role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 31, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L058 - Thu 31 May 1979 / Jeu 31 mai 1979

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NEW PLANNING BILL

DOVER TOWNSHIP FLOODING

TRITIUM IN DRINKING WATER

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRITIUM IN DRINKING WATER

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANT

BONAR AND BEMIS DISPUTE

LIQUOR AND WINE PRICES

TORONTO OHC HOUSING

DISPOSAL OF PCBS

CALEDONIA DAM

FALCONBRIDGE HIRING

RULES OF THE HOUSE

STANDING MEMBERS’ SERVICES COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE REPORT RULE

STANDING PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

STANDING MEMBERS’ SERVICES COMMITTEE

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

WASTE DISPOSAL

SPEAKER’S RULING

ONTARIO WINE TAX

WASTE DISPOSAL

ONTARIO WINE TAX

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NEW PLANNING BILL

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in tabling for the House the white paper on the Planning Act, which sets out the approach this government will take in drafting a new planning act for our province. Honourable members are all aware, I am sure, that the white paper has been through a long review period. There are reasons for this.

First, it should be pointed out that this white paper does not refer to a series of simple amendments to the existing act. Rather, it proposes a new act to ensure that the planning process in Ontario meets current needs and future expectations. The Planning Act, like many other acts, receives limited attention from the public. Yet it is one of the most important acts of this province as it sets the rules by which municipalities control development and hence determines to a great degree exactly how this province will evolve.

When the original act was passed in 1946, Ontario was heading into an exciting and demanding period of growth. The province was on the verge of a baby boom. It was facing a time when hundreds of thousands of immigrants were arriving to start new lives for themselves and their children in our province. It was a period of rapid development, unparalleled in our history, when the needs for housing and for industrial and commercial expansion were paramount.

The success of that act in bringing order to development, while ensuring that all segments of society were able to benefit, is readily apparent. For more than 30 years, the original Planning Act stood us in remarkably good stead. Yet times change, and the act must also change. Our concerns about providing more housing, more industry and more commerce have been enlarged to include concerns about protecting our heritage and environment and to ensure that valuable resources such as agricultural land, are retained. In addition, we recognize that municipalities are much more capable of looking after more of their own planning interests than in the past.

Without going into specifics at this time, I would like to state briefly that the main changes proposed by the white paper involve: Refining the role and interests of the province in local planning so that there will be no interference in municipal matters, unless it is necessary to protect the provincial interest; streamlining the planning process in Ontario by cutting red tape and by providing municipalities which are capable with more autonomy in deciding their own local planning issues; and altering the role of the municipal board when it deals with planning matters so that it becomes solely an appellate body able to deal with issues more quickly and efficiently.

I wish to make clear that the white paper represents a firm commitment by this government. Recommendations have been arrived at only after careful deliberation. I would add that because of the extensive public input we encouraged throughout the review process we are convinced that a firm basis exists for the changes that we propose.

In 1975, a committee chaired by Eli Comay, professor of environmental studies at York University, began a complete review of the act. Other committee members were Earl Berger and Eric Hardy, with Dennis Hefferon as legal counsel. Meetings were held across this province by the committee to elicit public response. More than 300 briefs were received to help the committee in preparing its recommendations.

In June 1977 the committee’s report was tabled in this House and distributed across the province for review and comment. Upwards of 350 briefs were received related to the recommendations of the Planning Act Review Committee. At the same time, we initiated further studies and consulted with other ministries and agencies to arrive at a position that we are convinced is both farsighted and responsible. The results of these labours are contained in the white paper.

It is the intention of my ministry to again contact local governments and other organizations and groups to explain the proposals before final legislation is introduced in this House, which should occur early next year. We will sponsor eight regional meetings across the province to explain the proposals in the white paper. These meetings begin next week in Ottawa. In the following three-week period, other meetings will be held in Sault Ste. Marie, Dryden, Thunder Bay, Kingston, London, Barrie and Toronto. During these sessions, we would hope to provide an overview to the heads of council and to planning boards on the intent of the proposed legislation.

In September, we intend to hold workshops with municipal staff, during which the proposals for change will be detailed. We have asked the municipal liaison committee for suggestions on where and when these meetings should take place. While we are committed to the white paper and the draft legislation, we are prepared to consider modifications during this final review period.

I would at this time like to acknowledge the contributions of my predecessors, the Honourable Donald Irvine and the late John Rhodes, who gave this process thrust and direction. I think also we owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Comay of the Planning Act Review Committee and to his associates. Last but not least, a special acknowledgement must be given to ministry staff, particularly those in the local planning branch of my ministry’s community planning wing, and to the hundreds of other provincial and municipal officials and other interested persons who contributed through briefs and comments to the preparation of this white paper.

We have set a deadline of November 16 for comment on the white paper proposals and on the draft legislation. It is my intention to introduce to this House for debate legislation for a new act as soon as possible thereafter.

Copies of the white paper, together with a

summary which has been printed as a special edition of my ministry’s magazine, Housing Ontario, are now being forwarded to all municipalities, planning boards, school boards, committees of adjustment and all others who have participated in or are likely to be affected by this review. Copies are also being forwarded to all members of this House and should be in their mailboxes at this time.

This, we hope, will provide a contemporary and forward-looking act which will do as much for this province in the next 30 years as was done by the existing act for the past 30 years.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement from the Ministry of Natural Resources and one from the Ministry of Energy. I don’t know whether the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party have received a copy of the one from Energy regarding radiation at Pickering.

Mr. S. Smith: No, we have not.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I hope it will be here shortly; it is on its way.

DOVER TOWNSHIP FLOODING

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would like to table the report of the Dover Township Flood Review Committee. As members will recall, I established this committee of non-ministry people to document the events and actions taken before and during the flooding this March in Dover township. I also instructed the committee to advise me how flood warning and response systems could be improved.

The review committee was chaired by Walter Giles, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Environment. His members were Bill Brisco, a local drainage engineer, and Rosaire Sterling, a local cash crop farmer. The review committee’s report is based largely on discussions with the agencies that have flood emergency responsibilities and also on interviews with many of the people who suffered hardship and property damage during the flooding.

The report contains 32 recommendations, 26 of which are aimed at reducing the chances of more flood disasters in the area. Without going into detail, let me say that these 26 recommendations cover four main areas that need to be addressed: preparation of an ice management plan; re-evaluation of the partially-constructed dikes along the lower Thames; preparation of a co-ordinated flood contingency plan for Dover township; and, finally, the need to increase awareness among local residents that floods will occur again and to provide better communications between local residents and the appropriate agencies when those floods occur.

Many of these recommendations can also be applied to other areas of the province where flooding occurs. For example, one recommendation is that interagency flood committees should be established and meet annually to ensure that flood contingency plans for a particular watershed are up to date and properly co-ordinated. The committee also recommends that conservation authorities should promote flood contingency planning by municipalities more aggressively. The committee also points out that an ice management seminar should be sponsored by the province.

I am also pleased to see the committee members, after a thorough review, judged the province’s policy on planning for flood emergencies to be, in their words, “basically sound.” The committee found only a limited number of areas where the policy could be improved. This was the first real test of that policy since it was established three years ago. In that time, we have not experienced widespread flooding until recently. My staff now intends to review that policy on the basis of the report and the experience that has been gained elsewhere this year. I am sure members will agree that this is the kind of policy that needs to be constantly improved wherever possible.

I would like to thank the committee members for a thorough and timely report. My ministry will certainly review in detail all the recommendations. I am sure the report will also receive the careful attention of officials in Dover township and the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority.

Copies of this report will be sent to those residents whose homes were flooded and will be available in the Chatham public library. They will also be made available to local news media. Other copies will be available at the Dover township office and the offices of the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Comments from the public on this report will be most welcome.

TRITIUM IN DRINKING WATER

Hon. Mr. Auld: Due to the anxiety caused by the Toronto Star’s banner headline on “Radiation Traces Found in Pickering Drinking Water,” I have asked Ontario Hydro to provide the following information which I would like to share with the House and the public.

First, despite the implications in the newspapers, I have positive assurances from Ontario Hydro that the traces routinely found in the water present absolutely no danger to people, wildlife, plantlife, Scotch drinkers or anybody else.

[2:15]

Ontario Hydro has been monitoring the drinking water ever since the station went into operation. The tritium measurements are recorded and placed on record as part of Ontario Hydro’s quarterly technical reports which are available to interested members of the public. The measurements are under the heading, “Pickering Township Drinking Water.”

The maximum permissible amount in the drinking water is set by the Atomic Energy Control Board at a level which ensures that anyone drinking the water would not exceed their annual permissible limit of 500 millirem. Ontario Hydro’s own standard is such that no release exceeds one per cent of the AECB figure. That is five millirem.

The amounts of tritium in the water supply are far lower than Hydro’s own conservative standards. In fact, drinking the water in question would result in far less than one millirem per year. To put this one millirem a year in perspective, natural background radiation is about 100 millirem a year.

The total amount of radiation from all sources at Pickering is about three millirem a year. Of that, less than one millirem represents total tritium emissions and an even smaller amount represents the drinking water measurements. In fact, the amounts of tritium released to the lake from Pickering contribute only a small proportion of the total levels which come mainly from cosmic rays and weapons testing.

Mr. S. Smith: Point of order: The Minister of Energy also sent a statement on the damaged boilers at Pickering nuclear station. I don’t know if he intended to read it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I didn’t get a copy of that.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister didn’t get a copy?

Hon. Mr. Auld: It was kind of a busy morning this morning. I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: Do you know what’s in it?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Ah, yes, I went over it at 20 to two. It took a little while to get the copy.

Mr. Peterson: We have a lot of confidence in the minister.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, we do.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The honourable members are so wise.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Auld: Following my last statement to the House on May 25 concerning the damaged boilers at Pickering B generation station, some honourable members posed further questions regarding the contracts for these boilers. I said at that time that I would seek further information from Ontario Hydro on these questions and provide it to the House.

On May 28 the Leader of the Opposition asked why competitive tenders were called for the Pickering A boilers in 1965 and for Bruce A in 1970, but not called in 1973 and 1974 for the Pickering B boilers.

The main reason for ordering a repeat of the Pickering A boilers for Pickering B station from the same supplier was to obtain the benefits of economy, efficiency and operating standardization. I think I mentioned that in the previous statement.

