we have another distinguished visitor in the Speaker's gallery. I ask all members of the assembly to join me in welcoming Shirley McLaughlin, the leader of the Liberal Party of British Columbia.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX ON MEALS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer which was suggested to me by Mr. Fran Deck, who is also in the gallery today. He is the owner of Fran Restaurants Ltd. He has been experiencing some difficulty with the budget and is expressing that in the most visible way he can. He now has on his menu the "Frank Miller no-tax special," which is "a conservative amount of peanut butter served barefaced on a soda cracker for 20 cents." I would like to send this to the Treasurer in case his staff gobbled his up along the way.

Over the years, Mr. Deck has generally hired 20 to 30 students every year to work in his restaurants during the summer. Now, because of the Treasurer's tax, he anticipates that there will be a decrease in business of some 10 to 20 per cent and that he will be hiring no summer students this year. My question is this: Is that the desired effect of the Treasurer's imposition of these new taxes, that no students will be hired this summer?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first, I want the pages to come and put them all on the desk of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), because I know he cannot afford food for his daughter's wedding this Saturday. I would like these all returned to the member. If he will put them into a freezer and warm them up in a microwave oven on Saturday, the people will finally get something from him.

Mr. Nixon: This is the first time I have received anything from the Treasurer or his caucus.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I understand the wedding is a union of two parties.

I do not know whether Mr. Deck, the donor of all this, recalls that he used to stay at one of my lodges years ago. It is called Pinelands. He was a guest there for many years although, as I recall, he cooked his own food while he was there.

I am intrigued by the assumption of an astute businessman, and I know this gentleman is that, that his business is falling off that quickly three days after a tax has been imposed. Taxes have been imposed on many items in this province over the past few years. One has not seen the decline in business that is being predicted by some people. Sometimes one can have self-fulfilling prophecies, of course, and the fact that one makes a big show about these things can make one's customers wonder whether they can afford to come to one's place of business any more.

I also wonder whether the restaurant association recalls that for three years there was no tax on the purchase of all equipment by restaurants to allow them to expand. Unless the profits of a restaurant are in excess of $200,000 this year, it will not have to pay any Ontario corporate tax.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have another present; they seem to be arriving in droves these days. This is a giant cookie in the shape of a dollar sign. I would like to consume it myself. It says, "The seven per cent tax takes a big bite out." Perhaps this can be given to the Treasurer, because I think he would like that too.

This is from the establishment called Treats, a chain operation, and the Treasurer may be interested in it. They have some outlets that are classified as bakeries and some that are classified as eating establishments. The outlets classified as bakeries do not charge tax on their products, while the eating establishments do charge tax.

But let me tell the Treasurer how his officials are asking them to impose that tax. I want to know whether he approves of this method of collecting tax. If a person buys one muffin, it is considered take-out food and he must pay tax on it; if a person buys more than one muffin, it is considered a take-home item for a family and is not taxed. If a person buys one cookie it is not taxed, because it costs less than 20 cents; if a person buys two to five cookies, they are taxable; but if a person buys six or more cookies, they are considered a take-home item for a family and therefore not taxable.

Does the Treasurer realize that the staff of this organization is in complete turmoil trying to explain the provisions of his new budget to people who walk in? As they explain the various rules that apply to one or three or five or six cookies, things are so screwed up because of the budget that customers are saying, "Just give me anything that is not taxable."

Does the Treasurer really understand how he has screwed this thing up? And why will he not let us take it to a committee at least to help him iron out the mistakes he has created?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am impressed by the language the member uses in front of the students.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Oh, don't be sanctimonious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They don't use that word in St. George.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Treasurer's comment is almost as stupid as his budget.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will visit the member's home some day and see if he likes me talking like that in front of his little daughter.

Mr. T. P. Reid: How about Elgie and what he said at the human rights commission?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Don't get into that kind of crap. It doesn't become you. You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You don't usually sink that low. Don't start now.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Treasurer will just address himself to the question and forget the interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have answered enough on that one.

Mr. Peterson: You haven't answered at all. It's a very serious question. Don't give us a grade-B Johnny Carson routine. What's the matter with you?

Mr. T. P. Reid: First you don't show up and now you don't answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Oshawa with a supplementary.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, since many of us are confused, both those who are observing and those who are attempting to collect the tax, which is not yet law, how does the Treasurer collect that tax when section 5(3) of the Ontario Regulations Act says, "A regulation that is not published is not effective against a person who has not had actual notice of it"?

On what legal or moral basis is the Treasurer now giving out this information and requiring vendors in Ontario to collect a tax for him when his own Regulations Act states very clearly that they must have been given actual notice and that the regulation must have been published? How is he doing that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I can go into the legal precedents if the member wishes, and they are there. Generally speaking, a tax takes effect on the day of the budget, and obviously the regulations are not in place on the day of the budget.

When we come to issues of taxes that will require new collectors or new types of items, as some of the ones on food did, we usually give a period of time for that notice to be given. I suggest to the honourable member that the very evidence before us today tells him that people know about it. If he is trying to tell me that people do not know about the tax, then I find his case lost.

On the other hand, the precedents in law say that the additions to tax will apply in the same way that cheques should go out. The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) asked the other day whether we should be remitting cheques for people who have cheques coming to them. That was a fair question, and I said I would check on it, but I have to agree with him that the cheques should go out in the same way that the taxes will apply. I sought a legal opinion on that too, and it confirms the member's point; therefore, the cheques will go out without evidence of the legislation having been passed.

The regulations proposed by my colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) can be explained in greater detail by him since he writes them. But we often run into regulations that are not too practical, and we try to oppose them; that is exactly what we want to discuss. If there are the kinds of items which the Leader of the Opposition talks about, ones that appear to be foolish or inconsistent, we are very willing to discuss what seem to be conflicts or absurd facts.

Mr. Peterson: Does the Treasurer understand what he is doing to some independent restaurants and businesses in this province?

For example, the Rendez-Vous Restaurant, a steak house in St. Thomas, normally sells 100 take-out coffees per day; that has dropped to 50 per day since the budget. Tuesday night is a big night for senior citizens from a nearby old age home; usually there are at least 12 of those people at the restaurant. Last Tuesday night, for the first time in its history, there was no one in the restaurant.

That restaurant employs 11 full-time people and three part-time people. With business down 30 to 35 per cent since the tax went into effect on June 14, three full-time employees will be laid off.

And what about the Green Lantern Restaurant in St. Thomas? Sales of their take-out lunches and coffees have been reduced by half since June 14, and there has been a drop in business of at least 40 per cent. One or two employees will be laid off within the next two weeks.

Does the Treasurer understand what he is doing to these businesses?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would point out that automobile sales have been cut in half in the last two weeks, compared with normal rates. In all honesty, I am not able to equate changes in buyers' habits but, having spent some time in retailing, I suggest that three days do not a season make; let us have some time.

For example, I have suggested to the coffee- truck operators that I will be glad to see them in a month, and I suggest to the restaurateurs that I will be glad to see them. In fact, at my request, the Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association, the Hotel Association of Metropolitan Toronto and Tourism Ontario will come to see me some day next week.

As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) knows, there is no unanimity on this. Let me read a letter I received today from a hotel in Toronto; it is not the biggest one --

Mr. Bradley: Is that an answer to his question?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am trying to point out that one does not just tell trends in three days. It is as simple as that, I say to the member for St. Catharines.

The letter says: "Let me congratulate you on your initiative on the June 14 budget." That is the same date that the Leader of the Opposition just gave me. "I respectfully ask you to completely disregard advertisements and pressures being exerted against the seven per cent tax on all meals. We feel that it is an equitable tax and support it 100 per cent." The writer goes on to say that he would like the tax to be seven per cent on liquor too, because he sells liquor as well, but he realizes that is not the case.

That letter is signed by the vice-president of the Hotel Association of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer's strategy is to divide and conquer. That is why he wants to meet with the Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association and the Hotel Association of Metropolitan Toronto together; so he can walk out, smiling, and say, "Even the associations do not agree."

The Treasurer should meet with them individually. He should meet with Mr. Deck and listen to what a real businessman will say about what the budget has done. The Treasurer does not understand. He should meet with them and listen to them, and not play this petty game of trying to divide the opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A new question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Do you not agree that was a good comment I just made, Mr. Speaker?

Let me ask the Treasurer another question. In response to a question on June 11, the Treasurer said that he would change the budget only if it can be demonstrated that he had inadvertently taxed groups he did not mean to tax or if he had made a wrong appraisal of the impact of the taxes.

We phoned Mr. Don Black of the ministry to ask how much revenue he would lose as a result of lowering the sales tax from 10 per cent to seven per cent at places like La Scala and Winston's. He said there would be a loss in revenue of $19 million. We phoned the retail sales tax branch of the Ministry of Revenue and were told the loss would be $25 million.

We asked Treasury how much they collected on meals in 1981 and they said $65 million. In response to the same question, the Revenue people said it was $84 million.

Would the Treasurer not agree with me that when his ministry people do not even understand the figures, he has the obligation at least to submit it to the independent scrutiny of a committee so we can avoid some of these problems members will be bringing up for the rest of his life if we do not get into a committee and clean it up?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that the power to send that to committee is in his hands and he has acknowledged that.

Mr. J. A. Reed: No, it is in your hands.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Is it or is it not? Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to read the standing order --

Mr. Roy: Will you allow witnesses to come in?

Hon. F. S. Miller: They do not want me to read the standing order. The fact remains that they have that power. Do they acknowledge that they have that power?

I know I cannot ask questions but it is not really a fair deal. Either the member should acknowledge that he knows that or he should not be the Leader of the Opposition because that is one of the standing rules of this House under which he works. If he does not understand he has that right, then he does not understand how this House works. He does have that right. He gave me a phoney precedent the other day and he knows it was phoney.

Mr. Peterson: It was not phoney at all, Mr. Speaker, but because of the great discrepancy in figures. We asked on the Order Paper how much would be raised. For example, the Treasurer predicts he is going to raise an additional $110 million in revenue and the restaurant association, which is here today, feels he is going to raise an additional $170 million in revenue. Mr. Tom Campbell, the deputy minister, said: "In the interest of budget security, I feel it would be inappropriate to table background studies -- tables, calculations and memoranda -- that related to the formation of budget policy."

In view of the fact that the Treasurer said: "If you can show me I made a wrong appraisal of the impact of the taxes, I will change my budget," will he not give us the figures? It is like Suncor: he said we were wrong, but he would not give us the figures by which to judge it. Will he not at least allow us to review it in a non partisan way? Or is he going to continue to suppress the figures as he has done in the past?

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I hope you realize we are wasting time on just two questions and it is becoming a habit in this House to have --

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

Hon. F. S. Miller: By the time the question was stated, I had trouble following it. One thing I did not touch on in my last response was the question of the differences of opinion about the numbers of dollars.

I do not know which ministry is correct in that case. The Leader of the Opposition is asking people to give him an immediate reaction. Treasury collects the money. I will go back and find out whether the amounts that we posted from those taxes are correct in so far as we can tell. Does he realize that it is not that easy on a tax submission to sort out what section of a company the revenue comes from? Does he realize that? We do not ask a merchandiser, Eatons for example, to tell us their various department sales. We ask them to remit sales tax per month.

In the case of an institution or a restaurant that sells liquor, there will be, at the request of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, a record kept of the liquor sales, but it is my understanding that when they remit the sales tax -- and my colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) can tell me if I am right or wrong -- they would lump their sales tax in one figure on their form and remit it per month, whether it was at the seven per cent rate for some articles like candies that used to be taxed at seven per cent, the 10 per cent rate that was on meals or the 10 per cent rate that was on alcohol.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I want to put the same question to the Treasurer that I put on Tuesday, since he did not answer it.

We are going to refer this bill, the sales tax bill, out to committee. I would like to ask the Treasurer, is he going to instruct or is his whip going to instruct his members on the general government committee to vote against a motion to allow public hearings or is he going to allow the committee to approve a motion to have public input and have public hearings on the sales tax bill?

Will he allow public hearings once the bill is referred out?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my answer the other day, and I am going to repeat it again, is that any minister of this House is guided by his House leader and his Premier. I will be guided by my House leader (Mr. Wells) and my Premier (Mr. Davis).

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Treasurer is aware that Kirk Foley, of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, a week ago refused to divulge his salary to the standing committee on public accounts, even though he was aware of the bill which will make these things public.

Does the Treasurer not agree it is difficult for anybody to understand this budget unless we have the facts, the figures and the compilations his staff did of the estimate of the impact of these taxes on the people of the province? Why will he not divulge them? Why will he not present them? Why are they not available to the House?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I ask for guidance. Was that a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: I think it started out to be a supplementary. You can answer the portion that was supplementary.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I answered the question. There are certain --

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am learning.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, the member is learning. He changed direction 50 per cent of the way through.

The answer I gave to the member from the Windsor area applies to this supplementary. We have certain information that is privy in the course of a budget process. It is even privy from members of cabinet until such time as the budget is presented.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order:

I want to direct you to standing order 27(e). It states, "In putting an oral question, no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question, the member is not to debate the matter to which it refers."

If we are going to allow this question period to degenerate to a point where nobody except the two leaders get to ask questions and the backbenchers none, that rule should be taken out of standing orders because it states clearly that one puts a question, one uses the facts and one poses a question, period; not that there can be a hotchpotch of answers that run 10 minutes, nor a series of statements that take another six or seven minutes such that back-benchers are not allowed in at all.

I would ask the Speaker to take that rule under consideration.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member for Sudbury East would be the first one to take that rule under consideration. He has raised it. I have raised it on several occasions as have other Speakers before me.

All the members have been here for at least 12 months. Surely, they have had sufficient time to acquaint themselves with the standing orders and with the procedures. I would suggest all members take heed.

APPLICATION OF TAX

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a sales tax quiz for the Minister of Revenue and perhaps the Tory back-benchers could fill in the questions and see how well they stack up against the Minister of Revenue. Will the minister answer the following quiz? Which of the following items are taxable and why?

Mr. Speaker: The leaders are allowed two questions. I have asked the member for Port Arthur to place his first question.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister tell us which of the following items are taxable and why?

1. A corned beef sandwich bought and consumed at Shopsy's or a corned beef sandwich bought at Shopsy's and consumed on the sidewalk outside of Shopsy's.

2. Half a dozen kaiser rolls bought at Desborough Meat Market or one single sliced kaiser roll bought at Desborough Meat Market.

3. One take-out coffee at Mac's Milk or one take-out pint of milk at Mac's Milk.

4. One barbecued chicken bought at Nortown Foods Ltd. or one barbecued chicken bought for take-out at Swiss Chalet.

5. One dozen muffins bought at the local supermarket or one dozen muffins bought at the Muffin Man.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, do you wish me to dwell on each of these issues?

Mr. Foulds: Answer "yes" or "no" to each one.

Mr. Speaker: No, the leader of each opposition party is allowed two questions. You will address the one main question which he drew to your attention in placing that document before you.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I think the main question was would I answer the quiz. Of course, the answer is yes. If we start getting into the subsections, we have to deal with each one in some detail. We have to put it in the context of the legislation. We have to put it into the spirit of the budget. We have to put it into the spirit of the regulations that will enact the budget. We have to put it into the spirit of the administration that administers the regulations that enact the budget. I will be very happy to do so.

