Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RONTO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on April 29 I tabled in the Legislature a copy of an order in council, appointing Mr. Justice John David Cromarty to conduct an inquiry into the exemption granted to Ronto Development under The Land Speculation Tax Act. I am pleased that I will be able to table today the report of Mr. Justice Cromarty, and wish at the same time to commend him for a very thorough investigation of the circumstances, and the expeditious manner in which he dealt with the issue.

In his conclusion, Mr. Justice Cromarty says that, after a complete examination of all possible witnesses: “I am satisfied that there was no undue or improper influence brought to bear on anyone, from any source; nor was there any other impropriety of any kind in respect to the decision by the government in granting an exemption under the provisions of The Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974, to the partnership carrying on business as Ronto Development Company.”

Mr. Speaker, I trust these findings will reassure the people of Ontario who, understandably, might have been concerned by the initial reports on the subject.

Mr. Kerrio: They’re still concerned.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Keep up the innuendoes; is that what you want to do?

Mr. S. Smith: Do you know the terms of reference yourself?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OHTB BUS LICENCE

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Can he tell us whether he can explain to this House what it was that prompted Ontario Northland Transportation Commission -- a creature of the government, after all -- to apply on May 8, 1976, to over-run Gray Coach Lines and then to withdraw that application at the end of October, just before the Greyhound matter? Can he explain whether he knew anything of that decision to apply and the decision to withdraw? Can he explain those decisions to us?

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I recall, Ontario Northland did apply for a licence to implement what it called its executive or deluxe bus service from Sudbury to Toronto, similar to the service that it is operating down Highway 11 through North Bay to Toronto. It did make that application.

Subsequent to that application being made, Gray Coach Lines implemented the same type of service. It had not done so previous to that time -- it was a regular bus service -- but sometime between the two dates the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, Gray Coach Lines implemented the deluxe service. After this service was in fact in operation, Ontario Northland decided it would no longer proceed with its application. I believe those to be the facts.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: The minister is saying to the House, therefore, that the only application which Ontario Northland was making was for a different kind of service -- an executive service -- and not for any normal type of service which would over-run Gray Coach Lines.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, that’s what I believe I said, Mr. Speaker. I would have to check all the paperwork, because it happened some time ago. But as I recall, the application was for the executive bus service from Sudbury to Toronto, similar to that which it was operating on the Highway 11 corridor; and when that service was implemented by Gray Coach Lines, Ontario Northland did not proceed.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: If Gray Coach Lines reacted in that way to provide this service when that over-running was threatened, does the minister not agree that if it were given the same opportunity to provide the service on these other roads where it is being over-run by Greyhound, it would have reacted in turn?

Hon. Mr. Snow: To my understanding, Gray Coach Lines was given that opportunity. It has had those licences for years, and several months went by from the time of the other applications from Stock Brothers and Greyhound until such time as the hearings were convened. Gray Coach did not, to my knowledge, change service during that time.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Attorney General: Can he tell us whether there is at present, or has been, a police investigation into the matter that we’ve been discussing in the House in recent days -- the alleged wrongdoing in the Hydro contracts at Madawaska and so on? Has there been a police investigation launched in the province of Ontario or has it simply been assumed that the inquiry launched privately by the Premier (Mr. Davis) would be sufficient?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am unable to answer a question of that type adequately without, in my view, infringing on the order that was made by Chief Judge Fred Hayes at the outset of the preliminary hearing. I just find it impossible to pursue it further, to add anything more to what I have already said, without seriously infringing on that order.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, having no wish to encourage any infringement of the order --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not much.

Mr. S. Smith: You are the one with the innuendo now, Mr. Premier, not I.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why are you pursuing it?

Mr. S. Smith: I am pursuing --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by the Premier why I am pursuing this question.

Mr. Speaker: No, actually it was an interjection.

Mr. S. Smith: The fact is that it is very important to know whether private inquiries are now taking the place of proper police investigations in Ontario, irrespective of the matter.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Oh come on, that is a stupid question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is the question asked?

Mr. Nixon: You say it’s stupid. You can stick with that.