The Pickering A boilers had performed well and continue to provide excellent service. I should like to emphasize that Pickering A has achieved world renown since its four units began operation between April 1, 1971, and May 1973. It has broken many production records and, in 1977, on a world-wide basis, Pickering A’s four units ranked first, third, fourth and sixth for reliability among more than 80 nuclear units of 500 megawatts or over. Hydro’s objective in reordering the boilers for Pickering B was to achieve the same high level of performance as for Pickering A.

As I mentioned in my statement of May 25, Ontario Hydro advises me that at the time Hydro placed its orders with Babcock and Wilcox Canada Limited for the Pickering B boilers, that company was the only one in Canada which had the necessary manufacturing facilities in place -- and I underline “in place” -- to build this type of boiler.

It is quite likely, as suggested by the honourable member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), that had another Canadian company been awarded a contract for nuclear boilers in the early 1970s, it could have tooled up and delivered the boilers. However, I am advised by Ontario Hydro that the typical

schedule for a repeat order requires about 14 months less than for tendering for new designs.

As honourable members will recall, the 1973-74 period was one of great turmoil and uncertainty in the energy field due to world crude oil price increases and embargoes. In this context, Ontario Hydro felt there was some urgency to order the boilers for Pickering B and to have them delivered. Clearly, this was an additional factor favouring a reorder from Babcock and Wilcox Canada Limited.

Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, the predominant consideration in Hydro’s decision not to go to tender for the Pickering B boilers was to obtain the benefits of economy, efficiency and operating standardization.

As the attached chronology indicates, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited placed the order for the nuclear boilers for the Candu station being built in Korea with Foster Wheeler Limited of St. Catharines after a competitive tender in 1976, some two years after the Pickering B orders were placed.

Despite the fact there is a constant flow of information between AECL and Hydro, Hydro informs me it received absolutely no information from AECL which suggests that AECL’s decision was based on any concerns AECL may have had with the Babcock and Wilcox design. If the Leader of the Opposition has information to the contrary, I should be happy to receive it.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition further inquired as to the financial status of Babcock and Wilcox to rectify the defects found in the Pickering B boilers. Ontario Hydro’s objective is to get the boilers installed in order to limit delays for the in- service dates for the Pickering B units and to ensure the provisions of the contract are met. I can only repeat this is undeniably a complex and difficult legal question which will require considerable discussion before it is ultimately resolved.

The fact that Hydro did tender for the Darlington boilers answers the question asked of me by the member for York South. The scheduled delivery dates for these boilers ranges from March 31, 1982 to May 15, 1985. However, Hydro has directed Babcock and Wilcox to hold off on any significant work on the contract.

I would like to assure the honourable leader of the New Democratic Party that the risk certainly does not rest solely with Ontario Hydro. The contracts with Babcock and Wilcox require the boilers meet performance specifications. The manufacturer will be required to rectify any deficiencies in performance resulting from deficiencies in design or manufacture.

Attached to the statement, Mr. Speaker, is the chronology of large Candu nuclear boiler awards, starting with Pickering A in 1965 and going through to the last one, Darlington, in 1978.

[Later (2: 28):]

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this isn’t my day.

Mr. Cassidy: You’ve had most of it so far.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The copy of the statement which I read had some pages typed on one side and some on two, and I missed a couple of pages. If I may, I’d like to read them now for the benefit of Hansard.

Mrs. Campbell: It didn’t make any difference.

Mr. Cassidy: Nobody noticed the difference.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Between one thing and another it’s been a busy day.

Mr. Foulds: Two portfolios are getting too much for you.

Ms. Gigantes: Dispense.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I thought it seemed longer when I read it this morning. I would like to add pages four and six. Page four follows after “economy, efficiency and operating standardization.”

Mr. Foulds: This is called an addendum.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It reads as follows: The Leader of the Opposition also asked about tendering by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for boilers between 1970 and 1974. Attached to my statement for the information of honourable members is a chronology of large Candu nuclear boiler awards, indicating who placed the orders, which of the contracts were tendered and which companies were awarded the contracts. As the chronology shows, AECL tendered for boilers for three reactors in 1973 and 1974, namely, Gentilly, Argentina and Lepreau, and in each case AECL awarded the contract to Babcock and Wilcox.

The Leader of the Opposition also asked if I was unaware that Babcock and Wilcox did not receive the AECL contract for a Candu station in Korea, partly because of AECL’s concern that the Babcock and Wilcox design would produce the tube crimping that did in fact occur. He further suggested that Babcock and Wilcox had been awarded the contract for Darlington, despite the fact that Hydro had been warned that that design would lead to these very problems.

Then page five follows and now I am reading from page six.

Mr. Foulds: These pages aren’t concurrent.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I reported last week, these discussions -- the discussions about the repair of the boilers -- are currently under way between senior officials of Hydro and Babcock and Wilcox. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

The leader of the New Democratic Party asked whether in the case of previous contracts or of the Darlington contract there is any guarantee from Babcock and Wilcox that the very complex and sophisticated boilers will in fact work.

Ms. Gigantes: You don’t need the boilers at Darlington at all. Delete Darlington.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I should point out that the order for the Darlington boilers was placed with Babcock and Wilcox in 1978 in competitive tender and theirs was the lowest evaluated tender. Ontario Hydro decided to go to tenders due to design and scale differences from the previous orders.

The Darlington boiler contract was awarded before the discovery of defects in the Pickering B boilers. Ontario Hydro advises me that there was no intimation, prior to the placing of the Darlington order, which suggested that any difficulty would be encountered in the manufacturing of boilers at Babcock and Wilcox.

Ms. Gigantes: You don’t need the Darlington boilers. Forget them.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I apologize to the House for the mixup that I have caused.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is much clearer now.

[Reverting (2: 23):]

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will be introducing a bill which contains a number of amendments to the regional acts. Many of these proposed amendments are common to all 10 acts. Each region will be able to contract for insurance to protect the members of its council or any local board, to invest in credit unions, to accept historical documents, and to control parking on regional property. Similar amendments were made to the Municipal Act last fall.

The bill will also increase the maximum rate of interest a regional council may charge an area municipality for failure to pay its levy, from one per cent to 1.25 per cent per month.

Other amendments would apply only to certain regions. In regions where all water and sewer services are a regional responsibility, the region will be authorized to enter into agreements to maintain and repair pipes in condominiums.

In regions where the planning powers of the council are described as being the powers of a planning board, it will be made clear that the quorum for the council on official plan matters is the same as for all other regional responsibilities. In Ottawa-Carleton and York, two changes are being made that were inadvertently left out of the Metric Conversion Statute Law Amendment Act.

In regions where the region provides sewage treatment facilities and the area municipalities provide local sewers, the region will be authorized to control the discharge from local sewers into regional sewers and treatment plants.

A number of amendments proposed in this bill are unique to one region and are included as a result of local requests. In Ottawa-Carleton these amendments will abolish the library boards in Nepean and Vanier and will increase the size of the Ottawa-Carleton Transit Commission. In Niagara, the bill will remove the right of appeal of the method used in calculating sewer rates. In York, it will transfer the responsibility for solid waste disposal to the region.

In Waterloo a minor boundary change is being made at the request of the region and the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo. In addition, because of the method by which the city of Waterloo selects its regional councillors, a small change is included to provide a procedure in the event of acclamations or tied votes. A further amendment will allow the regional municipality of Waterloo to establish uniform sewer rates.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRITIUM IN DRINKING WATER

Mr. S. Smith: If it’s not the Minister of Energy’s day, perhaps I should try asking him a few questions. I will ask him, first of all, about the subject of the tritium in the drinking water of the town of Pickering, appreciating the minister’s statement that the amount is extremely small and well below anything that would even remotely constitute a hazard.

Would the minister, nonetheless, assist the House by providing us with some additional information? In particular, can he tell us when this tritium was first discovered in the drinking water, whether this is a regular monitoring process and what the level was?

[2:30]

Can he also tell us whether tritium is related to the leakage at the Pickering nuclear station, and if so, where the leakage is taking place, what is the size of the leakage and whether there is a particular leak that is responsible for the recent findings?

I guess basically what I would like from the minister is a more complete report on the level of tritium that is leaking. What is the allowable level? Has there been any change recently? What is the nature of the monitoring process? And so on. Can we have a more complete report?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I believe that monitoring has been going on since before the plant actually came into operation -- I think from about the time a decision was made to site the plant at its present location.

I believe the background level would be something in the neighbourhood of the existing level. There might be a slight increase because of the fact that the plant itself does have some general emission, as everybody knows; a very minuscule one.

I would remind the honourable members that there was a shutdown because of a leak of heavy water in one of the heat transfer -- I’ve forgotten the term. Not in the boiler but in the heat exchanger. As I recall, it was such a minuscule leak that it was quite a while before the unit was shut down because it took some time to locate the leak.

I think there was one other incident in one of the units at Pickering where there was another leak of heavy water -- again, I think, in a similar kind of operation. I’ll get all the details of that.

Mr. McClellan: You are really up to date on everything, aren’t you?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Since the amounts are so small, and there’s so much dispersion from the cooling water effluent, I’m not sure whether it is possible to say whether the current level that is found in the drinking water has been increased because --

Mr. Wildman: I think you’d better share the work with the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Wiseman).

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- of this heavy water leakage or whether the tritium level is about the same as it was this time last year. I’ll get the records, which are available, and the best guess I can get as to the source.

Mr. S. Smith: I thank the minister for his undertaking to obtain the information, although I may parenthetically express some surprise that he doesn’t already have the information as to where the leak is, if there is a leak, and, if there’s been an increase, what the amounts are.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I understand there is no current leak but there was one which I think all members were aware of not too long ago.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary --

Some hon. members: Oh! oh, no.

Mr. Speaker: That really wasn’t a question.

Mr. S. Smith: I sat down in respect of the fact that the minister stood.

May I ask, by way of supplementary, whether the minister can comment on the reported statements by Mr. Steeves, of Hydro, that tritium is a health hazard of a very innocuous nature, considering the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, as quoted in the Porter commission, has said there has not been any major research on the biological effects of tritium? In view of the fact that it was pointed out that this really is, in a sense, a Canadian responsibility, can the minister say if there has been any such research that he knows of and can he report it to the House?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I can inquire. I imagine there has been, but I am not aware of the details. I read that in the paper about 10 o’clock this morning and it took a little while to track down the necessary people to get the information.

Ms. Gigantes: If, as the Porter commission suggested, the minister finds there is no major research on the biological effects of tritium, will he undertake to have such research done, so we can know that these minuscule amounts are not having serious biological effects?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I’ll take that into consideration when I’m looking into the answers to the Leader of the Opposition’s questions.