Mr. Martel: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I will be very happy to deal with each one because the answers are abundantly clear. The members on this side know what it is all about; unfortunately, some of those people do not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: He is waiting for somebody to send the answers in to him.

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest to the member for Sudbury East that after raising his point of order he might turn to the member beside him and point that out.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, each of those is a question. It is not argumentative. It follows the rules precisely.

Mr. Speaker: You are allowed only one question.

Mr. Foulds: You can answer them with a yes or no.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, he did.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, have you ruled his answer is complete?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: In view of the massive uncertainty, confusion and unfairness, would the minister not agree that none of the items listed should be taxed under the present regulation which is still in place, that is regulation 46 under the Retail Sales Tax Act which defines prepared meals, so that all of those items are included as exemptions?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The deputy leader, acting leader -- call him what you will -- of the third party can give any kind of definition that he wishes to the legislation and spirit of same, emanating from the budget and emanating from this Legislature.

I would like to draw the attention of the Speaker and the deputy leader of the third party to the fact that the legislation we will be dealing with in second reading at some time, called the Retail Sales Tax Act amendment, is that anything within that act that puts into effect the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) brought down May 13, is retroactive. If the member wishes to advise people who contact him to go upon the spirit of the existing regulation in the context of pre-budget that is fine, I suppose one could say in a legal sense they are correct.

But if one looks upon the legislation as it will ultimately be enacted by this Legislature at some time, the precedent has been set for literally decades. I understand it has been challenged from time to time, but the precedent has been upheld that there will be an obligation retroactive to the date of the budget, or to June 14 in the case of the changes that took effect this week, putting an obligation upon the retailer to have collected those taxes.

I am communicating to any people who contact me, either personally or through the ministry, that particular advice in the context and the spirit of the budget process, in the context and the spirit of the Retail Sales Tax Act as it will be amended. Then, of course, it is up to the retailer to take this guidance and advice accordingly.

The sum and substance is there is an obligation upon the retailer, albeit ultimately retroactively, to collect that tax and remit it accordingly.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I had a call this morning from a chap who runs a bakery in Kitchener who has informed me that he has been told by the minister's officials that whereas muffins, tarts and doughnuts are taxable, apparently pastries, éclairs and date squares are not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We know which ones you've opted for over the years, anyway.

Mr. Breithaupt: Over the years, yes, and I sent all the extras to you, Mr. Premier.

If they buy them by the dozen, these items are not taxable. He was then told that if one or two individual pieces were sold, they were taxable. Now he is told if from one to five individual items are sold, they are taxable. Obviously, there is a great deal of confusion as to just what kinds of business and what number of items are taxable.

Will the minister ensure that the people who are expected to collect the sales tax know what these particular rules are? There is clearly confusion as to the kinds of items and the number of items which accrue tax.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to give that commitment. On the surface, I know it appears that everything can be pure and straightforward. In actual fact not only today, but in years gone by, this government and this ministry have indicated by its actions that it wants to create a system that is fair and is reasonable.

Part of that system is creating regulations that are also reasonable out in the marketplace. Yes, there has been a little bit of confusion that has come out of that, there is no doubt about it. Interpretations have been taken by some people that have been incorrect.

In actual fact, it is really very clear. If one is talking about buying a prepared food that is going to be consumed either there or immediately after leaving, versus buying a quantity of food to take home as part of one's grocery order, albeit whether it be from a bakery or some other place, the distinction is abundantly clear: the first is taxable, the second is not.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether or not, a full month after the budget and three days after he expects these people to he collecting the taxes on his behalf, he has clearly spelled out the regulations in detail so they will know that they are acting on what he admitted to be a law which has not yet been passed?

Can he just answer one of the subsections for me? Would he tell me whether the barbequed chicken at Nortown Foods Ltd., on Eglinton Avenue West, is taxable and whether the barbequed chicken bought for takeout from the Swiss Chalet Restaurant is taxable? Would he please just answer that one?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, they are both taxable.

Mr. Foulds: The minister failed, according to his officials. He got 50-50.

TAX ON NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Revenue now to clarify another area of the retail sales tax. Can the minister tell us clearly and simply what sales tax on prepared foods will religious, nonprofit, charitable organizations have to remit to him?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether the deputy leader of the third party was here last Friday or not. I did make a statement which ultimately was distributed to all members of the House, actually coincident with my statement in the Legislature, and which I think made that point abundantly clear.

If you would allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to read it into the record again.

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think that is necessary. I think the information was distributed to everybody.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes, it was, Mr. Speaker. What is indicated in the statement is the policy of the ministry. I think it is clear for all members on this side. I am not quite sure about some of the members over there.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister explain to this House what his ministry officials meant when they told our research department that such organizations as ethnic clubs and so on would have to pay taxes on a "fund-raising wedding." Can he explain what the ministry official meant with that term?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Fund-raising wedding!

Mr. Foulds: A fund-raising wedding, and therefore not be exempt.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can tell you there ain't no such thing.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Can we make that one retroactive for three years?

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: And can he tell us, very simply, are Caravan, Carousel and Fiesta Week exempt?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Knowing how some people can twist a question and in turn twist the answer, I am quite sure that was a reasonable question vis-à-vis weddings and vis-à-vis those who are catering weddings and would have had a very simple and clear answer that I would be glad to clarify. There is no doubt, as I have made clear on various occasions within the Legislature and again last Friday, that if an organization, whether it be a church organization, a charitable organization or a fraternal organization, is in the business of catering events such as weddings, tax is collectable and payable to the ministry.

The member may want to classify that as fund-raising, although I do not know how it can be in any interpretation at all. One of the reasons the organization is catering may be to raise funds for the organization. That is fine, but it is still taxable because it is in competition with a service provided in the marketplace. That has been made abundantly and consistently clear by both the Treasurer and myself on numerous occasions.

The other question, and there were two, Mr. Speaker, related to the organizations known as Fiesta Week, Carousel and Caravan. Fiesta Week is being held in Oshawa; Carousel, I understand, is in Windsor; and, of course, Caravan is here in Toronto. We have investigated, together with the operators of these various festivals, and have been assured and convinced that all the organizations that take part do fall into the category of religious, charitable and benevolent organizations. They would fall into the spirit of holding a limited number of activities a year and not generating more than $75,000 in sales, and hence will not, I repeat, will not be taxable.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that the profusion of regulations he is putting forward is extremely confusing? Although we must say on this side we did not miss his latest press release of last Friday on charitable organizations. That was the one with the white flag, was it?

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Roy: The minister tells this House and the public of Ontario that he tested the retroactive aspect of collecting tax before the legislation is passed. My question to the minister is simply this: does he not realize that all these challenges took place before the enactment of the Charter of Rights? The Charter of Rights includes provisions that say it is not constitutional or legal to have people submit to penalties that are not in force or where there is no legislation supporting such penalties at the time the acts for which they are imposed are committed? Does the minister have -- his colleague the Treasurer having confused the House on Tuesday in answer to my question -- a legal opinion saying that any penalties that are attached to the collection of the payment of this tax can be enforced since the charter of April 1982?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: As the honourable member knows, the Charter of Rights is new, having come into effect very recently. It is thanks in great degree, of course, to the very important participation by our great Premier that the constitutional debate and the charter came into being. Anybody with an ounce of common sense would know that a particular activity relating to the charter has not been tested within the court system. Possibly it will be.

In the meantime, there is no doubt we are proceeding on the basis of precedent, in terms of both budget and previous challenges. I would suggest it is not our right or need to go into court to prove we are right. It is the right of somebody else, if they wish, to challenge as to whether we are wrong.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Minister of Revenue is still unclear with regard to Carousel, Fiesta Week and Caravan. Some of these groups do have gross incomes of more than $75,000 and do have more than four events. I would like to ask the minister whether Carousel, Fiesta Week and Caravan count as one of those four events.

Can the minister tell us, if their gross income per year is more than $75,000 will they still be exempt this weekend? Why does the minister not simply tell us that any ethnic community having functions over the year for their own community, that all of those particular events are exempt instead of being so silly with this kind of regulation?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the spirit of the regulation, both in the past and in the future, is in terms of specifying numbers; that has been and will continue to be a guideline. The $75,000 is already a 50 per cent increase from the previous limit that was contained within the regulation. I would suggest that for virtually all organizations the $75,000 limit in a calendar year will be more than adequate.

Keep in mind we are not talking about the whole Fiesta, Carousel or Caravan activity per se. We are talking about the individual pavilions contained therein. I would suggest that the $75,000 is a very adequate limit. At this time of the year, there is no doubt that there is no organization that will surpass that limit. If somebody is in the regular business of raising funds of that nature, as the year goes on they will no longer have their tax exempt status.

TAX ON MEALS

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Treasurer please, Mr. Speaker. I have just recently been advised by a small businessman in my community that prepared sandwiches he supplies to local elementary schools and that are sold by the students in the school to their fellow classmates are now going to be taxed. That will require those elementary students to become tax collectors. Was the Treasurer aware of that consequence when he drafted his budget and does he agree that elementary school students should be tax collectors for the province of Ontario in their own schools?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the question is: At what point does one have a true retailer adding a markup? I would suspect the point of collection is the vendor and the manufacturer in that case.

Mr. Sweeney: For the Treasurer's information, that is what my constituent was told. As a matter of fact, he has gone a step further. He has been told by the local board of education that it will refuse to allow the students to become tax collectors. As a result of that he is going to lose all of that business and he is going to have to lay off three employees.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Sweeney: Once again, when the Treasurer brought in this budget, did he intend that people would actually lose their jobs? Given this kind of consequence, is he now prepared to rescind that tax and save these jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Did I intend people to lose jobs? Of course not. The question in this case is who is the real vendor. I would suggest they have a seven per cent tax on the gross sale to each student and that is the answer.

Mr. Sweeney: But the vendor is the student, selling to another.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health with respect to the collapse of the so-called agreement between the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association which was announced in 1979. May I ask the minister if he is familiar with a report of an investigation by the Ombudsman of Ontario, dated May 27, 1982? It is an investigation into a complaint with respect to extra billing at Scarborough General Hospital.

3 p.m.

Is he aware of the remarks of Dr. Ed Moran, the general secretary of the Ontario Medical Association, referenced on page 7 of that report, as follows: "Dr. Moran advised that the OMA is not as rigid in its interpretation of the 'agreement' as the ministry would appear to be. For instance, the OMA does not believe that in all cases doctors should be required to inform their patients in advance of any charges above those provided for in the Ontario health insurance plan fee schedule. Further, the OMA does not think that in every case the patient should not have to pay rates above the OHIP fee schedule in the event that prior notification was not given"?

My question, simply put, is when did the new Minister of Health find out that the agreement of 1979 was a complete hoax?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member earlier, I believe this sort of agreement is very important, and in view of certain events that have happened recently I should like to inform the House that we have given notice today of our intention to amend the regulations so as to require all physicians charging in excess of the OHIP schedule of benefits to give prior notice to the patient of the excess charge.

Mr. McClellan: I guess the minister does not want to answer the --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You don't know what to say in your supplementary.

Mr. McClellan: No, I do know what to say. I do not know how to say everything I want to say and not be thrown out of the House.

I want to know when the minister discovered there was no written agreement with the OMA, nothing was ever in writing, nothing was ever signed, and there never was any contract between the ministry and the OMA. When did the minister realize the agreement did not exist?

Finally, with respect to the answer that was given, what sanctions will apply to the new provisions under the Health Disciplines Act, since the Ombudsman had determined in May that the ministry had absolutely no power to enforce the matter of nonpayment in the absence of prior notification under the Health Disciplines Act?

When did the minister discover it was a hoax, and what enforcement provisions has he "negotiated" this morning?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have not negotiated any this morning. To clarify the situation for the member, I do not accept the proposition that it was a hoax. In fact --

Mr. McClellan: It was a hoax. It was a big fraud.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the member is frustrated because of my positive answer, and he has to get something in the media, but --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just wait a minute. I know you are disappointed that we have a response, but you are going to have to live with that sometimes. Life is going to be harder for you.

If the member will look at the history since that agreement was reached, and it was an agreement, there have been very few complaints launched with the OMA, with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and very few of those have ended up with the Health Disciplines Board. In fact, the vast majority of the doctors in this province have been heeding the advice given by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is to give that kind of advance notice.

Let us just put it in some perspective. There has not been gross violation of that, the agreement was not a hoax and the profession has been acting responsibly for the most part.

In any case, I think a situation where some physicians can neglect to tell their patients they are billing them in excess of the OHIP schedule of benefits is not satisfactory, and therefore we propose to amend the regulations to the Health Disciplines Act -- this is the answer to the second part of the member's question -- to make the charging of a fee in excess of the OHIP schedule of benefits without prior notification to the patient a matter of professional misconduct. That would be under section 27 of the Health Disciplines Act regulations.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Since we do not get any action out of the Premier (Mr. Davis), we will ask the minister.

In view of the shocking action yesterday of Ontario Hydro against Madawaska Mines Ltd., where 400 people will be losing their jobs in the Bancroft and Haliburton area because of these contracts entered into by Ontario Hydro, in the press the minister has defended Hydro's recent decision to award the $400-million contracts -- our money -- against the Bancroft people to the uranium mine in Key Lake in Saskatchewan on the grounds, he said, that it made clear economic sense.

Mr. Speaker: You do have a question?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I timed the last question. It took two and a half minutes to set it up. This is very important to a lot of people. I do not want the stopwatch out on this one.

Is the minister aware that we do not agree it made clear economic sense to accept the lowest bid, as he said? He would have us believe that Ontario Hydro is the champion of the Ontario electrical consumer. I wonder if he is prepared to require Ontario Hydro to apply cool economic logic to the long-term contracts that it has entered into at the behest of the Premier with Denison Mines and Rio Algom Ltd.

As the minister is aware, the current world price for uranium is about $23 a pound in US funds, while these contracts with Denison are for approximately $50 to $60 a pound, costing Ontario consumers some $50 million a year more for this friendship we seem to have with Steve Roman and his gang. What steps will the minister take to eliminate this gouging of the Ontario consumers?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has raised questions with respect to a decision taken by the board of directors of Hydro on Monday. I am sure we all share some concern with respect to the welfare of many people who live in that area of the province to which the member has made reference.

I know of no one in Ontario who has worked harder in their interests than the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), accompanied by Father Maloney from that area. Meetings have been arranged in order to accommodate representations from the community, under the leadership of the member for Hastings-Peterborough and the good father, to make it quite clear what the implications are with respect to this contract.

I should also remind members of the House that the reason for the immediate concern in that locality has been the cancellation, six months earlier than planned, of an international contract which would have run until the end of this year but will terminate at the end of June. The Ontario Hydro board of directors, the chairman of Hydro and others who have met with the member for Hastings-Peterborough are charged with the responsibility of analysing these proposals. We are talking about a supply of uranium that is not required until late 1985.

The member will know, because of his research -- I say that because he has spent a great deal of time on this issue -- we should never forget to remind the people of this province that 85 per cent of the total uranium requirements for Ontario Hydro will come from Ontario producers in the Elliot Lake area up until the year 2000. It is a very important matter.