Mr. Cunningham: And you will both go down together.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the Attorney General not recognize that, without infringing in any way on the material referred to in the preliminary inquiry, the people of Ontario have some need to understand whether the police have been permitted to investigate this matter or whether they have been, somehow or other, encouraged not to do so, in as much as a private inquiry has taken place?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, that is nonsense.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can certainly say, Mr. Speaker, that in no way have the police been encouraged not to investigate the matter.

Mr. S. Smith: All right. Are they or have they been investigating the matter? That is all I am asking; it is quite straightforward.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have nothing further to add, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: I would like to ask the Attorney General why it is he feels the order of Chief Judge Hayes is so restrictive? What prevents him from telling us about an inquiry without referring to the evidence?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The original question had to do with any police investigation.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. That’s what I am asking.

Mr. Speaker: I haven’t seen the question related to the possibility of a police investigation yet. If the hon. member will tie his question into that then it might be appropriate, but otherwise we are going into the whole broad area --

Mr. Roy: Well, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will please restrain himself.

The question had to do with whether the police had an earlier investigation of this matter. If your question is on that, it is proper.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Next time we will ask you, Albert.

Mr. S. Smith: This has to do with procedure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are wrong.

Mr. Roy: I’ll repeat my question, Mr. Speaker. Why is it that the Attorney General is saying that he cannot answer the question asked by my leader because of the order of Judge Hayes? Does he not feel that his interpretation of that order is far too restrictive, in the light of the fact that he has been commenting about certain other aspects of that trial?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have nothing further to add to my previous answers, Mr. Speaker.

OHTB BUS LICENCE

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware whether or not Karl Mallette has made known to the Highway Transport Board the recent philosophical change in the attitude of Gray Coach Lines towards providing service? What is Karl Mallette playing at? What kind of a game is this that he is playing, when he now tells us that he is not going to provide service to some of the small municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He was playing with some of you opposite a few weeks ago, wasn’t he Stuart?

Mr. Roy: You are the one who is playing games.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of what the hon. member refers to.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Has the minister had drawn to his attention the fact that Karl Mallette, the chairman of Gray Coach Lines, has indicated that the bus line no longer intends to maintain the philosophy of providing service to the public but rather intends to go to a profit-oriented philosophy, which will mean a reduction in service to many of the small municipalities that it used as the basis for its argument before the Ontario Highway Transport Board?

Mr. Reid: That’s what the government forced them into doing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for what Mr. Mallette says.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, yes you are.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He certainly doesn’t send me copies of everything that he says, and I certainly wouldn’t want to be held responsible for some of his philosophies.

Mr. Deans: I think you read the statement.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t blame you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You don’t like him very much.

Mr. Lewis: I can take him or leave him.

Hon. B. Stephenson: He is one of yours, Stephen.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He may have made statements like this to the Highway Transport Board during the period of the rehearing of the particular case mentioned, I don’t know.

[2:15]

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Would it be the minister’s intention then, at the time he receives the report from the Highway Transport Board from those hearings, to take into account what is an evident change in the entire managerial philosophy of Gray Coach and try to impose some restriction to ensure that small municipalities in Ontario will in fact receive adequate bus transportation service from Gray Coach or whoever else has been given the right to the franchises?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would first say that we should await the report of the Highway Transport Board, which I think will be forthcoming very soon.

Mr. Deans: I look with interest at the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). I am almost afraid to say anything. You have something?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is the best question you have asked: “You have something?”

Mr. Deans: Goodness gracious, then I’ll wait for a ministerial statement.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment: Can the minister give us some clear indication of what it is that’s being done when he says that he is currently attempting to find out where the sources of mercury pollution come from with regard to the mercury pollution that has been uncovered in the Muskoka Lakes area?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The staff and officials of the ministry have put together a team as a result of finding certain levels in fish early this year and late last year. Their task is to try to ascertain what man-made source or what source, normal, industrial or commercial or residential, may be in existence in the Muskoka Lakes that is the cause of the problem there.

We are testing the sediment at the bottom of those lakes where we have found fish that have high mercury level readings. We are looking at any abandoned industrial or commercial operation, such as tanneries, where there is some possibility they may be the cause.