Mr. McCaffrey: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I think this is a legitimate point of privilege, and if it’s to be otherwise described as clarification, I will take your guidance on that. Because this has happened a number of times in the last session I think it might be an appropriate time for me to raise this matter.

Increasingly, under ministerial statements -- and I think it’s particularly so since the widespread concern about nuclear matters -- there have been quite detailed as well as lengthy statements. Properly, the opposition leaders and opposition critics have access to those statements as the minister is reading them. It seems to me, now that we are in a position where there are a number of supplementary questions on this very important matter, it’s right and proper that private members of the Legislature also have the statement at the same time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: That seems to have almost universal accord. I’ll discuss that with the House leaders and report back.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s a good point.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, so the record will show the straight facts, lest the impression be left that the ministers are not providing them for all of the members of the House, I think it should be pointed out this is in accordance with a decision made by the House leaders -- in consultation, I believe, with the Speaker.

Mrs. Campbell: We’re aware of that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s why I wanted it to show on the record. All of my colleagues and I would be pleased to make those available, if it’s the desire of the House.

Mr. McClellan: It’s a good suggestion.

Mr. J. Reed: I have a supplementary of the minister. Can the minister tell us, as this statement is made with regard to the element tritium and if tritium is used as the monitoring agent for radiation leakage, are other elements in the system searched for at the same time? In other words, is tritium simply a baseline search that is undertaken or does the ministry look for things like cesium, strontium, iodine and so on?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I understand the figures I was given are for the total radiation from all similar sources.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Energy on his statement regarding the Babcock and Wilcox boiler matter.

First of all, he says on page five of his statement that AECL had provided no information for Hydro concerning the reasons it switched from the Babcock and Wilcox boiler to the Foster Wheeler boiler for the Korea reactor.

May I ask the minister why he keeps repeating this without finding out from Hydro why it didn’t ask AECL what the reasons were for this sudden switch? The minister can see from the chronology that Babcock and Wilcox got all the awards from 1965 to 1975. There is a sudden change with regard to the Korea reactor. The minister has said it was a competitive situation, but we have reason to believe the Foster Wheeler one was more expensive than the Babcock and Wilcox one. Therefore, I ask the minister why he is satisfied without finding out from Hydro why it didn’t ask AECL the reason for this sudden change.

Ms. Gigantes: We don’t know that they didn’t ask.

Hon. Mr. Auld: My understanding is that it was a competitive tender and that Babcock and Wilcox’s was not the lowest evaluated tender.

Mr. S. Smith: Neither was Foster Wheeler’s.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Then who was?

Mr. S. Smith: Maybe they didn’t even evaluate the Babcock and Wilcox tender.

An hon. member: The government won’t be able to get away with it much longer.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will be delighted to ask Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for any information the honourable members want. It is a federal agency and I would assume the information is available to the Leader of the Opposition if he would get his research office to call them. But I will keep on asking questions of Hydro. I am sure they would have been informed by AECL had there been anything AECL thought was wrong with any of the suppliers with whom they were dealing.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: I want to relate this to another matter in the minister’s statement on page five.

The minister says Hydro’s objective is to get the boilers installed in order to limit delays. That’s in response to the question of the financial status of the company to rectify the matter.

Since I offered the minister an opportunity to deny that Ontario Hydro had in fact decided not to go after Babcock and Wilcox Canada Limited for fear of rendering the company bankrupt, and since his statement does not speak of the public interest in terms of recovering that $35 million but only of limiting delays, may I ask him again if he endorses the notion that Babcock and Wilcox should be let go without being chased for this money, and if he endorses any decision Hydro might have made to let Babcock and Wilcox alone for fear of rendering them bankrupt?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said, in answer to a similar question some time ago, that my understanding was Hydro wanted the work done according to the contract and according to the specifications. I assume that means all the repairs that are the responsibility of Babcock and Wilcox would be done at Babcock and Wilcox’s expense.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: There has been absolutely no question in the minds of the authorities responsible at the Point Lepreau nuclear power station in New Brunswick, where similar deficiencies in boilers have been uncovered, that full responsibility lies with Babcock and Wilcox. Can the minister be clear, or can we read the end of his ministerial statement today to mean that Babcock and Wilcox has got to come up with boilers which meet all of the original specifications, even if it means rebuilding them from scratch?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think that is what I said before. I have no idea of the terms of the contract with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for Lepreau. It may be the same or similar to the Hydro contract; it may not. Ontario Hydro tells me it wants the work done according to the specifications and the units to perform according to the specifications, and that is the supplier’s responsibility.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister could inform the House, or the members of the resources development committee representing his party, of the urgency and complexity of this matter, because his members and the members of the New Democratic Party have voted to postpone any consideration of this matter by the committee.

Mr. Wildman: That’s not true.

Mr. Nixon: Would the minister not agree the matter should be considered by the committee to which it is referred without further delay?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The committee makes its own decisions and I do not purport to interfere with them. I am anxious to see Hydro get on with the job, to tell members the truth.

Mr. Wildman: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mrs. Campbell: You get so uptight.

Mr. Wildman: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk knows full well that right now there are negotiations going on in the steering committee of the resources development committee in order to try to bring that matter before one of the committees of this House.

Mrs. Campbell: Which one?

Mr. Wildman: Nobody right now is trying to postpone it.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, surely you would be aware of the vote taken in the committee on Tuesday evening.

Mr. Wildman: There was no vote.

Mr. Warner: There was no vote.

Mr. Nixon: There was a vote taken, appealing the ruling of the chairman who indicated the committee did not have the right to change the order of its business which, with respect to the committee, was really preposterous.

Mr. Warner: There was no vote.

Mr. Nixon: There was a vote taken; you and the Tories voted together.

Mr. T. P. Reid: As usual.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting into the same difficulty we got into on Tuesday afternoon. There is a difference of opinion, a difference of

interpretation about something that went on elsewhere; I am not going to countenance any further debate on it.

Mr. Martel: It’s a false statement. They are not telling the truth.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, come on.

Mr. Nixon: Make him withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Sudbury East has accused another member of lying. He knows that is not acceptable in this chamber.

Mr. Martel: That’s two days in a row they have come in with that nonsense and I’ll not withdraw it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: Total distortion.

Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable member care to reconsider?

Mr. Martel: No, I would not care to reconsider because I’m tired of this guy’s lies.

Mr. Martel withdrew from the chamber.

Applause.

Interjections.

[2:45]

Mr. di Santo: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. I was the one who spoke in the committee on this very subject.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said I would not hear any more argument or debate on something that happened outside of this House. I don’t think it is appropriate to be trying to accomplish in this House something you weren’t able to accomplish in the committee. It is the responsibility of the committee to report to the House and to the Chair if there is something it can’t resolve there.

Mr. di Santo: Can I ask that the record be corrected?

Mr. Speaker: What record? I am not in a position to know what went on in the committee so I am not in a position to know whether the record is correct or not.

Mr. Riddell: It’s a broken record back here.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to ask the minister as a supplementary whether or not the implication of his last reply is that the specifications by Hydro were inadequate?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Let the member reread my reply.

Mr. Foulds: That is not an answer.

Mr. Speaker: In connection with the last incident, lest the matter go any further, I think I would be remiss if I did not remind all honourable members that it is taken for granted in this chamber that all honourable members are indeed honourable members and would not do anything to misconstrue something that took place here or elsewhere.

I am in no position to determine from the facts available to me what are the facts or what is the proper

interpretation. I would just like to caution all honourable members that anything they say in this House is fact in their own honest opinion. I would like them to keep that in mind when they are making allegations back and forth. I have to assume that all honourable members are indeed honourable members.

Mr. Cassidy: I have another question for the Minister of Energy relating to the safety of the Rolphton nuclear power plant in eastern Ontario.

On May 10 and again last Thursday, the minister made statements to this House indicating that the nuclear power station at Rolphton was shut down only for normal housekeeping maintenance. Was the minister informed by Hydro that radioactive heavy water has been leaking from tubes in the heat exchange system at that plant since September 1978?

Is the minister aware that these leaks constitute a danger to safety because of the danger of release of radioactive tritium into the atmosphere? When did the minister become aware that Hydro has decided to postpone the reopening of the Rolphton power plant at least until June 16 because it has been unable until now to complete repairing these problems?

Hon. Mr. Auld: As far as the first part of the question is concerned the information I have from Ontario Hydro is that it was doing routine maintenance. I do know from previous reports that routine maintenance may include a number of things which may have happened some time before but were not severe enough or serious enough to cause a shutdown until the normal maintenance period came along.

As far as the second part of the question is concerned, I was informed yesterday that it was apparent the maintenance was taking longer than originally anticipated and they were now thinking the plant would reopen about, give or take a few days, June 16.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the plant is now going to be closed until June 16 and since it is clear there are safety problems, despite the minister’s statement that the plant was shut down only for normal housekeeping maintenance, can the minister explain why, as recently as a couple of hours ago at the House leaders’ meeting, both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party refused to have a debate on the select committee’s report, which recommended the Rolphton plant stay shut until this matter of safety could he considered by the select committee.

Will the government now reconsider that position so this House can consider that report and so that the safety questions at the Rolphton nuclear power plant can be explored by a committee of this Legislature before that plant is reopened?

Mr. S. Smith: Why doesn’t the leader of the NDP let it go before the committee? That is where it should be discussed, not in the House. We don’t need a debate here on it.

Mr. Foulds: The committee has reported, you dummy.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t changed my position, which I thought I made pretty clear in the statement I gave the House about 10 days ago. As far as my information is concerned, the Atomic Energy Control Board, which is the licensing agency, is quite satisfied with the safety aspects of the plant.