I also point out that in the late 1970s, as the member will know, that same corporation, charged with the responsibility of ensuring adequate supply, negotiated the agreements to which the member makes reference and those agreements were carefully studied by an all-party committee of this Legislature. He knows that.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Sargent: The minister did not tell members the fact that Denison is using crown land, paying $7,000 a year to make a $2-billion guaranteed profit --

Mr. Speaker: Now for the supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: -- and that we lent the company $650 million interest-free for 40 years and that is costing us $1 billion in interest. Now he is talking about the $50,000 difference in the storage factor on the Madawaska contract.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Sargent: The minister is surely aware that both Rio Algom and Denison Mines were charged last June with uranium pricefixing by the federal Attorney General.

Has the minister received legal counsel as far as Hydro's long-term contracts are concerned? Will he comment on the advice he has received since the select committee on Hydro affairs was terminated that, under the contracts, if the price paid by Hydro is affected by a cartel of which either party is a member, Hydro would have cause for action -- the Premier should listen to this -- against them to recover the difference between the artificial price and the competitive price?

The Premier has consistently refused to talk about this. The minister and the Premier must have serious commitments to someone since they will not look at it and renegotiate it. Will the minister tell us why he will not renegotiate these contracts?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As I said in response to the main question, the people in Elliot Lake are very happy with respect to the acquisition that is required.

As far as the people in this area are concerned, I do not think any member of this House has a monopoly on concern. As the member knows, the accountability of Ontario Hydro is to the electricity customers of this province. Ontario Hydro invited proposals for the supply of uranium starting in late 1985. We are talking in terms of one of those proposals that would have required Hydro to take delivery starting immediately. That would have added to the cost. The member knows what that would mean with respect to cost.

As for the future of that operation in that place, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) will be making a significant statement in that regard tomorrow.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to frame a question since it is obvious the media have not been able to get detailed figures from Hydro. Once again, the detailed information is being withheld.

If Hydro was willing to sign long-term contracts that, according to the news reports, were in the range of $50 to $60 a pound for 85 per cent of the need, why would Hydro hesitate to sign a contract with Madawaska Mines for less than 15 per cent of the need and in so doing keep that mine open?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that question. Hydro has to concern itself with long-term security of supply with respect to the fuel it requires. Indeed, as it analysed its requirements and modified them, it became obvious it did not need this additional supply until late 1985.

There were other considerations besides the time of delivery. The grade of the ore and a number of other matters were reflected in the price. That is a matter of accountability. We have to recognize what Hydro's accountability is in that regard, and think in terms of alternatives and other proposals that it is hoped would be of some help to the people who will be affected by that decision.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour --

Mr. Speaker: I hope the member will take due regard of standing order 27(e).

Mr. Martel: I have the rule right in front of me, Mr. Speaker. I assure you I will not be argumentative. I will just place several facts on the table as I ask my question.

Is the minister aware that the workers at Gothic Store Fixture Co. of Mississauga requested that the ministry test for exposure to hazardous substances?

On January 19, tests indicated that wood dust levels were in excess of the allowable guideline. Orders were issued by the ministry inspectors that the company provide adequate ventilation and protective equipment, and that the company call the ministry back to test for formaldehyde exposure when production began again in the plywood and particle board section? Is he further aware that the orders were never posted for the workers, that they have never been complied with by the company and that the inspector did not go back to follow up the inspection that was requested once production started again in that particular plant?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am getting dozens of reports of that nature each week but I do not recall that particular one at this time.

Mr. Laughren: Doesn't that tell you something, Russ?

Mr. Martel: That was right on, wasn't it, Mr. Speaker?

Is the minister aware that a survey was undertaken with respect to this particular local, which is involved in 15 operations in this area, and that the results from 100 respondents, tabulated by St. Michael's Hospital occupational health and safety unit, indicated that 59 per cent suffered burning and watery eyes; 43 to 52 per cent had excessive phlegm, coughing and soreness of the throat; 46 per cent had headaches at work, and a full third of these had great difficulty breathing? Is he also aware that these are the same health effects caused by exposure to formaldehyde --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Mr. Martel: These same health effects caused by exposure to formaldehyde were documented by his own ministry's study, the Haliday report, which indicates that some 6,500 workers are exposed to formaldehyde, and that formaldehyde causes respiratory hazards such as nasal cancer. Is the minister aware of that?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will have a complete report for the member by this time tomorrow.

PETITIONS

TAX ON CLOTHING REPAIRS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) regarding the extension of the retail sales tax to charges for repairs and alterations to clothing by dry cleaners and launderers. The petition was submitted to me by Mr. Tom Mark, 2208 Queen Street East, Toronto. He operates a dry cleaning establishment at that address in my riding.

The petition contains 181 names of his customers in my riding who are asking for withdrawal of the retail sales tax extension to charges for repairs and alterations to clothing by dry cleaners and launderers under the May 13 budget. They protest this extension of the retail sales tax base on the grounds that it is "unfair, inequitable, inflationary and an added hardship, especially on the elderly, the unemployed and the working poor."

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition, signed by innumerable citizens, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned customers of Russell Cleaners, support the protest to the June 14 expansion of the Ontario provincial sales tax that imposes this tax on charges for repairs and alterations to clothing by dry cleaners and launderers. We urge the Honourable Frank S. Miller, Treasurer of Ontario, pro tem, to withdraw this application of his May 13, 1982, budget since it is unfair, inequitable, inflationary and an added hardship, especially on the elderly, the unemployed and the working poor."

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of time, I will simply submit this similar petition to the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: Co-operative as ever.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition coming from the White Bunny Cleaners of 2139 Weston Road. I will dispense with reading the full petition. It is the same as you have heard from my friends the members for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan).

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would suggest that in the past day or two you have been very lax in enforcing the standing orders of the House. In particular, I draw your attention to standing order 29(c) which states, "Petitions may be either written or printed and only the original, properly signed, and addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly, may be presented."

I have been listening carefully over the past day or two to the presentation of these petitions and I believe that all of them, without exception, have been addressed to a minister of the crown rather than to the Lieutenant Governor. I would hope that you would enforce the standing orders of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for drawing that matter to my attention. It is a matter which we have already taken under consideration. The petitions obviously are addressed not to the House but indeed to the Treasurer. They are, therefore, in order and there is nothing out of order except the member for Oriole.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

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

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Education be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Ministry administration program, $38,400,500; education program, $2,857,645,000; services to education program, $136,619,400.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. J. M. Johnson from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

In the report of the committee presented on Thursday, May 27, 1982, the report did not include the committee's recommendation that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre of Toronto.

Your committee asks the approval of the House on this recommendation.

Motion agreed to.

MINISTER'S SPEECHES

Mr. Ruston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Since the Minister of Energy is in his place -- and I drew this to his attention a few weeks ago, or a month or two ago -- he continues to waste taxpayers' money by sending these big brown envelopes to my home with all his speeches. There is $1.95 in stamps alone and would he quit sending them to my house --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member is out of order. It is not a legitimate point of privilege.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved, notwithstanding standing order 64(a), that next Thursday, June 24, will be the final day for private members' ballot business until the fall sittings of the House.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend Certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this bill will make a number of amendments to the regional acts. For all regions, the interest accumulation rate and debenture sinking and retirement funds will be increased from five to eight per cent. The bill will make it clear that those regions which provide sewer and water services directly to customers will be able to collect unpaid utility bills as taxes.

The waste disposal powers of Durham and Halton will be strengthened and the regions and the regional municipality of Waterloo will be enabled to produce and sell energy from waste. In those regions that provide sewage treatment plants to treat sewage collected by area municipalities, the regions will be enabled to accept and charge for septic tank wastage from haulers.

The bill will streamline the road-closing procedure in Halton, simplify the establishment of service areas for sewer and transit levies in Ottawa-Carleton and adjust the boundary description in Waterloo.

The bill will also provide a method of altering the manner in which the Ottawa school board is selected. The Ontario Municipal Board, upon receipt of an application from the Ottawa school board or petition of the public school electors, may create, alter or dissolve the zones used to select members of the board. This process is modelled on the procedure for creating and dissolving municipal ward boundaries.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 150. An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this bill will make a number of amendments to the Municipal Act. Included in the bill is a provision promised in the throne speech to allow municipalities to operate in French as well as English.

The bill will take away the mandatory vote of the electorate on money bylaws. It will allow smaller municipalities to issue all types of debentures. The bill will also exempt nonprofit hospital services corporations from municipal and school taxation and will also provide for the payment in lieu of municipal taxes.

The bill will delete many archaic provisions and make a number of routine amendments as well.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the answers to questions 111, 200, 207 and 208 on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for Friday, June 18].

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on May 12, 1982, I placed a question on the Order Paper to which the government replied that it would have an answer by May 27. On May 27, it replied that a final answer would appear on June 1. Today is June 17. I have yet to receive a reply to that question. I would like to draw that to your attention.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the particular minister will take note of that and will reply at his earliest convenience.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the ordinary business of the House be aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, Bill 115, which is the government bill to impose a seven per cent sales tax on food sold at festivals in Ontario, specifically on festivals this weekend in Toronto, Oshawa and Windsor, and the complete confusion resulting from the conflicting statements made in the Legislature by the Minister of Revenue and the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all the members that this notice of motion has been received in time and complies with the standing order. I will listen to the member for up to five minutes as to why he thinks the ordinary business of this House should be set aside.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, this weekend there will be a number of festivals in this province, as there are every year, celebrating the multicultural nature of our province. Specifically, in the city of Windsor there will be the sixth annual festival called the Carousel of Nations, in Toronto there will be Caravan and in the Oshawa area Fiesta Week.

3:30 p.m.

The fact of the matter is that many of these groups do not understand or do not know, because of the lack of a proper explanation on the part of the government, whether or not the food they sell at their various villages will be taxed.

The statement given by the minister today in the House in answer to questions from my deputy leader has not clarified the situation whatsoever.

I would like to review just a few of the statements that have been made both by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) and by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). This first statement was made on May 31, by the Minister of Revenue. He stated, as reported at page 2132 of Hansard:

"However, contrary to what has been implied by members opposite, that tax will not be paid by the organization, whether it be charitable, nonprofit or otherwise. It will be a further cost to the consumer. It is true they will have the problem of making collections and returns but, when we get right down to it, most taxpaying groups are not too concerned about the bit of administration they will have to do on our behalf."

He went on to say: "There is also no doubt at all that my mandate is primarily to fulfil at least the spirit of the Treasurer's budget, and that is what we are attempting to do.

"I know that on the surface it sounds like a real motherhood issue to suggest who should or who should not be responsible for collection of taxes. But let me point out -- because I am sure the member has not thought about it -- the kind of situation that could occur, whether it be at Fiesta Week in Oshawa, Caravan in Toronto or the upcoming Canadian National Exhibition. Can the member see the hot-dog stand or the hamburger stand operated by a church -- the denomination does not matter; that is beside the point -- or any other recognized charitable association, with their big sign above it. 'Buy here because you do not pay tax'"?

He went on to say, at page 2133: "As far as the administrative details of collecting tax are concerned, I would suggest it will be a bit of a problem for the first few days for any organization that maybe has not handled tax before, but they will get used to it."

When we asked the question on June 15, to the Treasurer, the Treasurer said the following, as reported at page 2695 of Hansard:

"We have been dealing with that problem at length and trying to review the old regulations, which gave a $50,000 limit, and the new regulations, which give a $75,000 limit. I would be on somewhat thin ice if I said I knew whether Carousel, which I understood took place last weekend and will be on next weekend, was in a nontaxable state for both. My belief is that Carousel will be nontaxable this coming weekend. I will ask the minister for the definition.

"In the case of Caravan, it is my understanding that none of the booths of Caravan will attract tax. I believe that has been cleared by the ministry at this point. The minister responsible is out of the House at present; he was here a few minutes ago. He is in a better position to say whether they do or not…

The Minister of Revenue made a statement last Friday. He said the regulations were now clear and he pointed out, as reported at page 2581 of Hansard:

"The new regulations under the Retail Sales Tax Act will reflect the following.

"No tax will be payable on the purchase or sale of prepared food bought or sold by such organizations for up to and including four occasional events per year.

"The $50,000 taxable sales limit for the four events will be raised to $75,000…

"The exemption will not apply to any organization holding regularly scheduled weekly or monthly events…

"The exemption will not apply when the organization is selling prepared food in direct competition with commercial food operators on the same site…

I go back to the $75,000 limit. The fact is that many of these groups do go over the $75,000 limit; they do have more than four events a year. Is the minister saying today that events held at the beginning of this year will not be taxable because it is early in the year, but later on in the year the Octoberfests that are held in Kitchener and at the Teutonia Club in my riding and the Winefest that is held at the Italian club in my riding, if they are the fifth event, will be taxable because by then they will be over the $75,000 limit?

Will they be exempt at that point, or does it mean they will taxable this weekend if they have already had four events in the cities of Windsor, Toronto or Oshawa and this is their fifth event as part of Carousel, Caravan or Fiesta? Are the large organizations going to have to charge tax, while the small ones will not? It is still not very clear.

If I could just sum up, I would point out that these events begin again tomorrow and it is essential that this matter be cleared up. If anything, the minister's statement today created more confusion.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I find the motion actually quite interesting but I am not sure it deserves an emergency debate in the House, which would take away from the private members' time. I hope the minister will be able to stand in his place -- I must say I do not have much optimism about that -- and tell us categorically what the situation is.

We on this side have been raising questions about the provisions of the budget and how they relate to people in our communities. We have had questions this afternoon from both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party as to what is taxable and what is not, and who is going to have to pay it and who is not. There is massive confusion.

In one way I find myself in sympathy with the NDP motion, in that there is so much confusion and contradiction surrounding this. I would have felt more comfortable in supporting the motion more fully -- if I may put it that way -- if it had dealt with all the contradictions in the budget and the extensive confusion in the communities.

I understand there is urgency here as some of these organizations will be affected tomorrow. I am hopeful that the minister can now rise and unequivocally tell us, and through us the people. particularly these organizations, what the situation is.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest for your consideration that the matter proposed by the third party does not and definitely cannot be perceived to fall into the category of "a matter of urgent public importance." I think there have been abundant opportunities since May 13, particularly during the past week, for discussion of the issue. Why the honourable member suddenly now perceives that it is a matter of urgent public importance really escapes me.

With the events of last week, with my statement of last Friday, with the clarifications as to the status of meals sold by religious, charitable and benevolent organizations, with the questions that were asked of the Treasurer and myself earlier in the week and, most important, the very specific question that was asked today as it applies to Fiesta, Carousel and Caravan, I think I have answered unequivocally that the organizations that operate the various pavilions would not be taxable. The status of the upcoming festivities is totally clear. The regulations being drawn will actually continue the tax exemption that these organizations traditionally have enjoyed in recognition of their important social and community services.

In his introduction to the motion he has placed before the House, I think the member indicates his confusion by putting into the same category as the Canadian National Exhibition the status of the cultural organizations which participate in those activities known as Fiesta, Carousel and Caravan. In fact, they are not the same type of activities or carried on in the same spirit. There is no doubt at all, as I think I have made abundantly clear on more than one occasion, that in activities operated even by those kinds of organizations at events such as fairs and the CNE, the products they have for sale will be taxable.