We are looking at existing sewage treatment plants in the area. We are looking at any possibility of any improper disposal of industrial liquid waste and any possible source that may contain mercury, that is in the bottom sediment and resulting in high fish readings.

Mr. Gaunt: Have you checked the lodge of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller)?

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: is the minister confining the search to the immediate Muskoka area or is he prepared to take the suggestion of my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) that it may well be that of some of this pollution comes by way of the air and that the problems could well be located some considerable distance from the Muskoka area?

Secondly, what is the minister doing to try to determine mercury levels in the other lakes, other than those he’s presently indicated do have contamination levels higher than public acceptance would allow? What is he doing to try to ensure that public health is not being threatened in those areas?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As to the first question, we are looking upstream from the particular lakes in question, at the tributaries and any rivers that flow into those lakes. All those sources are being looked at.

As far as air emissions are concerned, airborne contamination, we are also examining any plants within a 200- or 300-mile radius that may have mercury in the manufacturing process, which may become airborne. As I said, this investigation started last January.

For example, our people were examining snow, any possible contamination through ingredients in snow, metallic ingredients in snow that might indicate there is airborne mercury. That has been done and analysed. We haven’t found anything, but we will continue to do that. Any possibility of sediments in rain is also being examined.

As for any other areas, as the hon. member has mentioned, that testing goes on. The sources of course, in areas such as Lake Ontario or Lake Erie or northwestern Ontario, have been known to us and eliminated now. The problem there is not the same as the problem in the Muskokas where we just can’t find a man-made source. It’s a mystery and we are trying to find that.

I’ve indicated the methods we’re using. I’m satisfied and the people in my ministry are satisfied that this mercury loss has existed over a long period of time; it is in the bottom sediments, and that’s why the particular species of fish are being contaminated.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Could the minister indicate to the House why the team seems to have confined its study area to a 200- or 300-mile radius? Are they not in fact, examining the research of the Freshwater Biological Institute in Minneapolis, which I pointed out to the minister last week, and wouldn’t it make some sense that if they are examining the sediment in snow and in rain, that they study the North American meteorological patterns to see if, in fact, the emissions may come from further distances, either from the Inco stack or from the Michigan peninsula where a number of thermal coal generating stations exist?

Hon. Mr Kerr: That’s right, Mr. Speaker. The point I’m trying to make is that we have to identify and ascertain definitely that this contamination is airborne. We are looking at the site where the problem is and at the same time looking within a 200- to 300-mile radius to see if there are sources. If we don’t find the problem I’ve talked about in the lake sediment, in rain or snow and in areas such as that, then airborne emissions may not be the problem here. We have to establish that at the source. If there is that contamination at the point of the impingement in the lakes that we’re talking about, then we go farther afield to locate the source.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Has the ministry contacted the officials from the state of Michigan, the air pollution branch of some ministry there, and found out if their analysis of pollutants from coal generating stations and other coal burning companies may be one of the reasons for the pollutants in the Muskoka area?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the questions last week, we are doing that, working through the International Joint Commission.

PORT DOVER FISHERY

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources in regard to the Port Dover fishing industry. It’s been almost a year and a half now since the 10-inch limit on perch was enforced and the fishermen in Port Dover and Long Point Bay have been trying to co-operate with the ministry. Reports coming back are that the poundage being taken this year is less than in 1976. Would the minister consider increasing the 10 per cent to a percentage that would provide the fishermen in that area with a livelihood? Would he consider doing that at this time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have discussed this a number of times. I think he meant to say eight inches, not 10 inches, on the limit.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Yes, eight inches.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes. Most certainly my concern is both for the future of the fishery, and therefore the future of the fishermen. Neither one of them has a future unless the fish are protected. The very fact that catches in excess of eight inches are hard to get is, to me, the major symptom of the problem. The fishery is over-stretched. Therefore, the actions we’ve taken to control the size of the fish in the area are in the long-term interest of both the fishery and the fishermen.