In fact, I understand the 10 things that it had been suggested be done over a period of time have all either been completed or found to be unnecessary after further study. Two of the modifications, I guess I’d call them, which have been installed are not yet in use because they are being tested. When they have been tested satisfactorily I assume that the control board’s approval will be altered to include the use or the application of those modifications.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister realizes the full implications of what he is telling us? Does he understand that these leaks in the heat exchange system, in combination with an emergency core cooling system which has not even been modified in the patch-up kind of way that the AECB recommended, when these two things are going on at the same time at that plant there are grave questions about the safety of the plant, and doesn’t he think it’s time for the government to recommend to Hydro that there should be a complete investigation of safety at the plant, given these two circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I just answered that.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, would the minister encourage his members -- and one only hopes that the NDP will do the same -- on the steering committee of the Hydro committee, now that Rolphton will not be open for another few weeks, to now take up the matter of Rolphton in front of the select committee on Hydro affairs -- where witnesses can be questioned, where people can have documents presented to them line by line and be asked for explanation -- which is obviously the place for the Rolphton matter to be discussed, rather than have a debate in the House, where no witnesses can be questioned and no expert evidence obtained?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I’ll think about that.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism about Ontario’s buy-Canadian policy and the specific promise of government to give a 10 per cent preference in the Ontario government’s purchasing of Canadian goods. Can the minister now say how much is spent annually on the purchase of goods and services by this province, what percentage of this spending is on imported goods and services, and when the government intends to begin releasing the progress reports on the replacement of imports of goods and services by ministry, which the minister promised to provide at the government purchasing conference last November?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are attempting to compile that information. There are some difficulties in doing so, which are partly on account of the fact that for a lengthy period of time there wasn’t a statistical analysis kept in this or, I might add, any other government in Canada, which would give a definitive answer to that question. We are trying to set up systems to do that now and I’ll have a report for the honourable member shortly.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In recent speeches the minister has been saying that the government will consider preferences that are greater than 10 per cent for Canadian goods which are critical, high capital and high technology purchases. Is the minister aware that the Ministry of Government Services purchasers are not aware of that guideline and say that it is not applied in the purchases that are carried out through their ministry?

Can the minister say where that policy of special purchasing preference is put down on paper, and can he give us some specific examples of whether or not that policy has been applied in certain cases in order to encourage the development of high technology goods here in Ontario or in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t recall the exact details, but I would think the Hawker Siddeley streetcars were an example of a place in which that policy was implemented. A 10 per cent preference has been in place since 1976 I think, or 1974 --

Mr. S. Smith: That wasn’t buy Canadian, that was buy Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No it wasn’t. With regard to the second part of the question as to where we would give more than 10 per cent, that is on a case-by-case basis. That often comes down to a decision made and a recommendation from the ministry involved to cabinet to ascertain whether in the view of the government as a whole this is one of those cases that merits that special consideration. That policy is well in place.

Mr. di Santo: Since every other industrial country, and the minister may have learned something in Japan, is entrenched by domestic policy either by non-tariff barrier protection or outright incentives to domestic firms, and since these habits will firmly remain even after the GATT negotiations are completed, doesn’t the minister think he should start devising a policy for the province of Ontario, since right now we don’t have one? Doesn’t he think he should study the policies of the other countries and make comparisons and report to this House so we know where he stands, since he is saying one thing and the government through another minister is saying another thing?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There has been no question about the fact of our 10 per cent procurement policy. It has been in place since 1974.

Mr. di Santo: That’s not what the minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson) said Thursday.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, no; there is no evidence I have heard here today of a situation in which that 10 per cent preference was not given. I can only tell the member that although he may feel we should pay more than 10 per cent and I respect that view, nonetheless, as your leader indicated a moment ago, our policy is 10 per cent, plus more under special circumstances. That, to my knowledge, has been, in each and every case, the system honoured and obeyed. If you have evidence to the contrary I would like to receive it.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANT

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. It relates to his statement of May 24 in which he indicated that $420,000 will be provided through the Employment Development Fund to assist TRW Canada Limited in a $5 million expansion in St. Catharines and an $8 million project in Tillsonburg. Would the minister state to this House, unequivocally, that the expenditure by TRW would not have taken place without the $420,000 from the Employment Development Fund?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Mr. Bradley: In view of the fact I attended a sod-breaking ceremony in St. Catharines on April 6, four days before the announcement of the Employment Development Fund in the provincial budget on April 10, and in view of the fact it was known in business circles months before the budget was brought down that TRW was to establish a plant outside of St. Catharines, would the minister not agree the expansion is taking place as a result of favourable markets being taken advantage of by a capable management and a competent work force?

Would the minister not agree that since we all assume TRW would not have prior knowledge of the contents of the provincial budget, the $420,000 really represents a windfall to TRW?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I wouldn’t. TRW proceeded on the basis of a telegram sent by me on behalf of the government of Ontario on January 4. The reason for this is that we thought it would be quite inappropriate to lose opportunities that might otherwise stay in this province simply because the budget had not yet come down.

An hon. member: I thought the budget was supposed to be secret.

Mr. S. Smith: Did you prerelease the budget to all firms in Ontario?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Table the telegram.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be happy to read the telegram. The company was facing certain dates upon which it had to indicate to its parent board its intentions and its ability to locate in Ontario. Rather than say: “I am sorry. We won’t have our budget in place before your meeting at which you are going to make some decisions,” we decided at a cabinet meeting, after consultation, to give that undertaking. I will be pleased to read that telegram to the House. This is to TRW Canada Limited:

“Reference to your conversation with Duncan Allan, I am pleased that TRW is pursuing a major new investment in Ontario and wish you success in your proposal to the parent board. As discussed with Mr. Allan, the Ontario government is prepared to assist in the financing of your proposed expansion plan to the extent of fully subsidizing the interest costs at the Canadian prime rate on $1 million over a five-year term.

This represents a present value in the order of $420,000, assuming a discount rate of 11 per cent, thereby substantially offsetting the incentive effect in alternative locations which you outlined to us. Again, let me repeat that we welcome industrial expansion in our province and will assist TRW Canada Limited in creating new jobs for our work force.”

[3:00]

You will follow the way we set that out, which was at that point in time the traditional way we were assisting firms by way of the Ontario Business Incentives Program. That program, OBIP, for those cases over $250,000 is essentially replaced by an upfront grant which I would remind the member is exactly the same in terms of its net impact on the company as the former OBIP grants were. I would point out to the member, for example, that OBIPs have been traditionally used by the government for very many years and with a lot of success.

This case is a perfect example of where the OBIP assistance we offered, under our programs then in place, is exactly the same cash equivalent as the grant from the EDF.

Mr. Cassidy: What is the nature of the job guarantee which has been given to the Ontario government by TRW in return for the Ontario government’s grant? Will the Ontario taxpayers get their money back if that job guarantee is not in fact met?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Absolutely. The terms of the contract signed in each and every EDF case is that in the event the job commitments are not reached in their entirety all of the money comes back to the government.

Mr. Epp: A supplementary question to the minister: Would the minister not agree that this is a prime example of how the government is taking money from the have-nots, through taxation, and giving money to the haves?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I really must say that is just part of a larger debate as to whether we should allow companies to go to other jurisdictions or not. I must point out to the member’s party that I have in front of me a list -- and just to take one example in the riding of Quinte: In the last six years there has been the equivalent of cash grants by way of OBIPs to the tune of about $2.5 million. They were exactly that type.

Many of those firms, the member could equally argue, were well enough off not to merit this type of support, but I tell members I have not heard a word from that side of the House saying that all of these OBIP loans, which are the same as a cash grant, were wrong things to do. I totally and categorically disagree with what the member is saying. We are going to continue to pay money where we know we can create jobs. I think it is much better to pay the private sector to create jobs which otherwise wouldn’t be created than to pay money for unemployment insurance.

BONAR AND BEMIS DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: A question of the Attorney General: Is the minister aware that Bonar and Bemis, of Burlington, who have been involved in a strike situation with Local 8401 of the United Steelworkers of America since May 1, are using Professional Transport Services of Streetsville to act as strikebreakers; and that employees of this firm were responsible, yesterday, for deliberately ramming an automobile driven by striking members of the plant, forcing it into the ditch and threatening to roll it over, causing possibly serious damage and even death to the people inside the car? Has he been made aware of the incident and is he prepared to investigate this hit-run tactic of the company?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I am not aware of the incident. I am quite prepared to look into the matter, in view of the seriousness of the allegation from the honourable member. I assume the honourable member, if necessary, will supply me with any additional information that may be required.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Will the minister also initiate action to look into the use of strikebreakers, hopefully leading to the banning of their use in a legal strike situation in the province of Ontario; both to bring about more justice in the negotiating situation and to prevent such incidents, which can lead to serious injuries or death?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It has appeared to me that there are many different

interpretations of the term “strikebreaker.” I would be happy to discuss again the matters raised by the honourable member with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie).

LIQUOR AND WINE PRICES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister satisfied with the action of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in making continuous price increases for its various products without particular notice to the public?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, that is not true, and the member knows it. That is absolutely not true, and I welcome the opportunity to put this into perspective.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario a week ago, and with my full knowledge, put through token increases which deal with only freight, demurrage and some fluctuations in Canadian currency. Those amount to nickels, dimes, quarters and so forth, one way or the other. Incidentally, at the same time, they also decreased prices of 16 brands for exactly the same reason.

We made a commitment in April, when the prices went up, that one could buy the old inventory for the prices paid for it plus the markup, which had not changed, for as long as it stayed in the stores. The reports yesterday do not indicate that, of the brands that went up, 14 were scotches. We simply ran out of Ballantine’s, Dewar’s, The Famous Grouse -- whatever that is.

Mr. Foulds: The minister doesn’t know?

Hon. Mr. Drea: When one runs out of one’s old inventory, the new product comes into the store at the new price. Surely the honourable member is not suggesting that I tell the liquor control board to increase all the prices, right up to the new ones, regardless of when they were purchased. Otherwise, there is no other way.

When Valpolicella goes up a nickel because of some minor fluctuations in freight prices between Italian ports and the St. Lawrence Seaway, I do not think the liquor control board should announce it, because it will probably go down a dime next month on the basis of the Seaway being opened.

Finally, to put it into perspective: If at any time the markups are changed, the public will be told. There will be no change in markups this year; the honourable member has heard that from the Treasurer. If at any time the wholesale prices in Europe or the United States go up, the public will he told immediately. But even during the so-called freeze last year, when there were no increases, month after month there were decreases because of adjustments in freight and so on for very small amounts of money.

The very same media that now want the board to announce things never used that information when the board supplied it to them all last fall and winter. I trust that puts the matter into perspective.

Mr. Breithaupt: Would the minister not realize that part of this approach by the board leads to frequent changes in wine-list pricing and, as a result, certain costly reprintings of menus and other wine lists by restauranteurs, all of which are an additional, burdensome cost that has to be shared eventually by the patrons of these locations, whether tourists or our own citizens?

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is why I said if the wholesale price went up it would result in a price increase in a restaurant. These increases involving nickels and dimes and quarters -- because purchases are made in bulk for the restaurant trade -- will not result in them having to change the prices on their menus. If there is an increase in the wholesale or laid-down price from Europe or elsewhere, the public or retail price in the store is not the only consideration; there is also that very consideration for the restauranteur.