However, we have been talking to each of the organizations that are involved in the operation of Fiesta, Carousel and Caravan, and we have been convinced that all the organizations that operate the various pavilions do fall into the category of religious, charitable or benevolent organizations. Therefore, the products they have for sale during the week or nine days, or whatever period it may be, will not be taxable.

It is very true that if those organizations carry on business regularly and amass sales cumulatively over the year in excess of $75,000, it is quite conceivable that further into the year they may lose their prestigious status. But I think the $75,000 limit, besides being very clear and very explicit, gives ample opportunity for those organizations to have very legitimate fund-raising activities for those very legitimate, useful and benevolent purposes on behalf of the community.

3:40 p.m.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will rule that this event has had ample discussion, that there has been ample opportunity to discuss, debate and clarify the issue. Again, with the question today in question period, which in my view has been answered abundantly clearly, there is no uncertainty except in the minds of a few members opposite. I might say that we have also had discussions with senior organizers of the three events in question, and all of them are aware of the position of this government and of this ministry in that regard.

Mr. Martel: Can you explain that, Mr. Speaker? Do you understand what that means?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened with great interest and intent to the arguments put forward by the honourable members on three sides, and I must rule against the motion. However, I think the reason I am ruling against it perhaps needs some explanation. I point out to all members that Bill 115, in the name of Mr. Ashe, is standing on the Order Paper for second reading and, therefore, I find that the motion is indeed out of order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

Mr. Cousens moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, resolution 28:

That this House acknowledge the positive contributions of Neighbourhood Watch programs in preventing neighbourhood crimes such as vandalism and burglaries, and also that this House encourage interested members of a community to form Neighbourhood Watch groups under the guidance of local police forces.

Mr. Speaker: I advise the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of that time for his windup.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve three minutes, if I may, at the end.

In considering this resolution today, I hope the Legislature will be persuaded of the importance and value of the volunteer movement called Neighbourhood Watch. In supporting this resolution in the House, I hope each one of us can help to carry this program back into our own communities and, in so doing, help prevent crime. I thank the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) and the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) for their personal support and commitment to this program.

Let me begin with a question to honourable members. Do you know what it is like to have your house broken into and to have valuables stolen, to lose family heirlooms or collectors' items? Do members know what it is to suffer the psychological damage, pain and anguish that people suffer who have had a crime committed against their person or their property, including assault, rape, robbery and break and enter?

The victims of crime have their privacy invaded. The victims of crime have their basic democratic rights stolen from them. And the victims of crime can suffer immeasurable pain, changing their outlook and perspective on life. Resulting from this growth in crime, an old-fashioned approach is being brought back to help reduce crime in our communities.

Ontarians are fortunate to have high-quality police forces. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Ontario Provincial Police and the regional and local police forces all do an admirable job of fighting crime. The courts and the judicial system have our respect for being fair and just. The correctional system is working toward viable, innovative rehabilitation and retraining programs which will benefit all of society.

But we need something more, something that existed among the early pioneers of Canada as they took an interest in one another and each kept an eye out for their neighbours. There was, years ago, a spirit of neighbourliness and concern for those around them that has been lost to some degree in today's society.

Some of that old-fashioned interest in one's neighbour is coming back today because of the increase in crime. Neighbourhood Watch is essentially a system of neighbours helping neighbours by working together to reduce crime in their own communities. It operates at the grassroots level. A policeman patrolling might not recognize a stranger in one's yard but a neighbour would.

In a community protected by Neighbourhood Watch, each neighbour can effectively watch the house to either side as well as the house behind him and the house across the street. Neighbourhood Watch can foster a spirit of co-operation between citizens and the police. The police have a genuine desire to help citizens who help the police.

Are we not all trying to work together to build a stronger and more concerned community? Neighbourhood Watch is in many ways similar to the Block Parent program in that it is organized on a community or neighbourhood basis.

Let me tell members how Neighbourhood Watch works.

Most residential crime is committed by unskilled criminals and by a few skilled amateur criminals. These criminal elements capitalize on the opportunities created by unsuspecting, unprepared people.

Many of these residential crimes are committed because the victim has been careless or has been unattentive to security. He has left the doors unlocked or has advertised his absence with an unlit house or piled-up newspapers, or he has left his car keys in the ignition.

The opportunity for the criminal is reduced through neighbours watching out for one another. This whole program will help to discourage crime.

Through Neighbourhood Watch, citizens are taught how to make their homes less inviting as a target for thieves -- by improving their own security, installing deadbolt door locks, checking on their window locks and installing lights outside. Using these and other techniques, a town house, an apartment or a private residence can be made far more secure.

Through Neighbourhood Watch, citizens are taught how to participate in Operation Identification. When one's valuables are marked with an electronic pen, putting one's licence number thereon, the police have a much easier time identifying and returning stolen goods to the owner; and the thief is less likely to want marked goods.

Through Neighbourhood Watch, citizens are taught how to be alert to suspicious activity in their neighbourhood. Looking after one another's interest is the key to a successful program. This is the most effective way to combat crime before it starts. A side benefit to Neighbourhood Watch is that people get to know their neighbours, which can open up new friendships.

The manual on Neighbourhood Watch which has been prepared for police forces across Canada and for block captains participating in that program says, "Neighbourhood Watch will ultimately involve citizens of areas across of Canada who will be trained to report suspicious activities in the neighbourhood and will develop other techniques of crime prevention, such as home security methods, personal property registration and seminars on crime in their areas."

Some of the highlights of Neighbourhood Watch are as follows: In the United States, for instance, right now there are more than 20,000 Neighbourhood Watch groups existing in every state. Even that number is just the tip of the iceberg: the program is growing and many other groups not even tied to the national organization are participating in a neighbourhood crime prevention program.

One of the great success stories is in Detroit. There, civilian participation in crime prevention has reversed the trend of increased crime. More than 600,000 residents in Detroit are involved in crime watch programs. The result is that Detroit has enjoyed a 28 per cent reduction in reported crime in the past three years. In the inner city of Detroit the decline has been 40 per cent.

3:50 p.m.

Another city that has shown significant progress is St. Catharines. I am sorry the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) is not here, but St. Catharines has a great success story in working with the Niagara Regional Police Force. Five Neighbourhood Watch areas there are working with approximately 1,500 homes. These homes originally had a very high rate of break, enter and theft. From 1981 to the present, there has been a decrease of 23 per cent in the rate of break and enters throughout that region.

An area in Etobicoke, Markland Woods Estates, also has a Neighbourhood Watch. Last year there were 23 reported incidents of break and enter. This year, with Neighbourhood Watch in effect, only four incidents have been reported.

Another point of interest is what happened just a few weeks ago in North York. A citizen who had attended a ratepayers' meeting and was returning home had been alerted to start looking around and watching his neighbourhood. He saw three suspicious-looking people in someone's backyard. He reported them to the police and the three were charged.

As co-chairman for the town of Markham with Mayor Tony Roman, I have been involved in Neighbourhood Watch and have seen the satisfaction the community has in having such an important group being concerned about crime prevention within the community. We are too young an organization in Markham to appreciate fully its long-term effect, but we are convinced that the statistical proof, as verified in Detroit, St. Catharines, Chatham, Etobicoke and other areas, will be verified in our community. I am pleased as well that Neighbourhood Watch programs are already under way in Richmond Hill and Oak Ridges and there too can become a useful deterrent to crime.

One of the real starting points for Neighbourhood Watch was a magazine called Homemaker's Magazine which is distributed in homes across this country. It had a feature article in April. Through that article, many hundreds of people are calling in and taking a more significant interest in what this program is all about.

I wish to thank publicly Homemaker's Magazine for the public service it is rendering. In 1974, it had an article on the Block Parent program. It was through that article that I was involved with the York Region Board of Education and we were able to start the Block Parent program. Through the initiative of such a conscientious magazine as that we were able to capture the idea and put it to work. We all know how successful Block Parent programs are across this country now.

Commencing in the next few weeks, the Toronto Star is going to launch an advertising program. It is an awareness program for Metropolitan Toronto so that people can learn more about what this program is all about. They can attend meetings and possibly get more involved with it.

This kind of support from the media is appreciated. I think it is time the whole of this government and the people of this country recognized the power of the press to do positive things. This is one area in which I see a very significant interest being taken by the media.

Neighbourhood Watch programs are springing up at an explosive rate in many communities across this country. The first two cities to have programs were Burnaby, British Columbia, and Ottawa. They established programs and, from there, it has mushroomed. We now have programs in Chatham, Niagara, Kitchener-Waterloo, Etobicoke, Georgetown, Oakville, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Collins Bay, Hamilton, Brantford and North York.

There are other communities that do not necessarily have the same symbol and exactly the same program, such as Collingwood and Belleville. They have their own programs to meet the needs of their own communities, having within them the deterrents that are effectively a part of what Neighbourhood Watch is all about.

Many ratepayer groups are contacting their police forces today to have Neighbourhood Watch programs explained and organizational help provided. Here, I think, we see a whole new aspect of our police forces where they are not out there trying to nail someone or trying to capture someone but are doing their job of prevention. As those communities are searching for assistance and guidance, we will find the police forces in the Metropolitan Toronto area responding to those interested groups that want to start such a program. The examples I have seen are in the Niagara region, Chatham and my own region of York.

The support being offered by the police is a significant step forward. The community relations officer with the York Regional Police Force, Sergeant Fred Tufnell, has been sponsoring and supporting a number of groups. He says it is difficult to say how well Neighbourhood Watch works when there are only a few scattered programs in effect, but as more groups start up we will see some definite results.

We are seeing the movement affect such large corporations as Cadillac Fairview. They are now seeing the need for it in their buildings, and it is expected that they will start a program in Bayview Village. The area where Jenny Isford was murdered recently also may be an area that has a need for this kind of program.

The signs identifying the Neighbourhood Watch program in a community will be as effective against criminals as the Block Parent signs have been against those who prey on children: their effect will be deterrent. They will indicate that the neighbourhood people are watching out for one another and showing concern and care for the needs of others. I have seen the Neighbourhood Watch signs in Chatham and in other places in the province, and the criminal element will think twice before victimizing these neighbourhoods.

I am very pleased to see that our province is participating in this program this summer through the Experience '82 program. Some 58 students will be helping police forces establish Neighbourhood Watch programs in 46 Ontario communities. They will knock on doors and explain the program to people to solicit their support and get them involved. When neighbours work together through this kind of organization, the police have a focal point of support for the program.

The Solicitor General of Canada is also to be commended for the impetus he has given to this movement. The program in Chatham and in some of the others locations across this country receive a significant amount of financial assistance from his department for the publication of brochures, leaflets, signs, stickers on doors, as well to get the program organized.

Once the program is under way, it will be self-running and will not require a continuing infusion of funds. It will be able to run itself as the neighbours keep the operation going. This will not be an expensive program for our government. It should not cost more than what is spent on the Experience programs in the summer, on printing costs and so on.

This program offers all of us a way to take a significant interest in our own communities. I hope this resolution will receive the unanimous support of this House so that members may go back into their communities and take an active part in organizing their own program, to act as co-chairmen of the program in their communities and to let the people know there is a program in effect and that it has their sponsorship and support.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the remaining time for windup.

Mr. Van Home: Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure for me to be able to join this debate and to support the motion of the member for York Centre. I hope these few comments of mine will not be regarded as reflecting only little interest in this matter because, as a matter of fact, I have considerable interest in this whole theme.

4 p.m.

My appreciation of this came from my experience in the school system, at which time I became very aware of the importance of attitudes within a community. Quite candidly, I do not recall seeing many graffiti or anything that was really untoward when I was in school as a youngster. I started my schooling here in Toronto, and then when my family moved to London I finished my education there.

But as a young person I do not recall seeing anything like that. There was an attitude within the school and within the community that pretty well precluded what we know today as graffiti or vandalism. We did not see things written on the walls in the hallways or in the washrooms; we did not see or have any occasion to find lockers kicked in or windows with rocks thrown through them or whatever.

When I got into teaching, however -- and this is now in the mid-1950s -- I must say I was shocked to find among the young people I was dealing with a very different attitude about public property and the belongings of others. So as I grew up as a teacher, from classroom teacher to department head to principal to superintendent, I did all I could to try to foster among the students an attitude of caring for other people's things and to try to preclude whatever it is within people that makes them take the belongings of others lightly.

That was a tough thing to do in the society that we all experienced in the 1950s and 1960s. We had a lessening of moral standards within our churches and within communities at large; we had an increase, and we still have an increase, in the number of divorces; we have a wholly changed attitude about life in general, and I think it is reflected in such things as crime and vandalism.

So I would submit to members that one could not do anything but support this resolution, and I hope that along with it we can encourage an attitudinal change within families and, beyond that, with school children so that ultimately we might get rid of this terrible cancer that is growing in Canada.

I have had other personal experiences that I would like to relate and that I think are germane to this debate. I am a member of the public utilities commission in my community. The community of London, Ontario, is unique in that the public utilities commission is responsible not only for hydro and water distribution but also for parks and recreation. You see, at one time we used to draw our water from wells. Back in the old days when people had to go and get their water they would often do it on weekends or alternative days. It was a long hike, and they would have to stop and rest; and around these watering holes we developed some parks. As the city grew, from the 1800s through the early 1900s, these parks also became play areas, with baseball diamonds and what have you, so the utilities commission developed the responsibility for parks and recreation.

This was all well and good. But as we became more sophisticated, as our old outdoor rinks grew into covered arenas, as ordinary playgrounds then had rather sophisticated change houses and plumbing added to them, they became very expensive. They also became the target for some of our thoughtless vandals. At times, we as utilities commissioners and as parks and recreation commissioners were distraught to see our rather limited budget hammered through having to repair the damage done by vandals.

So we encouraged neighbours living close to our parks and to our recreational areas to call if they saw anything untoward. As simple as that sounds, it was tough to get them to do it. There seems to be within the mind of the 1980 or 1970 person a certain reluctance to get involved with the law, a certain reluctance to bear witness to some misdemeanour. If we have that and cannot do anything to change it, we are not doing a service to ourselves or to our community.

By talking about it, as we are here, by encouraging more people to be more attentive to such things as burglary and vandalism -- and again I commend the member for his resolution -- I think we can break down that wall and can get people to realize that if they do not do it, nobody will. I am disappointed -- that is probably too weak a word to use -- I feel very badly when I hear of people being beaten up in the streets, with hundreds or dozens or a significant number of people watching and not coming to the aid of the victim, even to the point of refusing to call the police.

The police do not have an easy job these days. They cannot be everywhere all the time for everybody. So when incidents do happen and when someone is in need. I think the very least we can do is call for help. Again, this resolution, as I understand it, is to take positive action within neighbourhoods to try to make communities better and to try to reduce the incidents of vandalism, burglary and what have you.

I am aware of the experiences referred to in Detroit, having some relatives in that community. My colleague the member for St. Catharines has indicated his appreciation of the efforts that have gone on in that community co-operatively with the regional police. Beyond that, I think those communities that have moved in an area similar in general philosophy but not directly related, such as the Block Parent program. would all commend that sort of action very highly.