I think the temptation to take a catch today, in today’s market, whether it be fish or whether it be any other product that depends on natural regeneration, is such that it must be avoided. I’ve agreed, as the member knows, to look at the size of mature fish in certain waters of Lake Erie to see if it’s possible to waive the eight-inch limit or the percentage of undersized fish in certain bays where the fish may mature at a smaller overall size. Most important, I’m told we should allow these fish to have a chance to spawn, I believe it’s twice, before they reach the size allowable for catch. If we don’t, the progress toward rehabilitation of fish in Lake Erie simply won’t occur and there will be no future for the fishermen.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Supplementary: I think an investigation was to have taken place by the ministry. Has there been any report pointing out the fact there could be a slower growth rate in the Long Point Bay area?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think there are indications, although the reports aren’t finalized, that there probably are some areas of the lake -- not just the one, but a number of areas -- where fish mature at a smaller overall size. The hon. member and I have talked about this. They apparently have slightly different characteristics of weight versus length.

Our purpose is to have had them spawn a couple of times, I’m told, before they’re caught. If they’re at that point where they’ve regenerated, they’re ready to be taken. My staff haven’t given me a final piece of advice on that.

ACADEMY OF MEDICINE DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour: Is the minister aware of the several attempts by the Communications Workers, local No. 1, and the Organization of Working Women who are working with them, to meet with her office on behalf of the 18 striking women at the Academy of Medicine, concerning that unfortunate and now lengthening strike?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the entire operation of the answering service of the Academy of Medicine was terminated as of June 14 of this year and there is no longer, I gather, an employer in this dispute.

Mr. Deans: What a way to get out of collective bargaining, it speaks volumes.

Mr. Cassidy: You support that too, don’t you?

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary to the Minister of Labour: The minister hasn’t answered my question. These workers and the Organization of Working Women have been attempting to meet with her. I believe the Academy may have turned some of the answering calls back to another answering service. In as much as this was another effort at a first contract where the workers seem to be going down the drain, I’m wondering if the minister would not meet with these people and have a discussion with them? I know they’ve requested such a meeting with the minister.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, the union representative for that group of women did request a meeting earlier on. I have not heard of a request for a meeting recently with them. It is my purpose and my aim to meet with every group which requests a meeting and I will most certainly attempt to do so.

RENFREW NURSING HOME

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to a question put to me earlier last week by the member for Wentworth regarding the Groves Park Lodge Nursing Home in Renfrew.

Prior to July 1, 1977, Groves Park Lodge Nursing Home in Renfrew was owned and operated by Medi-Park Lodges Incorporated. On July 1 of this year the nursing home was sold to Mr. and Mrs. William Viveen.

On July 1, 1977, the new owners distributed employment application forms to 39 of the staff members who were terminated on June 30. A total of 18 original staff members were not re-employed. Since July 1, 1977, the new owners have hired 13 new employees who were not previously employed at this facility.

Nursing inspectors have investigated the situation five times thus far, and report that the needs of the residents are being met with very little disruption due to the union activities outside. Groves Park Lodge is a 75-bed facility and during the past week a few residents have gone out on weekend or day passes. It is reported by our nursing inspectors that the home is operating at its maximum capacity. There has not been an exodus of residents.

The staffing pattern has been examined and found to be in compliance with the regulations under The Nursing Homes Act, 1972. On Monday, July 4, 1977, the staffing schedule was noted as follows:

Morning shift; One registered nurse on seven days, plus one registered nurse on three days. Monday to Friday, seven and a half non-registered aids -- I should explain that “half” means people working half-days over the busiest period. Saturday, six and a half non-registered aides; Sunday, six non-registered aides.

Afternoon shift: One registered nursing assistant, plus four non-registered aides, plus one non-registered aide for five hours.

Night shift: One registered nursing assistant plus three non-registered aides.

In addition to the above nursing staff there are two cooks, two housekeeping staff and one laundry attendant.

All of the required services are being provided on a continuing basis with no evidence of any deterioration in the normal services such as nursing care, housekeeping, dietary services or general maintenance.

In addition to this information, my staff reported to me on the classification of staff that were: (a) Rehired under the new management; (b) those staff whose services were terminated; and (c) new staff. if I may, I’ll take them in that order.