That is why, particularly in the ease of scotch, we got commitments from the Scotch Whisky Association that there would be no more increases. There are pretty general commitments from the Ontario wine industry and from the British Columbia wine industry that there will be no increases. It is difficult to put a product into restaurants and to promote it when they go to the cost of having it on the menu and then either it is in short supply or they have to change their menus.

Mr. Swart: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Might I ask the minister if he agrees with the policy of the liquor control board in withholding information about price increases or not giving out information? In particular, does he agree with the statement of Olga Cyhanenko, the information officer, when she says the media cannot be trusted to explain the reasons for the increases? If he doesn’t agree with it, what action is he going to take in this regard to see there is more openness in the increases?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am always delighted when the member for Welland-Thorold is looking for secret information. First of all, anybody can have this once a month if he wants it. I am sure the member will find it delightful reading. Beneagles Scotch is now $10.75.

Mr. Swart: Don’t evade the question. Does the minister agree with her?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Could I humbly suggest to the honourable member for Welland-Thorold that he shut up until I have done?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a certain level of decorum that we have a right to expect around here. Those kinds of expressions surely we can do without. Would you please withdraw that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Coming back to the point the member raises, there is no secrecy by the board. There are price adjustments made in every accounting period. In the old days they didn’t have to be done.

Mr. Swart: Do you agree with what she said?

Hon. Mr. Drea: In the old days they didn’t have to be done because the Canadian dollar was stable. Very volatile wine prices, both domestic and foreign, didn’t exist. Also, the consumer was getting ripped off by the board because the price was set once a year and if there was any decrease the board took it as profit and did not pass it on to the customer.

I don’t know what remarks that person made to the media, but as usual the honourable member doesn’t have his facts straight. She is not an employee of the board; she is an employee of the ministry. I will look into that matter and will deal with it.

I have never found that the media couldn’t handle the matter.

Mr. Swart: Will the minister report back to the House?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is a difficult matter, as I am quite sure the media will attest to, because there are a great number of products; but I don’t plan to take any action. I would say to the member for Welland-Thorold that if he wants to go to the board at any time to check the master price list, if he would like to go into the bottling room --

Mr. Swart: They are arbitrary.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: With all due respect to the honourable member for Welland-Thorold, the remarks about the board being arbitrary are about as indicative of the truth as his general line of questioning has been in this regard.

TORONTO OHC HOUSING

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, I will address this question to the Minister of Housing. Will the minister tell the House whether he agreed with the letter sent by the general manager of the Ontario Housing Corporation on March 31, 1979 which stated there was no need for assisted housing in the area of Carlton and Yonge Streets in the city of Toronto?

Even if the minister agrees with the general manager’s assessment of housing needs in downtown Toronto, will he also explain his response on the March 5, 1979 motion of the city of Toronto council that said the city of Toronto does not accept the accuracy of the statement? In addition, will he explain whether he agrees the city of Toronto has said the assisted rental program and the assisted home ownership program do not help low and moderate-income people?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: On the first part of the question relating to subsidized housing units in the downtown area of Toronto: This statement resulted from the opportunity of the Metro housing authority and the Ontario housing authority having available to it a large number of units in a highrise apartment building in the area of Maple Leaf Gardens.

This came about as the result of a condition and change of zoning some months or years ago. Of the 500 units, it was ruled that 25 per cent should be made available to the housing authorities, either municipal or provincial. At no time was there any crossreferencing of that request, either to the municipal housing authority or to the provincial housing authority. It was strictly a position taken by city council.

At the time of completion of the apartment building, it was obvious the developer could not rent the units until he signed an agreement with the province and the OHC to rent 125 units on a rent-supplement program. Once we made that agreement with them -- if we should or if it was necessary -- he could then commence to rent the remaining 375 units.

[3:15]

The province was made aware of this condition. In looking into the matter we discovered, not only from our own records but those of the Metropolitan housing authorities, backed up by letters of the chairman and of the executive people of the housing authorities, that there was not a need for 125 units in that particular area on a rent-supplement program basis. There was no indication in the applications that we needed anywhere close to 125. People were looking for locations in the Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto area other than that specific area.

We indicated clearly to city council, through the developer and through the Metropolitan housing authorities and through the Ontario Housing Corporation, that we could not, on behalf of the people of Ontario, enter into the supplementing of the rent of 125 units because we did not require them. That statement was made by the general manager of the Ontario Housing Corporation, Mr. Beesley, and supported by a minister’s letter backing up the situation.

I must say to the member that we have an amendment, I believe, with the city council on the zoning, which clearly indicates that if in the future there should be some requirement for those units by any one of the public housing authorities governing the policies in this area of the province, then we can make a request upon the landlord of the day to have those units made available to us as they are vacated by other tenants.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: Am I correct in my understanding of the minister that he wants the city of Toronto to present a list of people who need housing in that area and then he will actually be willing to grant permission to build there?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not quite sure I understand the member’s supplementary. I have nothing to add other than to say that in the process of reviewing applications that were on file, both with the Ontario Housing Corporation and the metropolitan housing corporation, it was indicated clearly that the need for that number of units was not there.

Mr. Epp: Supplementary: I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to table in the House other examples of areas in Metropolitan Toronto where that same policy has been applied?

Mr. di Santo: A full list.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As related to change in zoning to allow for a higher density factor or use by a developer, I am not aware of other conditions or other areas where the term or clause has been applied. I understand this came about as a result of this particular structure having gone into receivership. Because of some difficulties in financing and one thing and another, there were some changes and modifications in zoning to allow for the completion of the building; and also to allow for a higher capacity that would give a return on that investment. Otherwise, as I understand it, the building would have sat for some time.

The provision in the zoning is strictly a municipal matter. It is not one that comes to the Minister of Housing or to my ministry for any approval. It went through without having been referred to any of the authorities that were being obligated to rent a number of units under an amendment to a local zoning order.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: Since the cabinet recently approved the core plan for the city of Toronto and since the inclusion of assisted housing in the downtown core is an essential element of the plan, how does the minister expect the city to provide assisted housing when he refuses to fund it? It is their responsibility but the ministry provides the money.

Is the minister not aware that his government’s policies are so ineffective that they only serve the needs of developers seeking density bonuses and never lead to the provision of assisted housing in the city of Toronto? Does he realize also that his failure to provide comprehensive housing policies has led to the destruction of neighbourhoods in south Parkdale and other inner city areas --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Dukszta: -- and other forms of substandard housing?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am well aware of the fact that we and the Ministry of Government Services have been working on those plans relating to the core area and its development for housing purposes. May I indicate clearly to the House, and particularly to the member, that the amendment was by municipal direction in relationship to that developer and not by the Ministry of Housing nor the province of Ontario; let’s not confuse or complicate the facts.

It was a municipal responsibility to the developer and did not come through our ministry. If the city of Toronto felt there was some importance in dealing with the developer to get on with the project so that it could be rented and could return some revenue to the municipality, so be it. But let the responsibility not be transferred to my ministry or to this minister himself, because very clearly it was not our responsibility.

I would say to the member for Waterloo North if there should be other examples of this type of amendment to a zoning bylaw, as originally indicated by the member for Parkdale, I should be pleased, if I can find them, to table them in this House.

DISPOSAL OF PCBS

Mr. Kennedy: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Would he comment on a report in yesterday’s Globe and Mail to the effect that a safe PCB disposal method has been invented which renders the substance not only harmless but useful --

Mr. Laughren: Edible.

Mr. Kennedy: -- that there has been research done at the Ontario Research Foundation, with the federal grant, to achieve this end. Is the minister aware of this and could he comment as to the validity of it and just where we are?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of it, and I am pleased the member should ask that question. I’m well aware of his interest -- because of the involvement of the community he represents. We are looking at several methods whereby it may be possible to either destroy or convert material containing PCBs. At this moment we’re not 100 per cent sure the method has yet been found. No one would be happier than us if that could be developed.

Mr. Kennedy: Me.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think he is right, Mr. Speaker. I suspect the member might be even happier than we are, and I can appreciate the reason for that.

If a portable unit could be found, regardless of the process, that would render the material harmless we would welcome it. We are looking at it; we’ll keep constant surveillance on it.

Indeed, in this particular instance we have met with the company involved as recently as yesterday to discuss the technical application of it. As soon as it’s proved -- if it’s proved -- it will be put into full use.

Mr. Kennedy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister indicate just when we might have this further report? This seems to be a very positive statement. Is it possible to determine within a brief period of time if it’s factual or not factual? As the minister knows, hearings with respect to PCB burning by St. Lawrence Cement are presently suspended. Perhaps this would influence those hearings.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t have a positive date in mind on when these appraisals will be completed. Certainly I’ll try to ascertain that and report back to the member.

There are some other methods right now. I think the plasma arc is one that is sometimes touted as being able to destroy PCBs. I guess perhaps it can, but the amount destroyed at any given time is extremely small. It’s an extremely intensive energy- consuming method, and it hasn’t a great deal of practical application at this time. That’s another method.

I will get back to the member and advise him in the next day or two when we can expect some appraisal from the research foundation on the method quoted in yesterday’s Globe and Mail.

Mr. Hall: Could the minister advise whether the United States still permits entry of liquid PCB waste at this time?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m sure of solids. As a matter of fact, I think the member knows we were having a bit of a discussion on this. I don’t want to trust my memory on that. I thought it was permitted but I’d better be sure of that.

I’m positive on solids, no question about that, there is a proposed date when they may be banned. I will confirm the status on liquid portions of PCBs for the member.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, could I ask if the minister has received any application from D and D Disposal to assist in the evaluation of this new process and the development of it? Is he making funds available to any of the other projects he mentions that are being considered for PCB disposal?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We had requests and we are giving D and D technical assistance. We are not putting funds at their disposal. We believe the company that does develop an appropriate method to handle not only PCB material but other liquid wastes will find a very lucrative market. We hope the private sector will develop it on their own. We think the potential of success is reasonably large and they should be willing to take this gamble.

I think we are prepared to give them all kinds of technical assistance and support at the research foundation.

CALEDONIA DAM

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister aware there is an emergency situation at Caledonia, involving the old dam which has been slated for renewal for some time because a huge

section of the dam has settled several feet? There is now also a gaping hole in the middle of it and the water level has already receded two feet below normal. This could have a serious effect on recreational use of the upper Grand River, and farm water wells could be drastically affected. Is the minister prepared to deal with this situation?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m aware of the problem at one section. I believe it’s a three-section dam and the one

section collapsed recently and is now acting as a weir but is not keeping the water up as high as it did. I understand that the Grand River Conservation Authority has done some preliminary engineering and has come up with an estimate of about $2 million, I believe, for repair.