I was delighted the example of Block Parent was used, because we are all aware that the Block Parent program in Canada got its start in London, Ontario. As a matter of fact, it got its start in London North. A lady in our community, by the name of Margaret MacGee, worked very hard to encourage the provincial government to share some of its wealth and assist Block Parent in developing a film that could be used for parent-teacher organizations across Canada. I had the pleasure of working with her and of encouraging the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) and her assistant, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), to a point where some money was forthcoming for the development of that film.

I want to make reference to one other item, that is, the support of the police for this program. These days they are beleaguered with the various jobs they have to do. I had the pleasure of introducing to this House a bill entitled, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, which essentially would provide protection against the sale of stolen property. That is a theme which is related to what we are trying to arrive at in this resolution.

The very week after I introduced the bill, after a small notice in the press, I got a letter of support from the president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. That association is very keen to see this Legislature do anything at all it can to encourage such things as Neighbourhood Watch, such things as protection against the sale of stolen property, and to protect against vandalism, etc.

I would end with a strong vote of appreciation to the member for bringing in this resolution and I would encourage everyone to support it.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member who introduced this for one reason, which is that it is important we look at the problems that are being faced, the problems being brought to our attention through the debate of this resolution, and that we ask ourselves what is the best way of coping with the kinds of problems he is talking about.

I do not doubt that if the member introducing this resolution and I were to sit down and list our objectives, we would be in complete agreement. Therefore, the only question is how can we best achieve those objectives?

We have evolved a long way from the days of the wild west when posses went out to hunt the bad guys who had terrorized the community. We have evolved a long way from the early days of the Ku Klux Klan which was allegedly set up with legitimate motives, but later evolved into a group of bullies who terrorized the community, who terrorized people of minority religions, ethnic and colour groups.

We have developed a police force that is independent and that is accountable. We have debated in this House, over and over again, particularly in the case of the police bill that came before us, how we can make that police force even more independent and even more accountable.

In my own riding, I have worked closely with the police. I have worked with them, as the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) well knows, in encouraging that more money be spent for such things as community police officers, who will meet with young people and talk with them, and who will act as both police and social workers. I have worked closely and encouraged tenants' groups to invite the police prevention officers to come in to meet with groups to tell them how they can protect their homes, how they can be aware of peculiarities that may be happening in their neighbourhood and how each one of us has to be responsible for each other.

However, recently when I have looked at the statements in the newspapers concerning the very matter which this bill deals with, quite frankly, I get a little nervous.

For example, there is a headline in the Toronto Sun, "Lastman Takes Aim at Vandals." Great, one says. We are all against vandalism. It all costs us money. Here is what he describes as solutions: "Hotlines for people to report incidents of vandalism without having to reveal their identity." To me, that sounds an awful lot like the kinds of things that are encouraged in Fascist countries and in Communist countries around the world.

He also suggests Neighbourhood Watch programs in which people establish a formal network of people keeping an eye on each other's homes and apartments. One has to ask who will elect these people? Who are they responsible to, and how do we deal with the abuses, if there are any, of such groups? Another suggestion is teen patrol programs in which responsible teenagers patrol vandal prone areas. So we turn teenagers into policemen.

Another suggestion is public education programs, and one agrees with that.

An article about Brantford, in the Globe and Mail, has the headline, "Things are changing in Brantford." In Brantford, peace-loving residents once planned to organize armed vigilante groups to protect neighbourhoods from vandals. They wanted to take things into their own hands, and so forth. The article says this is a kind of solution to stop that.

Yet, when I look at the Toronto Star of March 12, I see the town's vandalism committee and the Oakville Trail Riders, a group of private horse owners, have proposed a scheme to replace the mounted police patrol in Lions Valley Park that was run by the Halton force last summer. The plan goes before the town council on Monday.

Some of these groups start off with noble intentions but we see a move towards them being a form of untrained police persons. Is that the way we want to go? I suggest that is dangerous. It means there are groups that are unaccountable to anyone other than themselves. We have other ways of dealing with the problem.

When I go into a part of my riding which is largely populated by Italian-speaking people or people of Italian origin, there is little vandalism. There is a sense of community. There are community groups. It is a stable community. If anyone goes in there and dares do something to another person's home, immediately the police are called and action can be taken by those capable of dealing with the problem and who have the authority vested by the state to deal with that problem.

Yesterday, I appeared at the Ontario Municipal Board. Through bad planning in one area of my riding, we are putting up apartment complexes, box on top of box, with few recreation facilities, few kinds of social programs and very little for the people, for the teenagers in those buildings so they can spend their time in a constructive way. We get a large amount of crime in those buildings, crime which we do not find in the other areas where there are social organisms to give a sense of pride and a sense of security.

When I go into the Ontario Housing Corporation area of the riding where even though there is not crime to the same extent as in the high-rises we still have the problem of vandalism, I see the Ontario Housing Corporation going in and destroying work done by tenants groups because some bureaucrat has a contract order to take all the trees out and put in whole bunch of others.

A program which a committee of this Legislature passed, a program that showed us ways of combating vandalism in government-owned housing, was defeated by the majority government. It showed ways of making people in the community, people living in government housing feel they had a say in their environment, ways of having on a yearly basis a budget that could be examined in the public way; not decided on by the tenants but at least examined so they felt some sense of responsibility. The government, with its majority after March 19, 1981, chose to defeat that report. I saw ways of making government bureaucrats more accountable, and I saw the government defeating that.

There have been proposals by tenants' groups for funding. In areas of my riding where there are tenants' associations, we have had a tremendous decrease in vandalism; but these groups are not set up exclusively to spy on one another, they are set up as a way of providing a sense of the importance of their environment, of knowing what the costs are and, therefore, of discouraging the kind of vandalism we experience.

In the condominiums in the riding I represent, we do not have a large amount of vandalism because each of us knows the cost of vandalism is a cost both out of our pockets collectively and out of our pockets individually. Therefore, as a board dealing with our own environment, that kind of thing is reduced.

The objectives of the mover of the motion are commendable. When I have private conversations with the member, he and I often agree on many things. I find him a reasonable and interesting person to talk to.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It could mean you are both wrong.

Mr. Philip: That is a possibility but, as the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) is someone who has talked for six hours without saying anything, I imagine that the mover of the motion and I are more right than the member is most of the time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I talked for 7 ½ hours and I have said lots.

Mr. Philip: I was talking about --

Mr. Boudria: Nothing.

Mr. Philip: Yes, that is what I was talking about. I was talking about nothing. I was talking about the members Treasury critic's speech of six hours and that was nothing.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Boudria: I thought you were talking about nothing.

Mr. Philip: I suggest that what the member wishes to do is commendable. I am concerned about the operation of these groups. I am concerned about what they can become and I am concerned about the fact that instead of going in this direction he should have looked at other ways of achieving the same objectives in a much more constructive and positive way.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on this resolution this afternoon, which acknowledges the positive contributions of the Neighbourhood Watch programs. I am not so sure I agree with all of the comments of the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), except perhaps the latter part of his presentation when he got talking about the nothing that was coming from over there. If you are going to talk about nothing and do it well, I guess you have to spend a lot of time at it. That is what they say about some people in retirement: if they are going to do nothing and do it well, they have to spend a lot of time at it.

I am particularly pleased to support this resolution and to be able to represent the city of Chatham, where this program has enjoyed considerable success. This success did not just come about by accident; it came about by good planning, a program carried out as a result of the planning and support of the community and the citizens involved. The city of Chatham is now in its second year of the Neighbourhood Watch program, and at the present time it is working on its third neighbourhood area within the city.

I would like to spend a few minutes going over the actual steps of the Neighbourhood Watch program as it was carried out last year and is being carried out this year in the city of Chatham.

The first step, of course, involves getting organized to do something, and the Chatham police force was the motivating factor through Constable Eric Johnson, the safety and crime prevention officer. A project leader was selected both last year and this year with three or four project workers, who are summer students and who in Chatham were financed by a grant through the federal Solicitor General and through the Experience programs of the provincial government.

An area that can be designated as a neighbourhood is selected, and the people within that neighbourhood are sent a letter concerning the project. For example, the May 11 letter to home owners in the area selected for this year reads as follows:

"Dear home owners:

"Subject: Neighbourhood Watch program.

"The crime rate has been on the increase in your neighbourhood, as indicated by our statistics. In the year 1981 there were 324 reported criminal complaints in your 26 block area bounded by Grand Avenue East, McNaughton Avenue East, Taylor Avenue and St. Clair Street.

"This represented a risk factor for you of 25.53 per cent. In 1981 you stood a one-to-four chance of being a victim of a crime. We have broken down the reported crimes into four sections: break and enters, vandalism, minor thefts, major thefts.

"Already this year our statistics indicate that this rate is on the increase and your risk of being victimized is even greater. As a police force we are very concerned, and with your assistance we feel we can halve this trend and, in fact, reduce it with your help.

"The method is the Neighbourhood Watch program. The objectives:

"First, to create an attitude of citizen involvement in our community at the neighbourhood level.

"Second, to give citizens an active outlet when they ask, 'How can I help the police?'

"Third, to have each citizen actively interested in protecting his neighbourhood and have them automatically feel that they should call the police if they observe suspicious or criminal activities.

"Fourth, to eventually carry this neighbourhood involvement into the whole community so that a citizen feels that he has an obligation to become involved, regardless of the amount of actual involvement, if he observes anything suspicious or criminal, no matter where he is.

"Over the next three months students from Experience '82 youth employment program, sponsored by the Solicitor General of Canada, will be in your neighbourhood to acquaint you with the Neighbourhood Watch program. There will be a total of five students working for the benefit of your neighbourhood, this community, and we respectfully request that you support them as much as possible.

"All of our students will be carrying Chatham police force identification cards, and will produce them when they arrive at your home for an initial survey.

"We anticipate a very active summer, with specific crime prevention programs in your neighbourhood, such as security checks, property identification, etc.

"For further information regarding this or any other crime prevention problems, please feel free to call us between 9 am. and 6 p.m…. Chatham Police Force," the telephone number, etc. and it is signed Thomas J. Bird, Chief of Police.

According to the letter, the second step is a survey, which consists of 24 questions with an option of five different responses. To assist in the analysis of the survey, the computers at the Kent County Board of Education were utilized last year. From the 1981 areas, it was discovered, for example, that 83.2 per cent of those surveyed were either interested or very interested in learning more about the program. It was also discovered that within a 12-block area surveyed, there were 112 unreported crimes, which indicates that the crime problem was greater than the police records indicated.

The third step was to hold block meetings. These meetings covered such items as the role of the Chatham police force and the Neighbourhood Watch program, the early warning telephone system, home security, and a guest lecturer from Chatham locksmiths.

The fourth step was the home security check and Operation Identification. Step five was a group meeting for the volunteers to outline duties in connection with the early warning telephone system; and the sixth step was a series of block meetings to introduce all the captains and supervisors for the early warning telephone system.

A positive example of what can happen occurred at 33 minutes past midnight on July 22, 1981, when the Chatham police received a call from a Neighbourhood Watch program resident reporting a break and enter in progress, which enabled the police to make two arrests at the scene. People are indeed becoming more aware that things are happening around their own property.

I recently had the opportunity to discuss the Neighbourhood Watch program with the person involved in business in the city of Chatham, because they had received a call at six o'clock in the morning as to what their particular truck was doing in the community at that time. The first reaction this business person had was, "It's really none of your business." But the second and sustained reaction was, "Isn't it good that people are taking an interest in their community when they realize that the benefits of having people make sure that commercial vehicles in their neighbourhoods at odd hours are indeed legitimate?" It was to this business person's advantage to have people wondering why this truck was in the community. In other words, someone could have been using that vehicle for crime and the business itself would have been the loser.

The Neighbourhood Watch program in Chatham has had excellent support from all of the printed and electronic media, the Chatham city council and various community-oriented service groups.

The final step in the Neighbourhood Watch program is the erection of signs supplied by the city of Chatham at the entrance to the target zones to advise the residents and the visitors to Chatham that it is a community working together to prevent crime.

One of the areas that entered into the Neighbourhood Watch program last year was analysed with a six-month comparison during the last six months of 1981. The results are extremely encouraging. There was a 50 per cent reduction in reported crime, and a 73 per cent reduction in break and enters. In the other Neighbourhood Watch area established last year there was a 16.6 per cent reduction in crime, and when we consider that in combination with a city-wide increase of 38.5 per cent in residential break and enters, this represents a reduction of just over 55 per cent when compared to the city as a whole.

It is an old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The Neighbourhood Watch program certainly falls into that category. It is a positive, preventive program which can be undertaken in many communities.

I want to congratulate the member for York Centre for bringing this resolution forward today, and I am very pleased to support the resolution because the community of Chatham, which I represent, has had success with it and will be very pleased if it can be continued and duplicated within our own city as new neighbourhood areas are designated. It is a program which our city and our police force would be very happy to see duplicated throughout other communities and neighbourhoods across Ontario.

The news in Chatham of recent times has not been very great. We have had a lot of people with doom and gloom, but this is a positive program that is the responsibility of the city of Chatham police force, the council and all the groups. I am proud to be associated with it.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the resolution of the member for York Centre.

Mr. Di Santo: Tell us why if you can.

Mr. Boudria: It seems the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) is questioning my support, but I am in support of that resolution.

I do have some reservations, Mr. Speaker, and I will preface my remarks by outlining them to you. My reservations are as follows. I would not want Ontario to get to a point where we would have Guardian Angels here, there and everywhere assisting us in the protection of our citizens. But this resolution does not say that. It is quite clear we are referring here only to the Neighbourhood Watch programs, and I feel they are a valuable contribution.

I had the personal experience of a robbery at our place a little over two years ago. It is a very traumatic thing. Although there was nobody at home when it happened, it stayed with us for months after the event took place, not to mention the loss of property we incurred and the vandalism that also occurs in a situation like this. In December 1979, my wife and I were at a hockey game in Montreal and when we returned to our home that evening we found the front door wide open in the middle of winter and our stereo set, our television and a host of other things had disappeared. The burglars had broken the front window of the living room to gain access to our house; in the middle of the evening seemingly, because we left around six o'clock that night.

The strangest thing is that neighbours saw them and did nothing. They did not see them breaking the front window, but they did see three cars stop in front of our house, stay there for 15 minutes and then leave. That was partly, I guess, my fault. In our area we were not very concerned about these robberies because we had not had very many of them and our whole community just did not have a spirit of watching out for these things. I neglected to tell my neighbour, who is also a relative, I was leaving for the evening and to ask if he would be so kind as to look out and, if he saw anything strange going on, to phone the police. When he noticed strange vehicles there he thought there was a party at our house and a few people had dropped in. Then he looked out the window again and saw the cars had all gone and thought:

"Well, maybe it was not a party. Maybe it was just a few people dropping by who then left."