Mr. G. I. Miller: About $1.8 million?

Hon. Mr. Auld: In that neighbourhood.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Yes, in round figures.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am not yet in a position to say whether or not that money will be available out of our budget for this year. In fact, the amount for dams is pretty tight for those projects that are presently underway. But I am aware of the problem and we’re anxious to see it resolved.

FALCONBRIDGE HIRING

Mr. Laughren: I rise, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), to ask a question on behalf of my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who was earlier ejected for telling the truth.

In view of the announcement by Falconbridge Nickel Mines that they’re going to call back 300 employees, will the Treasurer of the province of Ontario tell us whether he is willing to request of Falconbridge Nickel Mines that the employees from National Steel Corporation of Canada Limited be given first priority when Falconbridge Nickel Mines starts hiring that extra 300 employees, once the laid-off Falconbridge miners, of course, have been called back under the union contract? Further, will he have the Minister of Labour use his people to bring the groups together so that an orderly hiring process can take place?

Mr. Swart: Reasonable request.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a reasonable request. I think any time one operation is closing in an area the maximum degree of co-operation should exist in helping people get relocated.

I’m sure my colleague, the Minister of Labour, would be glad to use his offices to facilitate such assistance if possible. One can’t demand that they be hired but one can do a lot to facilitate hiring.

RULES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I don’t want to inflame either you, Mr. Speaker, or other members of the House, but I would like you to pay attention and bring to your attention, with the greatest of respect, rule 19(d)(9), a rule which says: “A member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he imputes false or unavowed motives to another member.”

Mr. Breithaupt: In speaking to the particular point raised by the member, I’m wondering to whom the member is directing this comment with respect to the possibility of motives? Further, what are the motives that are presumably being referred to? Perhaps if Mr. Speaker could inquire somewhat more of the member for Port Arthur we’d all know what he is talking about.

Mr. Foulds: I am not making any allegations of false or unavowed motives. I was, strictly in the abstract, bringing the rule to your attention for its enforcement, Mr. Speaker.

[3:30]

Mr. Sweeney: Unfortunately we’re not in the abstract.

Mr. Foulds: You certainly are.

Mr. Speaker: I am well aware of the rule the honourable member has just quoted and I try to enforce it religiously. I really don’t know the connection, but I will take a look at the record and see what was said.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I’m on my feet. Would you please! I will look into the allegation made by the member for Port Arthur and if I see there is any foundation in it I will report back to the House.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with it.

Mr. Hall from the standing public accounts committee presented the following interim report and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that the Royal Ontario Museum furnish the committee with the most current monthly financial statements and budget of the Royal Ontario Museum for analysis by the provincial auditor, such statement analysis to be returned to the committee within three weeks, preferably two weeks.

Your committee further recommends that the Minister of Culture and Recreation, the Deputy Minister of Culture and Recreation, together with the chairman of the board of the Royal Ontario Museum and the director of the Royal Ontario Museum, attend at the committee deliberations of the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted? Carried? Report adopted.

Does the honourable member have a comment?

Mr. Hall: I will follow the Speaker’s wishes. I was given to understand that I would have to move adjournment, but I would hope that the parties referred to in the motion would see fit to provide the information and be available to the committee, which considers this topic to be urgent. In the best interests of all concerned, we feel as a committee that the matter should be dealt with before this House adjourns for the summer.

Mr. Speaker: If that is the will of the committee, perhaps the honourable member would be wise to move the adjournment of the debate rather than have the motion carried.

Some hon. members: It’s been carried.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. The member for Lincoln brought in a report from a committee and moved its adoption.

Mr. Grande: And it was carried.

Mr. Speaker: I put the question. I said: “Shall the motion carry?”

Mrs. Campbell: And it was carried.

Mr. Speaker: I heard no objection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with respect, you may not have heard me over the conversation of my colleagues, but I did say no.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would point out, in any event, the rules require that the person presenting the motion “shall” move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: “Shall.”

Mr. Speaker: No; not so.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe it says “shall.”

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Nixon: Good try, Larry.

An hon. member: You’ll be Speaker next time.

Mr. Speaker: Will the Clerk read the motion?

Clerk Assistant: The motion?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. That is the motion before the House, whether or not the report shall be adopted.

Mrs. Campbell: It was carried. The will of the House is mightier than the minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It says “shall”;

section 30(

c) of the standing orders.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable minister take his seat?

“Mr. Hall from the standing public accounts committee presented an interim report, which was read as follows, and moved its adoption.” That is the issue before the House. I put it before the House and it was carried.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The motion was carried. Do you want to challenge my ruling?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Do you want to challenge my ruling? Do you want to challenge the ruling?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do want to challenge the ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if I might --

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the Speaker’s ruling please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Ruling upheld.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Motions.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a report.

Mr. Speaker: I asked, “Presenting reports.”

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rose before and you turned your back to me,

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

STANDING MEMBERS’ SERVICES COMMITTEE

Mrs. Campbell from the standing members’ services committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee has the honour to present its first report and recommends as follows:

That standardized procedures be established to ensure that the legislative library receive automatically and as soon as possible all research and backup documentation from commissions of inquiry related to the government of Ontario.

Report adopted.

COMMITTEE REPORT RULE

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder, in the rather quick sequence of events, if you might, on a point of order, give us some guidance?

Mrs. Campbell: The minister is too late.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We on this side of the House, after an unfortunate series of events last year, were in a position where most members stayed on Thursday afternoons in order to make sure that events just occurred on that morning or the previous day did not cause quick and hurried adoption of reports out of committees.

It was my clear understanding, and I don’t want to be over-argumentative on this --

Mrs. Campbell: Just arrogant.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not fair.

With respect, this side of the House was under the clear understanding that

section 30(

c) prevented occurrences such as I believe, have just occurred. It was intended to prevent these occurrences by making absolutely sure that, without discussion and without the possibility even of votes being carried or motions being carried, there was no option left open to the chairman of a committee presenting a report. We understood that after a chairman of a committee presented a report, he or she would move the adoption and could make a brief statement and then, “shall adjourn the debate.”

We read that as saying you ought not, under the rules, to call for adoption of that report; ought not to permit the House to vote on that motion; rather the member reporting is obliged to move adjournment.

In fairness to this side of the House, or any member who wishes to vote one way or another on that matter, it would seem to me they are entitled to rely upon at least our

interpretation, and that which has been conveyed to us by all three House leaders I think, with regard to the import of

section 30(c).

For that reason, on Thursday afternoons particularly, members who might have certain things to say about it or wish to vote one way or another do not stay in the House. They go off to some of their committee duties.

In fairness to those members who may have wanted to participate in any vote, vocal or otherwise, this might be an appropriate point at which you, Mr. Speaker, might reflect upon

section 30(

c) for our guidance. If we are wrong in saying there is no option, then you might indicate that to us. Otherwise, in fairness to all those members who might otherwise have wanted to be here and participate, you ought to give us the opportunity to so do.

I would ask the other House leaders to assist in my

interpretation of

section 30(c). They were present when the

interpretation was negotiated and agreed upon; I would ask them if they believe my

interpretation is correct. I think it couldn’t be clearer.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I can’t argue with your

interpretation of the rules. All I can say is that the sequence of events described by the acting House leader for the government side is correct. There was some difficulty that, on the basis of this rule, was put aside.

But I want to bring to your attention, sir, since I hope you will give it further consideration, that a report such as the one that was put before you by the vice-chairman of the public accounts committee, is of a nature that becomes useless if it is simply put on the shelf and left there. So for the good of the public business, I would hope your review of that rule differentiates between the kind of report which is a major recommendation to this House that does require plenty of notice so the House can take

part in a formal debate; and the other type, which although it has substantive matter pertaining to it, is the sort of decision the House should be able to enter into without undue delay.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t pretend to have your wisdom in interpreting the rules, but I would think your handling of the first matter was probably correct under the first sentence of the rule brought to our attention by the acting government House leader when it says, “may move the adoption of the report if it contains a substantive motion.”

I would suggest the motion contained in the report of the vice-chairman of the public accounts committee was simply to confirm existing powers of that committee to call persons, papers and things. That was my understanding of the report. It was simply seeking that confirmation from the House. Therefore, the argument put by the Liberal House leader, I think, is a just one in the case of that report.

There’s no use waiting for two or three weeks to

schedule an evening debate on that kind of a report put to the House. However, other reports that have major applications in terms of policy or major implications in terms of legislation, I think justly follow, and should justly follow, the rule as interpreted by the government House leader. We would certainly support him in that.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, from my own point of view, when a report from a committee comes into the Legislature presumably only those members on that committee are familiar with the content. The chairman moves its adoption and we have no idea what it contains. I wasn’t aware we would have a division, but I was under the impression that unless there was unanimous consent it wouldn’t be adopted, it would be tabled in effect.

Mrs. Campbell: Forever.

Mr. Kennedy: It wouldn’t necessarily be forever at all. It just seems logical to me that a committee shouldn’t come in here with a report and move adoption when the majority of the members from all sides aren’t familiar with the content. I interpret

section 30(

c) as does the acting House leader.

Mr. Sterling: I would just like to add that as a member of the procedural affairs committee, which was charged with the responsibility of looking at the standing orders, the

interpretation as the acting government House leader has placed on this particular rule is certainly what I interpreted as the intent of that particular committee. The problem in determining whether or not a report is of a substantive nature or not, leaves the chairman who moves that particular motion in a pretty precarious position If in fact there is a substantive

part in that report. It was my thought when we were discussing this particular rule amendment that it would be natural for the chairman to move adjournment, and the latter part of the rule is intended to make certain the report doesn’t sit there forever.

Mr. Hall: I just want to explain to the House that I understand the reason for having to present an interim report is only to provide the proper authority for the provincial auditor to analyse current monthly financial statements and the current budget of the Royal Ontario Museum. Up until the present time, the report we are dealing with was written in 1977-78. To advance it to give him legal authority to look at current material, we felt what we considered to be minor clearance by the House was necessary.

[3:45]

I reiterate that we are acting out of our concern for the public interest in the Royal Ontario Museum. In view of the press attention that has been placed on this matter, all parties represented in the committee this morning felt very much that the matter just could not be delayed. All we sought was proper clearance for the provincial auditor to act on the current year’s financial statement to provide us with analysis and advice.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if I might respond: What has developed in the last few minutes is that the member has had an opportunity now to explain to a half-empty House the substance of his motion. It was precisely because of the concern --

Mr. Foulds: There are more members here than we usually have for debates on reports.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- that motions passed by committee three or four hours ago were not even known to the vast majority of the assembly that the decision was taken by the House leaders that a motion should not be introduced and voted upon immediately without the opportunity for all the members of the House to have some knowledge of it. That was part of the motivation. It could be that this side of the House would support it.

I am not arguing the merits of the motion. What I am arguing quite sincerely is that the whole purpose of this was that at this stage in the proceedings the chairman of the committee would not have to rise and try to explain to the House that this was or was not a substantive motion. The purpose of this procedure was to allow the motions to go on the order paper, as can be seen particularly by reading subsections (

a) and (b). As with everything else, it was to give members time for due consideration of the merits of a motion and then to enable it to be brought forward by the government House leader at a later date.

Having heard this, I understand the urgency. Presumably the system was set up so that the House leaders could respond to that urgency and urge the, government House leader to bring it on at a ‘short date. On the question under subsection (

c) as to whether this is a substantive motion, I might point out that that must be read in the context of (

a) and (b). I don’t want to get overly legalistic here, but I think this is an important point to clear up. Subsections (

a) and (

b) are written in to deal with the non-substantive motion procedure, which is that they are not voted on. Then subsection (

c) is the subsection that’s put in the rules to deal with those matters where there is a substantive motion involved.

That is the procedure and, I say with respect, the only procedure that can be followed in the matter of a substantive motion. It is presumed in (

a) and (b) -- and I think it is quite clear -- that if it’s a report not bearing substantive matters then it is not moved for adoption, it is presented to the House. The only other type we have deal with a substantive motion, and thereafter the procedure is only as outlined in subsection (c).

I say to the opposition House leaders, that I would hope that however we may decide to treat the report emanating out of public accounts this morning, surely they must agree that under no circumstances under this rule, which was negotiated just recently, in

section 30 or anywhere under the rules, shall substantive or non-substantive reports from committees be voted upon immediately after presentation to the House.

I say to the opposition House leaders, and I say to you very clearly Mr. Speaker, that it’s my clear understanding that under no portion of the rules was the motion put by the chairman of the committee for adoption to be voted on under the rules. It couldn’t be voted on under the rules. He had only one option at that stage, that is to move the adjournment of the debate. I say to the opposition House leaders that I would hope they would agree with the spirit of what I’m saying. Even if they don’t agree with the spirit, I would ask them if they can find in the rules anything which gives another option to the chairman of a committee rising in those circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the contribution made by all honourable members in assisting me in reaching a decision as to whether or not the right course of action was taken on the motions by the honourable member for Lincoln and the honourable member for St. George. In view of the comments made by the acting House leader of the governing party, the House leader of the Liberal Party and -- I suppose he is -- the deputy House leader of the New Democratic Party, find that their comments are very persuasive and perhaps I was hasty in accepting the motion from the member for Lincoln.

I would agree with the comments made by the member for Port Arthur in that, in the case of the report presented by the member for Lincoln, I would not construe the contents of that report as being substantive, because they would not have needed any action by this House to do what they attempted to accomplish by bringing the report in.

Be that as it may, the comments made by everybody who has spoken, including the member for Carleton-Grenville, who was a member of the procedural affairs committee, were that indeed the intent of this amended standing order was to give the House an opportunity to review.

With the unanimous consent of the House I would revert back to the point where the member for Lincoln introduced his report and I asked that the debate be adjourned, if that is the wish of the House.

Mr. Nixon: I appreciate your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest further, with respect, that under the circumstances it might be better if we were to consider these reports on another day. Rather than ask the honourable member to revert to that situation now, when the House has taken an action and when actually there was a voice vote taken, I would suggest to you, sir, that if perhaps a day intervened during which the matter might be considered perhaps even further, that might be a course of action that would be more convenient for the members directly concerned to follow.

Mr. Speaker: Since it seems to be the consensus of all who have spoken that perhaps the chair acted unwisely, now is the time to correct it, rather than to let any period of time intervene by way of correcting it. I would have thought that everybody who is here now would be well aware of the circumstances surrounding the presentation of the report. As I recall, the member for Lincoln was a bit apprehensive as to whether he should move the adjournment of the debate or just allow the chair to put the, motion. Unless somebody has a very good reason why we should postpone correcting it, I think we should take action right now.

STANDING PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, it was not a matter of apprehension with regard to the adjournment of the debate; it was a matter of our understanding of the rules. However, there was no objection made and the matter was adopted by the House.

I would ask that the assistant House leader, in referring to the spirit and the intent of what was put in the rule that’ is in debate, also try to understand the spirit and intent of the committee’s desire this morning merely to permit the provincial auditor to step beyond his current terms of reference, being 1977-78, and operating under the old Audit Act, which said not permit him to be the auditor for the Royal Ontario Museum, to enter into this and to give us guidance before this House adjourns. I can assure you it is considered to be a serious matter, and we are simply trying to act in the best spirit and interest of everybody who is involved in this matter.

I will now move the adjournment of the debate but, as I said before, I would appreciate the co-operation of the people involved in permitting this committee to do its work before the House adjourns for the summer.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I understand the difference of opinion on this rule, and I am not completely sure that you are wrong or indeed the government House leader is wrong. But it seems to me we still do have the option of changing a rule by unanimous consent, and in fact that is what we probably have in these circumstances.

When the House voted, with no objection, to adopt that particular report, it seems to me that de facto if not de jure, we waived this particular rule at this particular time.

An hon. member: There is not unanimous consent.

Ms. Peterson: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, on one other ground: That because time is so very much of the essence in this particular matter, and I think that has been eloquently expressed by my colleague from Lincoln, it may be a case, particularly since all of the government members on that committee voted with this. Where we could solve the substantive problem, if not the procedural problem, by getting unanimous consent reaffirmed, subsequent to our other voice vote in favour of passing, to dispense with the rule if in fact your judgement prevails and it is the rule, so that we can proceed immediately and forthwith on this issue.

I am not suggesting it is necessarily a case for a compromise, but it might be. It might be the case where communally, in the interests of everyone concerned, we can solve our collective problem without violating any of the rules of the House. I would like to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the acting government House leader on those grounds.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for London Centre is asking me to prevail upon the House for unanimous consent to allow the honourable member for Lincoln to move the adoption without adjourning the debate. Do we have such unanimous consent?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I deal with the substance of what this report of the public accounts committee is all about? I would take it that the whole object of the exercise is to put the public accounts committee in a position to deal with certain matters next Thursday. Is that what it is all about?

May I suggest to the House that surely we can look after that problem before next Thursday by way of motions or some other mechanisms. There is obviously no resistance here to the substance of the motion. I think in fairness to most of the members of the assembly who have not heard what happened this morning, let alone read it, we should follow a normal procedure.

A motion can easily be introduced any time next week. Indeed, the government House leader could call for debate on that matter next Monday, Tuesday or Thursday -- no, I guess not Thursday; but tomorrow morning, Monday or Tuesday. There is plenty of time before next Thursday and I don’t foresee any problem. I think that would be a more regular way to follow this rather than debating it further through private members’ hour this afternoon.

Mr. Peterson: May I respond to that point, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: We could go on indefinitely with all of the nuances and everything else. The honourable member for Lincoln has graciously reconsidered, and he has moved the adjournment of the debate, so that is the question before the House. If you want to speak as to whether or not the debate should be adjourned -- Do you want to speak to that particular point?

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker: As to whether or not the debate should be adjourned?

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Brantford.

Mr. Makarchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been stressed quite eloquently here by members who were present at the public accounts committee that this is a matter of urgency. The time element is of some concern to the committee because it would involve examining books; it would involve getting the staff and so on to go to the books and bring the matter back to the committee before the House adjourns.

However, I want to point out that the option is open to the government House leader, if he is prepared, in agreement with the members of his party to accept the desire that the provincial auditor proceed with the examination of the books, to introduce a routine motion exactly as was presented by the vice-chairman of the public accounts committee. I am sure the House would accept it and it would resolve the whole problem. If the House leader is prepared to do that I think it can be carried through right now.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion to adjourn the debate carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet.

Mr. Speaker: The vote was carried.

Mr. Foulds: I was on my feet to be recognized.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker: How long do you want to go on with this, really?

Mr. Makarchuk: Until we resolve it.

Mr. Foulds: The rules of the House, as you well know --

Mr. Speaker: It’s your time, go ahead.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you. I think that if the House leader of the government party would give a commitment to this House to introduce either later today or tomorrow the motion that he himself suggested he would have no difficulty whatsoever with the members on this side of the House. I would like that clear commitment from him; not Monday or Tuesday, but today or tomorrow, because I think the members of the committee have, as my colleague from Brantford indicated, spoken eloquently about the need for urgency.

Mr. Peterson: There are two points I want to respond to. One, the deputy House leader brings up the point, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain members who may want to speak on this particular matter but weren’t am prised of it. It seems to me that’s one of the risks of being a member of this Legislature. Frequently things happen that everyone isn’t apprised to and one is seized nevertheless of the results of that particular transaction on the floor of this House.

Two, I’m very attracted to the suggestion of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party. I am sure that substantively the deputy House leader would have no objection from his party on this particular motion. If he could, in his wisdom, give us a commitment that it is to be brought up tomorrow so that we could proceed post haste I am sure that we can all retire on this principle and keep our virginity intact with respect to the principles of this House. If we could have that assurance from the deputy House leader I would be delighted and we will proceed perfunctorily.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to say that without consulting with my colleagues, as each of you has had an opportunity to do, then I wouldn’t give that commitment. I do want to make it clear, though, that I am aware that the members of my party voted in favour of the motion this morning. I don’t think it is fair to anyone in this assembly to try to blow this procedural matter into something it isn’t.

There are the alternatives which I can assure members will be taken up. I will discuss the matter with my colleagues and with the House leaders tomorrow morning and we will have plenty of opportunity between now and next Thursday.

I might add that obviously the public accounts committee can choose to sit at as much length as possible to deal with this matter next Thursday, Friday or at other times in the event there is any difficulty between now and next Thursday.

I can’t see the point of arguing this matter at this time when there is no problem. There is no problem, I want to say that. I have to, in fairness to my colleague the minister involved, who is not here and not even aware of what occurred this morning, give him the opportunity to at least --

Mr. Foulds: If he isn’t, he should be.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member may say he should be, but he is not here and not even aware of the situation. I think he ought to have the benefit of at least consulting with the government House leader before we comment on it at all. That’s all that we’re asking.