When we came back at two or three o'clock in the morning, the furnace had been running all evening, causing damage to the heating system. Other things had happened; and our property was gone and we never did relocate it. All this was caused by that lack of community involvement that programs such as Neighbourhood Watch are designed to assist. So I welcome this kind of action. The only reservation I have is that I do not want these groups to start thinking they are police, because they are not. Once we reach that stage, if we ever do, then it will become dangerous. My fear is of the Guardian Angel type of phenomenon or the vigilante group that was referred to by the member for Etobicoke a while ago. Nevertheless, we do not address that in this particular resolution.

I would like to talk briefly about why we have this resolution. That is something that should be addressed. In my own area we are protected by the Ontario Provincial Police detachment at Rockland, Ontario, which is in my constituency. In 1971, there were 26 OPP officers in that detachment. Eleven years later, in 1982, we have something like 20 police officers there while the population has grown by 50 per cent and the crime rate has increased.

Of course, if in 1971 we had the required number of police officers, and since then our population has grown by 52 per cent and the OPP detachment size has been reduced by one third, needless to say we are drastically short of police protection. That is one of the reasons groups such as these have to be formed.

Perhaps one of the things we should address is not do we need protection but how did we get into this situation that has created the need for Neighbourhood Watch programs. I would like to suggest that is directly created by the neglect of the government of this province to provide the necessary protection for its citizens.

We can talk briefly about the police grants, which are inadequate. We know that in regional municipalities the grants are something of the order of $17. I believe for local police forces, where there are no regional municipalities the grant structure is such that the forces get $12. That discrepancy is totally unjustified because one has no choice as to whether one lives in a county system or in a regional municipality system. In many cases that is not one's choice, that just happens to be the way the government is set up there, but each requires an equal amount of policing. I would suggest the government should rectify this situation immediately.

Our party has spoken on many occasions about this shortage of funds for local police forces. I believe the government does not really address that problem. Perhaps members of the government could say they have addressed it by increasing the grant structure by $2 per capita, but that still does not resolve the problem, of course, because there is still a discrepancy of something like 30 per cent between the two grant structures, that of a regional municipality and the area outside of one. That is another reason we lack police officers in certain areas of this province, and that lack of police creates an atmosphere where burglars can commit crimes knowing there is very little chance of being caught.

In my remarks a while ago I illustrated the problem we had in our own house a few years ago. Shortly after that there was a rash of these robberies in our area. It lasted for something like three or four months. One of the homes was robbed twice. It got to be very serious. Local residents just did not know what to do. People were afraid to leave their homes to do the grocery shopping.

In one of the cases that is exactly what happened. A person left home and went to shop for groceries at the local store in the village. He did not even go to the city, just to the local village, and came back perhaps 45 minutes later to find the house had been robbed. All this is caused by what I consider to be a lack of proper OPP protection in our area.

The problem is compounded in my constituency by the following situation. In the daytime that detachment in Rockland is manned by 20-odd police officers. At night the detachment shuts down. There is nobody in the office. If one happens to see a robbery at night, one must phone a different telephone number. Of course, if one is new in the area one would not know that; or if people have lived in the area all their lives but have never had to call the police they may not be aware they have to phone a different number at night. There is not even a recorded message.

If one dials the OPP number at Rockland, which I believe is 446-4101 or 4014, something like that, the phone will ring and nobody will answer. If somebody tells me that is an adequate and proper way to run a police detachment when we have the crimes that we had in our area, I would say that is totally inadequate. What we should have in the area is the same telephone number in the daytime and at night. Of course, I think the detachment should be open 24 hours a day. But in view of the fact that it is not -- and I respect that perhaps there is a shortage of funds there and they cannot keep it open 24 hours -- the least they should do is keep the same telephone number with perhaps a switching system so the citizens of our area are not confused by the situation the OPP have created.

4:40 p.m.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that although we share some of the concerns of the member for Etobicoke when he says we do not want vigilante groups operating, I do not feel this resolution encourages vigilante groups. It encourages a specific program which is known as Neighbourhood Watch. I feel that program is valid and I would like to offer my support.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview has approximately four minutes.

Mr. Di Santo: In four minutes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my thoughts on this resolution, which I do not think is of extreme importance for the Legislature. Actually, it follows a pattern established by the Conservative back-benchers who, week after week, are introducing resolutions that are totally inconsequential. If they are not an abuse of private members' hour, they certainly do not contribute to the debating of issues that should be important and should suggest that the government undertake serious legislation in areas of concern.

When I was listening to the member for York Centre and I was listening carefully, he said that when this legislation is passed he hoped the members would go back to their ridings and take leadership in this program because it would not cost the government anything.

Private members' hour has a specific purpose. It has the purpose of suggesting action to the government in areas where the member thinks the action of the government is deficient. I think with this type of resolution the member for York Centre is not moving in that direction at all.

Apart from that, I want to share the thoughts expressed by my colleague the member for Etobicoke. Briefly, if we have the type of crimes the member for York Centre lamented in introducing this resolution, it is superficial and silly in a way to suggest we can solve the crimes by setting up this type of voluntary neighbourhood organization.

We can see historically that crime increases whenever the social fabric is subjected to serious pressure because of the deterioration of the economic situation. When people are unemployed, when there are young people in Ontario who are the group in our society which is experiencing the most cruel unemployment since the 1930s, if some of those young people are kept idle because of the inefficiency of the policies of this government, is it any wonder some of those people turn to crime?

When there are situations like that in the Jane-Finch corridor where there has been an accumulation of incredible high-rises to help the interests of the big land speculators, is it any wonder that is one of the areas where criminality is higher than in other areas? This is why this resolution is useless and that is why the member has wasted our time. I will vote against it.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that came from the member for London North, the member for Prescott-Russell and certainly the member for Chatham-Kent. The member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), had he had a chance to speak, I know had a tremendous amount to say about the success this program has had in his own riding.

I do appreciate the comments of the member for Etobicoke and the balance he tried to bring to it. May I suggest that he read in last night's edition of Neighbours in the Toronto Star about some of the things that are going on in his own area. One of his residents has been very instrumental in starting this program. I know they will appreciate the kind of view the member is taking, which is basically supportive but also sees a need within the whole community that goes beyond just this program.

May I suggest to the member for Downsview that certainly there are problems in the world, but we as leaders and representatives of our communities have a responsibility to speak out not only here but wherever we are by our example and by our actions in this House. And in supporting this resolution we are saying: "Our society needs the help of everybody to make it work effectively. The police cannot do it alone, and we can help the police."

I hope the honourable member will reconsider his position, come to an honest assessment and say, "This is one positive support mechanism that can be set up within our communities to make them better and safer places to live." That is the hope I had in this resolution. I see it as something that is close to the very real things the member for Prescott-Russell talked about. He has suffered the effects and ravages of a crime in which someone has taken things out of his own home.

I would hope that when we are in the state we are in in Canada today we can go back to some of the things the member for London North talked about: an improvement in the basic attitudes people can have in life, a respect for one another and a respect for one another's property. That is what this motion is all about.

One can legislate some things, but we cannot legislate common sense. What we are talking about in this simple Neighbourhood Watch program is a common-sense approach to people helping one another in their own communities in a positive and good way.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank all honourable members for giving their attention to this important subject. I know those people who have suffered the effects of crime will appreciate knowing that something can be done by working together in their own communities.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, and thank you for abiding by your time.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT REFERENDUM ACT

Mr. Epp moved second reading of Bill 133, An Act to authorize Municipalities to obtain the Opinions of Electors with respect to Nuclear Disarmament.

The Deputy Speaker: I would remind the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes, and I would ask him now if he has given thought to reserving any of that time.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will reserve just a few minutes for the end; I will see how much time I have left after I make my opening remarks.

The Deputy Speaker: Five minutes?

Mr. Epp: Okay.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to what I consider to be a very important subject. It is somewhat by accident that I am able to address this subject at this time because my colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) was supposed to be on the ballot today, but unfortunately he is quite ill and was not able to have his opportunity. As a result, through those circumstances my ballot came forth through the unanimous consent of this House. I appreciate the opportunity of speaking to what I consider a very important piece of legislation at this time.

I also want to acknowledge the presence of Mr. James Stark from Ottawa, who is the director and founder of Operation Dismantle. Mr. Stark has done a considerable amount of work on this subject. He is one of the people who spearheaded the referendums at the municipal level, and I think it is important that we recognize him at this time. There are some other people in the gallery who, I understand, wanted to be present for this debate today, so I welcome them here. I am sure there are a number of members who want to participate in this debate, and I will try not to be unduly long.

I would have preferred that there had been a government bill that had come forth to support this principle because of the somewhat ambivalent feeling some municipal leaders have with respect to having a referendum at the municipal level. Since that bill was not forthcoming, and because the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) have tried to make some clarifying remarks since that time, I am pleased to put my bill.

4:50 p.m.

I also want to acknowledge the presence and the contribution of the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) with respect to referendums. This particular bill was put forward as urging a referendum at the municipal level, but the member for Rainy River, who has had a lot of experience of speaking in this House from time to time, has a bill, which I think is Bill 32, on the Order Paper with respect to referendums. We will not go into that today, but it is a very important bill.

I hope my private members' bill will have the support of all members of the House today because it is so important. I know the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) have worked on the possibility of having a world referendum, a very important move. I think many members of this House support that principle, that concept and that move. I would say this is stage one in trying to get to that point eventually. That may be a few years down the road; nevertheless we can do something right now about that subject.

My bill authorizes municipalities to have a referendum on nuclear disarmament. A number of municipalities such as Toronto and Ottawa have decided to go ahead with that referendum. At first, there was concern by the Ministry of the Attorney General and its lawyers that the municipalities might not be able to have a referendum. Since referendums on nuclear disarmament are considered to be a federal matter, they felt it might in some way invalidate the other matters before the electorate at the time of the referendum, such as elections to school boards, municipal councils and other referenda on local matters.

The Attorney General had his counsel look at this matter and made a statement in the House on June 10, which I will read for the record, "It would be most unlikely a municipal election would be declared null and void only for the reason that a question on nuclear disarmament appeared on the ballot. anyone seeking to upset the results of a municipal election because an unauthorized question was also put to the electorate undertakes an almost impossible task."

Although it appears municipalities are safe with respect to other matters that come before the electorate in November, there is still a feeling by a number of lawyers that if a referendum on nuclear disarmament were held it might still be challenged in the courts. Nobody knows for sure until it actually gets to the Supreme Court of Canada whether they are safe or whether those other matters will be declared null and void as a result of the referenda, It is my contention that by putting this bill before the 125 members of this House and by having their support, the municipalities would feel safe in going ahead with their referendums if they desired to do so. There are many municipalities that want referenda. For the record, I would like to read some of the things municipalities wanted. I might say there are 43 municipalities in Ontario, representing approximately three million people, that have endorsed the concept of the world vote, and a lot of those municipalities would like to have a referendum at the local level. Twenty municipalities in Ontario, representing close to two million people, want to conduct the referendum this fall. Among those municipalities are the two cities of Ottawa and Toronto. Hamilton and Niagara Falls, which wish to hold the referendum, have overturned a previously adopted motion to do so because of the legal issue.

My particular ballot item, if it was endorsed by the House, would do away with some of the concern municipalities have. A handful of other municipalities have deferred consideration until they feel very clear and legally safe that they can go ahead and have a referendum.

I might say also there are a lot of organizations that support the idea of having a world vote, and this would be stage one in that. For instance, the Canadian Council of Churches, the United Church of Canada. the World Federalists of Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress, the National Farmers Union and a lot of university and student groups like Sir Sandford Fleming College, Carleton University Graduate Students Association, Carleton University Students Association, Queen's University and so on are some of the many organizations that support this idea.

Because it is such an important issue, it might be appropriate to read into the record what the Premier said on June 10, the same day the Attorney General made a statement on this matter: "There are certain issues that are so wide-reaching and of such global significance to each and every one of us as human beings and as citizens of the world that we have a responsibility to search our conscience and share with ourselves the things we care about most.

"The continued escalation of nuclear armaments, in my view and I am sure in the view of every single member of this House, constitutes a serious threat to the survival of mankind. It is important that we encourage wider public discussion on this most important issue. It is also important that all Canadians provide whatever encouragement is appropriate for the government of Canada to pursue in the international arena those initiatives that can in some small way contribute to reducing the threats of nuclear war. I believe the government of this country would be eager to reflect the views of Canadians and in so doing express abroad what so many of us feel in our hearts."

The Premier is right. This is a nonpartisan issue. I have tried to deal with it as a nonpartisan issue, and the member for Ottawa Centre seconded my introduction of this bill into the House a few weeks ago. I thank him for that support. Some members on the government side have already indicated to me they will be supporting this, so I treat it as a nonpartisan issue and I hope no one in this House or anyone else will see it in any other light.

If we look at an editorial in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of June 4, which supports some kind of peace initiatives as far as nuclear disarmament is concerned, it reads as follows:

"The issue of peace and human survival, as opposed to nuclear war and extinction, seems very much like motherhood: who, including Leonid Brezhnev and Ronald Reagan, could oppose it? It's the logic of the millions of demonstrators who have been taking to the streets to demand that their leaders consider man's survival and disarm. Now! One cannot doubt their sincerity. These are not bored kids with too much time on their hands, or scheming leftists doing Moscow's dirty work. They are serious, concerned citizens of all ages and from all walks of life." That was in the K-W Record back in early June.

5 p.m.

We can recall back in the 1960s the demonstrators on various campuses, Capitol Hill and so forth, who supported a particular movement at that time with respect to the Vietnam war. The President, Mr. Johnson, was forced not to seek another term because, although he was entitled to seek another term, he felt his position on the war was such that he would not get the support of the Americans. He stepped down in 1968, and Hubert Humphrey became the standard-bearer for the Democratic Party.

This movement is gaining worldwide attention. There have been a lot of demonstrations in Europe, in Canada and in the United States. People are very much concerned with what, as far as they are concerned, is a life-and-death struggle because of the nuclear threat to all of us. It is something I would prefer that my children, myself or anyone else would not have to experience.

When I speak about this, I want to show my concern, as other members will be showing their concern. When I was driving to London on Sunday morning to speak to a group, I heard a good description of the kind of risk we are taking. I heard this description on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. news. A fellow said there are two people standing up to their waists in gasoline. One fellow has six matches and the other has eight matches. Both are trying to tell each other that if they have more matches then the world is going to be a safer place in which to live.

It is like telling two people with two revolvers that they are going to be safer if you give them three or four more. I cannot quite accept that, nor can the people in Ontario accept it; that is why the municipalities in Ontario in particular, as well as other people, have indicated they would like to have a referendum and some kind of expression by the people.

When we are talking about expression by the people, I might indicate that a Gallup poll in the United States has shown that 69 per cent of the people in the United States favour a referendum. If a referendum were held, 59 per cent of those people would favour some form of disarmament.

I am no expert on this, and I am not sure what kind of disarmament it would be. Obviously it would have to be a co-operative disarmament by all the nuclear powers of the world. If we do take this step and give this opportunity to the municipalities, we will have a clearer indication of what the people in Ontario really want.

I might indicate that a Gallup poll taken in Toronto not very long ago indicated that 84 per cent of the people support disarmament. That is an astounding figure. You may be elected on the basis of 84 per cent in your riding, Mr. Speaker, but you get a lot of good support there. I do not get it; mine is in the 40 per cent range. Anybody who gets 84 per cent would count themselves very favoured.

I will make this very short. I want to ask all members for their support on this very important private member's bill. I will use the other few minutes of my time later on.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) has said, it is unusual to have a bill that is proposed by a member of one party and seconded by the member of another party, but it was a great pleasure for me to accept his invitation to endorse and second this bill, a bill to authorize municipalities to obtain the opinions of electors with respect to nuclear disarmament.

In the brief time that I have I want to speak about the issue; I want to speak about the concerns that people have about the precedent this may set with respect to municipal referenda. I would like to speak directly to my friends in all three parties, but in particular to members of the Conservative caucus with respect to why I hope they can support this bill and see it pass second reading.

If we can do that today, I hope this House can find a way next week, when we have a final private members' session before the end of the spring sitting of the Legislature, to find sufficient time to put the bill through the remaining stages and to make it law.

Just this week we heaved a sigh of relief and a prayer at the ending of the conflict in the Falklands between Argentina and Britain. As a number of people have said, this has brought home to people what war is really like.

The tremors in Argentina at the sinking of the cruiser and the tremors in Britain at the time of the attack on British troops in the landing craft just a week ago when they were seeking to disembark and were caught by Argentine planes indicate the horrors of war. But, let us face it, that is writ small compared to what the horrors of war would be if we were ever to see a nuclear shootout between the nuclear powers, or if we were ever to see a nuclear shootout between more and more nuclear powers if countries as stable and trustworthy as Argentina and Iraq, which are on the brink of getting nuclear capability, were to go forward and acquire nuclear weapons.

Less than 1,000 people were killed in the Falklands war. That is a lot; but I want the House to recall that at Hiroshima 100,000 people were killed and another 100,000 people were grievously wounded as a result of one primitive atomic bomb that was launched by the Americans on Japan.

If people want to know what this is all about and why it is important that people at the municipal level should be able to speak their minds about disarmament through the referenda, I would like them to imagine what would happen if in the course of one day -- perhaps in the course of an hour or two -- Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Windsor, Sudbury, Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax, St. John's, Thunder Bay, Moncton, Charlottetown and St. Catharines were all to be hit by missiles from a Poseidon submarine or its Russian equivalent. Each of those centres could be hit with a nuclear weapon three times the power of the weapon that hit Hiroshima, with the multitargeted missile heads from two nuclear missiles on a Poseidon-class submarine or the Russian equivalent. Each American submarine carries 16 such missiles.

The deaths in Canada alone would be of the order of two million or three million, and there would be another two million or three million grievously wounded as a result -- and that in just one thinly populated country, which is Canada.

This is why the issue is so important and why there is no other issue that is of greater importance. It is why I believe we should be prepared to assure the municipalities that they can go forward with the referenda, which a number of them have already indicated they want to do. I would like to speak more about that, but let me go on to my second point.

The question has been asked: if we give the municipalities the carte blanche authority to go forward with referenda on this subject at the municipal level, does it not then open up referenda on all sorts of subjects, and is that not contrary to our traditions here in Ontario?

I point out two things to members. In the first place, this bill simply authorizes referenda on the question of nuclear disarmament. It does not authorize referenda with respect to capital punishment, abortion, religious issues or other matters that lie outside municipal competence. If that were to be done, if the precedent of this bill were to be followed, it would require an act by this Legislature.

The other question is: when we have a parliamentary system provincially and federally, is it not a bit unusual for municipalities to have a referendum on this or any subject? The answer to that is, not at all. The fact is that under the Municipal Act, referenda by the electors are an everyday occurrence. The only reason they do not occur all the time is that dispensations are available through the Ontario Municipal Board.

Major capital expenditures at the municipal level require the assent of the electors unless that assent is dispensed with by the Ontario Municipal Board. In many cases, changes in the ward system require assent by the electors in some kind of referendum. For example, I believe one is going to occur in Oshawa in the forthcoming elections in November 1982. In municipal government in this country and in this province there is a long tradition of consulting the electors.

Does this affect municipal capital expenditures? No, it does not. Is it very important? I would say it is extremely important to any municipality that is a potential target for a nuclear weapon, because life and death and survival itself are at stake.

5:10 p.m.

There is a third thing I want to say directly to my friends, and particularly to my friends in the Conservative Party, to the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), the member for St. George (Ms. Fish). the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), some of the other members who are in the House today and those members who are talked to in the next 45 minutes or so.

Many of the Conservatives joined with members of the Liberal and New Democratic caucuses in endorsing the resolution calling for a world referendum on disarmament. The majority of the people who signed the second resolution, which was the one that dealt with the general concern about disarmament, came from the Conservative benches. About 40 Conservatives and about 18 or 19 Liberals and New Democrats respectively signed the resolution, which I would like to read.

It says, "The House expresses its deep concern at the implication for mankind of the continued escalation of nuclear armaments and declares its support for activities to encourage wider public discussion and public education on the issue of nuclear arms, and supports the government of Canada in any pursuit of initiatives which would secure international support for measures which will ensure the survival and wellbeing of mankind."

Seventy-six of us in this Legislature from all three parties endorsed that resolution which, among other things, said that we declared our support for "activities to encourage wider public discussion and public education on the issue of nuclear arms."

The referenda which Ottawa, Toronto and some 20-odd municipalities across Ontario have agreed to hold on disarmament this fall will not by themselves eliminate the nuclear stockpiles and the nuclear overkill. But it is what we can do in this province to help to educate the masters of the world. It is also what we can do in this Legislature to carry out what we said was important in finding every device possible to encourage public education and discussion about disarmament.

In Ottawa, there is a group that intends to carry on a "yes" campaign. It is a balanced group that comes from many points of the political spectrum, but this fall, while people are contending for mayor and so on, it intends to talk to people about why it is important to support the referendum for disarmament.

They know going into it that, as a matter of fundamental belief, most people who vote in the municipal election will probably support that referendum; but they want people to know why and they want people to be prepared to do more than just cast their ballots. It is a valuable opportunity for public education.

The same thing is happening here in Toronto, where people from many political persuasions and backgrounds are joining together in that kind of education campaign.

Many Conservatives, some 43 members of the Conservative caucus federally, have supported the idea of a world referendum on disarmament. We heard the Premier say in his statement last week, which I welcomed, that "there are certain issues that are so wide-reaching and of such global significance to each and every one of us as human beings and as citizens of the world, that we have a responsibility to search our conscience and share with ourselves the things we care about most."

He said later, "It is important that we encourage wider public discussion on this most important issue." He made a number of other comments. Most of us were in the House at that time when the Premier said, "it is ... courageous to fight for peace and conciliation."

What is being asked here is that, as a matter of conscience, all of us who have had a chance to express our opinions in this Legislature pass the ball on to the people we represent and say to municipalities: "Look, you won't have to worry about the remote chance that what you might be doing might be out of court. We are going to pass this bill to ensure that if your electorates want to have that chance to state their views about disarmament, you as the municipality will be able to facilitate it without taking unreasonable risks."

I hope the members here on the Conservative benches and the ones who will come in at six o'clock will take this matter seriously. I hope that they will act in the spirit of the resolution which many of them have already endorsed and that they will join with the member for Waterloo North, myself and many people on this side of the House in making those municipal votes possible.

If we do that today, I am sure we can find a way that will be unprecedented, or almost unprecedented, to ensure that with all-party support we can get that bill proclaimed after next week.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: My bill has been referred to and the wrong number was given. I have a private member's bill, which is Bill 37. I believe my colleague referred to it as Bill 32, and I know all members would like to know that in fact it is Bill 37, An act to provide a Referendum Procedure for Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The House appreciates your clarification on the matter.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I guess I am compelled to say at the outset that I am sure, no matter which number the bill may bear, it will be of a quality consistent with the general offerings of the member for Rainy River.

Turning our attention back to the matter at hand, though, at least for a few moments, it is interesting to note that we are dealing with two very separate and distinct issues here today. One has been touched on considerably more than the other.

The one that has come into very clear focus in the past 30 minutes or so is the matter of world disarmament. I would draw to members' attention, as I am sure all members are already aware, that Bill 133 does not call on this House or members of this House either collectively or individually to address the question of world disarmament.

However, as long as we are on the subject, I am only modestly disappointed that my friend the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), as he was enunciating all those who he hoped would get up in support of the issue and this bill, failed to mention me on the way by. I am sure it was inadvertent, and I am sure that, even having not mentioned me, he still would like my support none the less.

To be serious for a few moments, since it is a very serious issue, as I look back over my lifetime both in Ontario and, of course, in this country, I think the greatest gift that has been provided to me by birthright is the gift of not having to enter an armed conflict.

I can say, and I think other members of this House who may be in my age group particularly would agree, that during those years of our lives when we might have been most fit for military service I always had some trepidation that some day someone, somewhere would push a button or create a situation and suddenly all of us young men and ladies would be mobilized and would have to go once again to defend the freedom of this country that so many people fought and died for not very many years ago.

As the member for Ottawa Centre pointed out, that conflict -- the last great conflict, if you will; the last world conflict -- was concluded with what still stands as a variation of the ultimate weapon. It is that weapon -- fortunately not employed in the Falkland Islands, fortunately not employed in Vietnam and equally fortunately not employed in Korea -- under whose shadow we still live here in Ontario and around the world today. I very much enjoyed the analogy about the gasoline and the number of matches, because it really comes down to that when all is said and done.

I do not think there is any member in this House, or likely any person in this province, who opposes world disarmament. I truly cannot believe that somewhere there is a large and significant lobby -- I am sorry; perhaps the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) was indicating to me he might not, but I am sure he does anyway -- that opposes the concept of nuclear disarmament. It is a fact of life; it is something we need --

Mr. Roy: I may reconsider if you are for it.

Mr. Robinson: I see. I say to my friend, don't let us keep you if you have a plane leaving tonight. It will be a little later, I suppose.

Mr. Cassidy: Come on, Albert.

Mr. Roy: You lack no imagination.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, what I was saying before I had some help across the way was that I am sure there is no one who does not support the concept of world nuclear disarmament. I do not think anyone would agree that blowing away a significant portion of a city or a country or a province, or any part of this world, would serve any useful purpose in the pursuit of peace.

To deal briefly with the bill itself in the time that is available to me, however, it does raise a number of points at the outset. As I mentioned, Bill 133 does not call on this House to support world disarmament or disarmament of any sort but merely establishes an opportunity for it to happen elsewhere. Bill 133 and nuclear disarmament are clearly not, in a technical sense, a municipal question. Municipal governments will under no circumstances have any direct effect on nuclear disarmament; they are not armed and therefore they cannot directly disarm. This does not go a long way to dilute the quality of the bill, but I think it is worth mentioning.

My friend the member for Waterloo North has also pointed out, of course, that had he wanted to do it in some other way, if he had wanted to attack the matter of municipal referenda generally, he might have gone a route that would have amended the Municipal Act instead of raising a separate act for a specific question. It is a complex international issue, and it is clearly within the jurisdiction of the federal government, but it does call for an expression of opinion.

5:20 p.m.

Expression of opinion is a very interesting concept, because members from across the way, including some of the members who are here now from across the way, have at times -- not often necessarily, but at times -- accused this government of governing by poll. We all know that to be untrue. However, if for even a brief moment we considered that there was any validity in that at all, I am sure the members opposite would agree with me that what Bill 133 is doing is setting up a poll for people to express their opinions to a level of government that is not able to react on its own to the result of that poll.

Historically, the vehicle of municipal referendum has been used for very local municipal questions. It has been used, for instance, for the structure of councils; how large a council should be or how the municipality should be divided. It has also been used for the creation of new initiatives, such as parks or fluoridation of water, which are the ones we remember from the 1950s.

It is worth noting specifically that these issues were very local, they affected the voters directly I know that nuclear disarmament and a nuclear war would affect municipal voters as directly as they would affect anyone else, but bearing in mind the separation of power we have in this country it really does not fall into the same category.

As I said earlier, it is also not within the competence, either politically or technically, of a municipality to react to voter opinion on world disarmament; except, I suppose, to pass along a message to the federal government that says, "The result of our referendum" -- or poll or survey, whatever one wants to call it -- "in the city of Toronto indicates that hundreds of thousands of people join with us, the mayor and council of Toronto, and you, the federal government, in opposing the concept of greater world armament and, indeed, in encouraging and following a path of disarmament."

Whether you like it or not, Mr. Speaker, nuclear armament is a fact of the 1980s -- although more a fact of the 1970s and 1960s, when it really came into prominence. There are jurisdictional problems involved with Bill 133; it tends to meddle with the jurisdictional split. That is not necessarily a cardinal sin, but one has to wonder: what next?

If this time it happens to be nuclear disarmament as the question in the coming municipal elections, the next time out is it going to be something that deals with world religion? Is it going to be something that deals with some other aspect of human endeavour that does not have a municipal base? If it starts here, where can it stop?

Once the precedent is set, we run the difficulty of opening it up for all sorts of things, particularly for causes that may be less worthy than nuclear disarmament. Once the referendum was held and the public had a chance to express its opinion, that opinion would be passed on to a government that does not have any electoral responsibility or direct obligation to carry out the intent of the referendum.

Finally, if one is looking around for a way to promote peace, I have to point out that a lot of people have died in the cause of peace; they have given their lives, directly or indirectly, in the cause of world disarmament. As one who experienced the Vietnam war moratorium marches in Washington some 15 years ago, I can say that you know what public pressure means when hundreds of thousands of people band together.

As John Lennon said, "Give peace a chance." If Bill 133 goes some way in this Legislature to giving peace a chance and promoting a better atmosphere of peace, not only for us here now but also in a motherhood way for our children and our grandchildren, then I am very pleased to lend my support to it.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in rising to comment on the matter before us in this private members' hour, I want to congratulate my friend and colleague the member for Waterloo North for his very timely, important and relevant bill, Bill 133, which is before us. As well, I wish to commend the member for Ottawa Centre for his participation in a special way by seconding this private member's bill.

As I said in my introduction, I believe the debate is relevant and timely. This very week we are experiencing the beginning of a major debate in the United Nations. It is also important for this Legislature because, as has been pointed out before, it is the perception of the community at large that we, as a group of elected officials, are responsible for providing that kind of leadership on issues that affect the community. As my colleague the member for Waterloo North and the member for Ottawa Centre have pointed out, it is very difficult to imagine an issue that could be more important than this whole matter of nuclear disarmament and related matters.

The spring of 1982 for all of us has been a difficult one, because it has been a season of war. I was driving on the weekend, listening to the CBC national radio news, and I was amazed to discover that effectively I was listening to a series of war reports. One has to remember that there are four conventional wars taking place at this time: two of them are in the very sensitive tinderbox of the Middle East; one not far away from there, relatively speaking, is in Afghanistan; and the fourth, just concluded, apparently, is in the South Atlantic.

One is reminded as well of the kinds of pressures and temptations that arise in that respect with the knowledge, for example, that the Argentinian junta has in its possession nuclear technology which has been provided by the government of Canada and which has been worked on by people I represent in this assembly. It was noted that the junta was not prepared to give assurances that safeguards about non-military use would be provided.

I was also distressed, in connection with this season of war, to realize just how quickly a local matter can escalate to a very serious international concern. One would have been hard- pressed to have imagined in March that the British would be facing a major conflict resulting in the loss of some 200 British nationals as well as in excess of 700 Argentinians.