I might say to the member for London Centre, with regard to his remarks, it is not any longer one of the risks of this House that matters may come up and blind-side one and be dealt with in the manner that we’re talking about. The whole point of all the exercise that we’ve been through in the last little while in the procedural affairs committee and as the House leaders is to stop surprises. The Minister of Culture and Recreation doesn’t even know what’s happening this afternoon. The whole point of the exercise was to avoid surprises and I think that’s the way we ought to handle it.

Mr. Speaker: The motion before the House, moved by the member for Lincoln, is for the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Makarchuk: On a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: This is on the motion, I hope.

Mr. Makarchuk: No, I’m speaking on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the point of order that I wish to stress here and bring to the attention of the deputy House leader is that it is not a matter for the public accounts committee to deal with the matter next Thursday; it is a matter of giving the auditor of this province, and nobody else, the authority to examine the books of the Royal Ontario Museum and report back in time before the House adjourns. That’s all. It’s so he can start working tomorrow morning. It does not require any opinion from the minister or anyone else. It’s having the effect of blocking the effectiveness of this House.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The next question to be decided is a report presented on behalf of the members’ services committee by the member for St. George.

STANDING MEMBERS’ SERVICES COMMITTEE

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the decision in the earlier matter I believe I am perfectly prepared at some stage to move the adjournment of the debate, but it is my understanding that at least I have the opportunity to speak briefly to the report.

Mr. Speaker, it came to our attention in the committee that it has been the custom of the library -- I wonder if I could have some attention. It has been the practice of the library to seek from a commission, a commissioner or a chairman of a commission, not only the report of the commission but the backup material upon which the report is based, including transcripts. Some commissioners comply with the request, some do not. Thus the motion before the Speaker was simply to establish some procedure to regularize this matter, not for my benefit but for the benefit of the library and those whom the library will serve.

I really wouldn’t have regarded that as a particularly substantive motion, but I would just like to make this observation. It seems to me that the work of this House is becoming more and more irrelevant, and it’s partly because we seem to get into wrangles and it seems to be very difficult for committees to get their reports debated in this House.

I would hope that what has gone on here today would serve the government notice that the committees labour over their reports in many cases -- I’m not suggesting this one -- and their reports are treated with contempt by the government in the ordering of business in this House. Perhaps when they’re discussing rules they might discuss the purport of the business of this House.

On motion by Mrs. Campbell, the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved that the following substitutions be made: on the standing resources development committee, Mr. G. I. Miller for Mr. Bolan; on the standing members’ services committee, Mr. Worton for Mr. Conway; on the select committee on Hydro affairs, Mr. Conway for Mr. Kerrio.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 114,

An Act to amend Certain Acts Respecting Regional Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill is another act to amend the Municipal Act. It’s been introduced separately from the bill I introduced the other day, and will proceed through the House separately, because it covers one particular topic which is of paramount importance at the present time to particularly one municipality, the city of Hamilton. For that reason I hope that this amending bill may be passed into law as quickly as possible.

The act is designed to provide sufficient flexibility to all municipalities that may have implemented a

section 86 reassessment. It will permit them to phase in over a period of up to five years the effects of the reassessment according to various classes of property.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 16,

An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This bill proposes to extend to the district municipality of Muskoka certain powers given to local municipalities and counties in the Municipal Amendment Act, 1978 (No. 3). In addition, the bill will increase the maximum rate of interest the district may charge the area municipalities for failure to pay its levy from one per cent to one and a quarter per cent per month.

The bill also removes the requirement that the district obtain Ontario Municipal Board approval of bylaws prohibiting or regulating access to controlled-access district roads. This will make the Muskoka act consistent with all other regional acts in this regard.

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 117,

An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As the other regional acts have done, this bill also extends to the restructured county of Oxford certain powers given to local municipalities and counties in the Municipal Amendment Act, 1978 (No. 3). It also increases the maximum rate of interest the county may charge an area municipality for failure to pay its levy from one per cent to one and one-quarter per cent per month.

In addition, the bill will make it clear that the quorum for the council on official plan matters is the same as for all other county responsibilities.

Finally, at the request of the county, provision has been included in the bill to allow area municipalities in Oxford to acquire industrial lands, subject to the approval of the county council.

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Grande moved first reading of Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Royal Ontario Museum Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Grande: The purpose of the bill is to reform the structure of the board of trustees for the Royal Ontario Museum. The board will continue to consist of 21 trustees, but the bill provides that eight of the trustees will be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, eight will be elected by members of the museum, and two will be elected by members of the museum’s professional staff.

The bill also increases the number of trustees required to constitute a quorum and provides the meeting of the board shall be open to the public. I hope that the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. All that is permitted on first reading is a very brief explanation of the purpose and the intent of the bill.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 113, 186, 291; and an interim answer to question 192 standing on the Notice Paper.

[4:15]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Kerr moved resolution 18:

That in the opinion of this House the government of Ontario should consider taking immediate steps to reduce the amount of waste being disposed of in sanitary landfill dump sites; and furthermore, the government of Ontario should increase its assistance to municipalities and local government authorities in order to encourage the development and institution of alternative methods of waste disposal, maximizing the opportunities for reclamation, recycling and development of energy from waste.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes.

Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest that I use 15 minutes now and five minutes later, but in view of the late hour of the day I will continue and if I just take 15 minutes it means somebody else has more time.

This resolution deals with something that is of continuing concern to me, as it was when I was Minister of the Environment. There has been a great deal of research and study on this matter, and as a result private industry and government have been moving into the field of resource recovery with varying degrees of success. Certainly the government of Ontario has been in the forefront, not only with its own experimental plant in North York but also by helping research and pilot projects in the private sector and with programs to assist local governments to establish facilities that will reduce reliance on landfill sites.

However, the program has to be speeded up. It has to have a greater allocation of public funds and there has to be greater incentive in the whole area of resource recovery.

I would also like to mention at this time that in presenting this resolution I am not necessarily taking a stand as far as any existing application before the Ontario Municipal Board or the Environmental Assessment Board is concerned. The resolution refers to the immediate future and long-term policy as to waste disposal, and by inference could include both industrial liquid waste and solid waste.

The first part of the resolution says: “ ... the government of Ontario should consider taking immediate steps to reduce the amount of waste being disposed of in sanitary landfill dump sites ... Most of the reasons for this are obvious. I am told that in searching for suitable sites engineers and consultants usually recommend prime agricultural land because of the topography and because such land minimizes leaching and possible contamination of water supplies.

Prime agricultural land is not only valuable but it also attracts some development and rural clusters on its fringes, as well as a certain type of environment which can be disrupted by increased traffic noise. A certain amount of nuisance is bound to result from the establishment of the sanitary landfill site, regardless of how well the site is operated.

Recently we have seen the proliferation of various citizens’ groups composed of people who live at or near a proposed site going to great lengths to oppose it, resulting in lengthy and costly hearings which could involve the OMB, the Environmental Assessment Board, local official plans and even the Ontario Land Compensation Board. In other words, the time and cost involved in establishing landfill sites, certainly in the future, will become comparable to other means of disposal, and therefore the great argument that resource recovery or some other method is just too expensive will lose its effect.

Another reason, in my opinion, is that the whole idea of burying garbage, or wasting waste, in light of its potential beneficial use goes against the grain. As members know, domestic waste can be used to generate steam, gas and solid fuel. Much of the waste can be recycled and reused, either in its original form or as a resource. It can create employment and establish a whole new industry.

What can be done to reduce the generation of waste, particularly domestic waste?

First of all, there have to be changes in our attitudes and habits. We live in a basically wasteful society in North America. Domestic waste, for the most part, is created at home. There should be separation in the kitchen. We should be separating newspapers, glass containers and cans. We should be composting and we should be taking many waste products to recycling plants or feeding pick-ups at the curb. However, we have been talking about this for a long time and we have not been very successful.

We have had studies and pilot projects, but there is no real incentive for people to pick out cans, take off labels, remove ends and crush them; or to clean empty bottles; all for reuse. It’s a matter of attitude and conscience, but most people just don’t seem to be interested. Take it from me, Mr. Speaker, as a loser in the great garbage gamble that I had with one Tony Barrett of Pollution Probe, I know. It cost me -- and it cost me plenty -- mainly because my colleagues did not believe in composting to the degree that I hoped they would. But I have forgiven them.

Mr. Gaunt: They are still not big on composting.

Mr. Kerr: I do not like to say it, but the leaders of the oppositions at that time also each cost me about $40.

One incentive might be for those municipalities that have two garbage pickups a week, for example, to have just one pickup a week. Possibly there should be a limit to the amount of garbage per household and more returnable containers with a deposit. We might even consider a tax on cans. In any event, there has to be an incentive or a penalty to make it work.

The market value of waste products fluctuates and demand changes. The market is really unsure and not too dependable. I think it fair to say that most people are unconcerned as to what happens after pickup at the curb, except for those affected by landfill sites close to them. Therefore, garbage is not a great issue or a high priority with municipal politicians or local officials and new methods of disposal are difficult to establish.

Mr. Lawlor: Did that scheme in your riding work?

Mr. Kerr: No, it was a failure -- and I tried.

Mr. Lawlor: Go for biomass.

Mr. Kerr: We require various steps and procedures for approval of landfill sites. Our policies and our legislation and our regulations regarding the creation of new sites have made it difficult for municipalities to make long-term plans for disposal by way of sanitary landfill sites -- and rightly so. Therefore, it is up to us at the provincial level to help create and promote alternative methods of disposal.

I disagree with the Robarts report, which implies that the province should assume full responsibility for solid waste disposal. We should, however, be involved in research, experimental plants, financial assistance and general programming and direction.

Since about 1965 the Ministry of the Environment has had a program whereby the government will assist municipalities in the building of transfer stations and front-end processing plants. Basically, the province pays 100 per cent of the capital cost of the plant and charges the municipality 50 per cent of the cost amortized over a 40-year period.

At the time this was introduced I felt, and I think most people in the ministry felt, that this was a reasonable arrangement and one that would be attractive to local governments. However, up until now it has not been. Maybe we will have to sweeten the pot and stop reallocating funds for other things.

In any event, the main responsibility for waste disposal should remain at the regional level, where a region or restructured municipality exists, as well as metropolitan areas, larger cities and possibly at the county level where no substantial urban centre exists. The province may have to become more involved in unorganized districts, but the problems there are not as great as in builtup areas.

We all know that the collection and disposal of domesti