If there is a lesson from the Falklands dispute -- I might add that the islands are considered to be the Malvinas in China, where the views are very different from what they are on this side of the world -- it is that it is really remarkable that the conflict could become as serious as quickly as it did.

It was alarming as well to see how jingoistic as civilized a population as the British can become. If one looked at any of the tabloid press in Britain in these past few weeks, it was really alarming to see the kind of hype that was associated with that development, and similarly in Argentina. To imagine that people who have the nuclear capacity, and who are faced with the humiliation of a loss, would not be tempted to do as others have done -- that is, use the ultimate weapon for military purposes -- is somewhat naive.

I simply want to say that, as member for a constituency in which there is a nuclear establishment and a large defence establishment, I find no difficulty in standing in my place and recommending this bill to all members of the House, since it is clear that it speaks to one of those issues where I believe the public at large is well in front of the political establishment.

I listened, as I always do, to the thoughtful interventions of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson), and while it is certainly the case that there may be a worry about the use of referenda for other purposes, I want to correct him in one way by saying that this Legislature has been prepared in the past to use referenda as a means of dealing with major social issues. I think particularly of the great social debate over temperance and liquor policy in the province. The government and Legislative Assembly of Ontario were quite prepared to submit that very controversial public issue to referenda, not once but at least twice, if not more often.

It is certainly my view that we all have a responsibility to associate ourselves positively with this initiative. I know the member for Ottawa Centre mentioned this in his remarks, but I would certainly recommend the film that he, the member for Brantford and I sponsored a week ago, the National Film Board production, the title of which is --

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: If You Love This Planet.

Mr. Conway: If You Love This Planet; thank you. It is the sort of thing that members ought to acquaint themselves with, particularly those of us who have known nothing but a very peaceful environment. We tend to forget or put aside the incredible horrors of the holocaust that awaits, and awaits not too distantly as that particular film pointed out.

As I said earlier, there is no question that the community at large has a clear desire to see all efforts taken and all measures adopted, beginning at the local level and certainly carried forward nationally and internationally, to protect the planet against that savage attack from which, as the film pointed out, there is little or no escape. Some people believe that there may be a way out. Certainly that film, and others that I have seen, would indicate there likely will not be anything less than nearly total destruction of this global environment should that kind of holocaust develop.

I simply want to say that in this respect I have heard from a number of people in my constituency who are genuinely concerned. Many of them are leaders in the community, particularly in various church movements. They feel we do have an obligation to speak out in one voice and, in that respect, I simply wanted to speak on behalf of those people in my riding.

Certainly on behalf of myself, I say that the member for Waterloo North has made very good use of his private member's ballot in bringing forward this particular bill. I certainly want, unequivocally, to lend my support to it.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the bill that has been proposed and is now before the House this afternoon, because I think it does quite properly what a private member's bill ought to do. It puts before the members of this assembly a very neat, clear issue, one that is important for the members to discuss and one which will accomplish something. It gives to the municipalities a clear indication that it is very proper and very useful for them to conduct referenda on this matter of nuclear disarmament and that, in no way, does it either infringe on any other problems that might occur or interfere with their elections.

One of the reasons I support this bill is that it tackles an issue which almost seems to be beyond every human being's comprehension and, at times, appears to be beyond the understanding of the world at large. Most of us, throughout our lives, have had an opportunity off and on to participate in demonstrations and protests, to voice opinions and participate actively in our own communities and in other people's communities, and to let our feelings be known about such things as what used to be called, and is now becoming fashionable again, the peace movement, disarmament, or people who are against nuclear weapons.

One of the things which confuses the entire issue is the scope of it all. Few of us understand the arms race. Few of us understand all the ramifications of it. I thought it would be interesting to take a quick look through current literature.

The first one I wanted to mention was a Time magazine article in March where, throughout the magazine, there is a clear indication of how widespread the use of weapons is and how much war is a part of the fabric of the world's society. It is not just the western world, it is not just the eastern world, it is the entire world. The increasingly frightening thing is that the peril of the use of nuclear weapons is coming closer and closer to reality, no matter where you go.

I suppose there are those of us who took considerable abuse in the early 1960s for holding the view that peace is something that mankind can accomplish. It is not something which is a Red menace, it is not something which belongs only to intellectual people; if the world is ever going to get anywhere it must come to grips with this matter.

It is interesting to note that in one article in this particular Time magazine, there is a brief discussion about Senator Edward Kennedy's proposals. Much like the piece of legislation in this House this afternoon, there is something in the American Congress sponsored by a Democrat and a Republican. It seems to be a consensus issue, something on which most clear-thinking people do not have difficulty coming to a conclusion.

Secretary of State Alexander Haig refers to this resolution as "not only bad defence policy, but bad arms control policy as well." That gets to the problem all of us have with this. Very quickly we get into extrapolations about the size of everybody's weapons. In the article, there is this statement: "The senator stressed the proposed freeze would be worldwide, not only in Europe. Overall, the US has 9,000 warheads versus only 7,000 for the Soviet Union." It also says, "The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies whose estimates are given wide credence by nuclear experts places the Soviet arsenal at 8,000 warheads. The Soviet weapons, moreover, far outstrip their US counterparts in megaton force."

If I were asked what all that means, I would not have the faintest clue. I have no idea whether 7,000 nuclear warheads are better to have or whether they have more power than 9,000 nuclear warheads. Outside of the Pentagon and those people who are part of the nuclear weapons industry, very few human beings on the face of the earth have any concept of how many times that amount is going to blow us up or whether one nation's set of weapons are really more effective at killing everybody in the world than are another nation's. What is more important and what disturbs me is that argument immediately follows any discussion about nuclear weapons.

The second quote is from the May 17 issue of Maclean's magazine. As in the previous publication, the Time magazine, throughout the issue are articles from various parts of the world to demonstrate very clearly to those of us who live in a nice comfortable place like Ontario and who have never in our lives seen a war take place except on a television set, that war is still very much a part of the human endeavour. It goes on and on. More and more, war is not just an old-fashioned battle between people who have a disagreement, but it involves killing people who do not even know why the war is on. I thought perhaps mankind might have learned some lessons over the years, but it appears not.

A disarmament notion is now seemingly gathering force around the world and coming back into vogue, with more and more church and university groups speaking about peace and disarmament, and a lot of that is happening in Europe. Yet look how dramatically and how quickly Britain, probably one of the focal points of the peace movement these days in all Europe, mobilized over the Falkland Islands issue.

In this same issue of Maclean's there is an interesting discussion showing how perverse all this very quickly becomes. Maclean's is interviewing a British author, Anthony Sampson, who wrote a book called The Arms Bazaar. The first question is, "How important is the material Britain sold to Argentina?" The response is, "The signs are that British manufacturers have supplied Argentina with quite important equipment. including the 25th of May aircraft carrier, which is now the main part of their fleet."

Many people talk about an arms industry in the vague sense of it being good for everybody; for example, "There is lots of work there, it keeps our economy booming." But they always want to stop at the point of asking, "What happens if we use those weapons?" In this instance, we saw a very fierce battle fought for a very remote piece of territory called the Falkland Islands, an exercise of this capacity to generate death weaponry.

To show how far this goes, Maclean's in its final little question quotes Fortune magazine, estimating that during the First World War it cost about $25,000 to kill one soldier. That is an interesting statistic, and perverse if ever one saw one. It asks the question, "How much is it costing Britain and Argentina to do the same today?" Is that not an interesting notion in our society, that our national magazine sees fit to print an interview whose focal point is how much it costs to kill somebody in a war? Even more frightening is the answer. We know that one Exocet missile costs about $660,000. The Sheffield, on which 20 people died, cost about $47 million. That gives us some idea of the proportion.

5:40 p.m.

Most of us who are interested in seeking disarmament and a peaceful solution to the world's problems cannot help but note what that kind of expenditure would do to solve other problems the world has never resolved, such as housing, jobs, feeding people, decent water and decent living conditions.

It has been an interesting exercise to follow the latest unravelling of the nuclear disarmament issue here in Ontario, beginning with the normal process of a group of people with a social conscience, basically people who think a great deal. I suppose they might be called philosophers although many of them are just plain, ordinary workers. Church groups are logical ones.

We followed them as they went through the process of saying, "Do we want to have a chance finally to say something in our municipal elections about an issue the world has never solved?" The overwhelming answer to that, I believe, is "Yes, they do."

It is also interesting to follow the process of whether this bill is necessary. I believe it is. It is interesting to follow the machinations of various ministries and lawyers giving their determination as to whether that plebiscite on disarmament would somehow threaten municipal elections. I would say that is not a totally sensible concept in the first instance.

I believe the majority of our population at least wants an opportunity to express an opinion and this bill provides them with that opportunity. The bill primarily allows municipalities to do that without the threat of any other ramifications about ruining their elections or opening up broad issues. The bill in itself is eminently supportable.

Perhaps if ordinary human beings, instead of generals, industrialists or big league politicians; perhaps if the people who will get killed in the next war, instead of the people who will run the next war, get a chance to have their say we might see a change in mankind. We might see some common sense arrive in the world. I hope for that myself.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. Three minutes is a brief time for a very critical and sensitive subject. I know my colleague the member for Brantford would have participated, but he is suffering from a cold. However, I want to pay tribute to him and to the work he has done on this subject, in cooperation with the members opposite.

I have two concerns with this bill because it is a two-part bill. One part is on the appropriateness of it being on a municipal ballot; the other is a broad, critical and vital subject, such as I do not suppose has confronted mankind in world history. The possibilities of the horrors of war it is fraught with are almost overwhelming.

To deal first with the matter of the disarmament discussions: I do not know of anyone who is in opposition to nuclear disarmament. Everyone is for that. The problem that concerns me is what appears to be the development of a unilateral move towards disarmament in the western bloc of countries. I would be concerned if this bill took us further along the road to unilateral disarmament.

I know we are very limited on time, but I would like to add that in a recent article in the Toronto Star, Helmut Schmidt, who should know, is quoted. It said, "He dismissed unilateral disarmament as extremely dangerous and he advised against regarding peace demonstrators as amateurs;" this is the point of unilateral disarmament.

A day or two ago, another article in the same paper stated that Soviet police have taken steps to suppress the country's first unofficial peace organization.

This must be at least a bilateral if not a multilateral decision towards nuclear disarmament. It cannot be just a one-sided effort. That is the big concern.

As to whether or not it should go on the municipal ballot, my colleague and several others have touched on the question of how wide we open up the municipal ballots toward issues such as this.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I offer that caveat to the assembly, because the implications both of the issue and of its being placed on the ballot are considerable.

Mr. Epp: I want to thank everybody for their support of this very important piece of legislation. I will summarize a few points very quickly.

As many of you know, in drafting the bill I made a deliberate effort to concentrate on the particular issue of nuclear disarmament. I could have drafted a general piece of legislation as an amendment to the Municipal Act which would have permitted municipalities to have referenda on many other issues that were not municipally based. However, it was my feeling that we should concentrate on this single issue, and that is what I did in this piece of legislation.

Some members have indicated this is not a municipal issue, and technically it is not. But I might draw to their attention that if there were a nuclear war of some sort, those bombs would fall on municipalities, which would become involved very quickly in the issue. So, although technically it is not a municipal issue, it is of concern to municipalities. I therefore ask for their support for this bill.

Support has been indicated from all sides of the House and no one has spoken against the bill. I hope that is indicative of the vote that will be held in a few minutes. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other honourable member wish to participate in the time remaining?

Mr. Foulds: How much time?

Mr. Speaker: Two minutes.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to congratulate the member for bringing in the bill. I would like to support it very strongly. If I may say so, one of the reasons that I entered politics and decided to take an active part was on account of my concern with the "ban the bomb" movement back in the 1950s and 1960s.

I marched in the first "ban the bomb" march in Canada in 1951, from the University of British Columbia campus to Victory Square in Vancouver. If there is a single question that faces us as human beings, it is not merely that we survive, which is what the nuclear question is about, but that we survive with dignity and joy. I want to join with the honourable member in giving people and municipalities across this province the opportunity to vote for survival with dignity and joy.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to speak on the bill but I am delighted that I have one minute to join with my colleague, whom I congratulate for presenting this bill to this House.

I believe this is a very important debate. I know there are some people who dismiss this entire question as being not relevant or germane to our jurisdiction, but in my view it is germane to us as human beings.

I congratulate the member on the phenomenal job he has done in organizing the grassroots feelings of people who were previously uninvolved in the political process. It goes very much to the root of the fundamental morality of the nation. I am one of those who enjoyed Allan Fotheringham's column on this great subject. He said, in his final line, as members may or may not recall, "If the politicians can't lead, then perhaps the public has to lead." That says a great deal for a number of the public questions we are involved in today.

I personally, unequivocally, join in support of my colleague. I congratulate him on the leadership he has taken. I am confident that all of us can join together in expressing our personal, but also collective, decisions and views on this subject.

5:50 p.m.

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cousens has moved resolution 28.

Motion agreed to.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT REFERENDUM ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Epp has moved second reading of Bill 133.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all honourable members that this bill will go automatically to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Epp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In view of the tremendous support that this bill has received today, I would like to draw to your attention standing order 64(g): "Private members' public bills given second reading shall be carried on the Order Paper daily to be called by the government House leader in the same manner as government orders."

In view of the support that it has received, I would like to ask for third reading of this bill.

Mr. Speaker: I would draw all honourable members' attention to the same standing order 64(m) --

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that on unanimous consent we could have third reading. My colleague is asking for unanimous consent to have third reading of this bill so we could pass it immediately.

Would you put that question to the chamber, Mr. Speaker? We would be grateful.

Mr. Speaker: The question was not put that way.

Mr. Peterson: I meant would you put that question?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to put.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: As the honourable members know, it has been the practice of the House to not give more than one reading to a bill on the same day. Anything further has only been done on rare occasions. Our party would not want to go along with giving third reading at this point.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order: In the spirit in which the debate was carried out today, recognizing that there is not unanimous consent for the matter to go to third reading now, I would hope that given that there has been some co-operation between the House leaders during their meetings today, about the disposition of the business over the course of the next three or four weeks, perhaps the same co-operation might either find time in private members' hour next week, or else some other convenient time when this matter could be disposed of and the bill could go to third reading.

There is a fairly general indication of support from all sides of the House. Because of the fact that we have had this very important vote, I would think the House can in a few days proceed and deal with the matter without excessive use of time. I would hope we could see this House do that.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw all honour- able members' attention to standing order 64(m) "Notwithstanding standing order 56(c), private members' public bills given second reading shall stand referred to the committee of the whole House, unless referred to a standing or select committee by a majority of the House."

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Prior to recess for dinner, I would like to outline some of the business coming up.

Tonight, the House will be continuing debate on the motion for interim supply, and we have agreement amongst the House leaders that we will come to a vote at 10:15 p.m. this evening.

Tomorrow, we will complete Bills 125 and 135, then call second reading of Bill 127 and, if there is time, Bill 138.

I will have a further statement this evening with respect to next week's business.

The House recessed at 5:55 p.m.

17 juin 1982