Staff rehired as of July 1, 1977. One registered nurse, director of nursing; two registered nurses; three registered nursing assistants; 10 health care aides; one orderly, who has since resigned; one cook; three kitchen workers; two laundry workers; one maintenance man.

Staff terminated and not rehired: Ten health care aides; one registered nursing assistant; thee housekeeping staff; one secretary.

There are four persons on holiday and the inspector was unable to determine whether they would be returning to work. These include one activity director and one health care aide. One staff member is on maternity leave and it is expected that she will be returning to work at the end of July 1977. She is a registered nurse.

New staff hired were 10 health care aides, two housekeeping staff and one orderly.

[2:30]

In light of the foregoing, Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa regional supervisor is monitoring the staffing pattern very closely and is in daily contact with the home. While the home is operating smoothly and the residents are receiving the required nursing care, our Ottawa supervisor has identified a potential nursing problem. Apparently none of the 10 newly-hired health care aides have previous experience of working in a health care facility. The administrators, Mr. and Mrs. Viveen, discussed the situation with our supervisor and have agreed to hire additional registered staff immediately and to limit the number of non-experienced nursing staff in the staffing schedule.

I have a second answer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll get the answer to the other question the next time around. The member for Wentworth has a supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Can the minister indicate the reason the 18 people were not re-employed? Did it have anything to do with the fact that, as a group, they had recently been certified to bargain collectively and that they had been involved in that process?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not that I’m aware, Mr. Speaker. That would be between the employer and the employees.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s your answer every time.

Interjections.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: Is it normal practice, when a nursing home is sold, for the previous owner to fire everyone on the eve of the takeover and to then allow the new owner to rehire or not, at will without any consideration for the people involved?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I know, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Mackenzie: You close them and hire a new service.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Perhaps the member would let me finish.

Mr. Deans: I didn’t say a word.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, the fellow behind you.

It is not, to the best of my knowledge, normal practice, but it is a matter which comes under the authority of my colleague, the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Mackenzie: Make sure you are going to say something.

Mr. Deans: Maybe the minister’s colleague would like to say something about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. One final supplementary on this from the member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Conway: I’m wondering whether or not the minister’s staff have been able to inform him as to why this unit, which had been opened less than a year ago, had to be resold under such controversial circumstances and whether or not this has had any bearing on the quality of care? Grove Park Manor was, I believe, opened late last year and is now being sold under very controversial circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t know how the hon. member defines controversial circumstances.

Mr. Conway: There was an article in the press which said it was a total mess. If the minister would read it, he might learn something.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The home was sold, the transfer of the licence was carried out and we’re satisfied the residents are being properly cared for. I indicated the one area where we have made a suggestion which the administrators have agreed to adhere to, namely to limit the allocation of inexperienced staff in their scheduling and to hire more experienced staff for the home. I don’t think that makes it a controversial circumstance. Nursing homes are being bought and sold all the time in the province.

Ms. Gigantes: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary.

LAKE ST. CLAIR

Mr. Ruston: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister aware of the plight of boat owners on Lake St. Clair who have having difficulty getting in and out of the channels due to the low water and sandbars? Does he intend to take any action to assist in having these dredged out, or does he intend to co-operate with the federal government as he did, a few years ago when they did it together?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, just as the member got to the location somebody sneezed.

Mr. Ruston: The mouths of the rivers leading to Lake St. Clair.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The rivers in general?

Mr. Ruston: Yes, the mouths of the rivers in Lake St. Clair.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I’m not aware of it, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be glad to look into it.

Mr. Peterson: Why can’t you raise the water?

LOTTERY GRANTS

Ms. Bryden: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that the past president of the Canadian Multiple Sclerosis Society has recently stated the society may have to borrow to maintain its planned research program this year because federal and provincial lotteries are siphoning off funds formerly going to activities of this society and other charities? Is he also aware that, to date, the society has received nothing from the Provincial Lottery funds, which are earmarked for health research, even though that lottery has been in operation for almost a year and the minister issued his guidelines four months ago on how the money was to be allocated --

An hon. member: She steals all my staff.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Bryden: -- and the lottery continues to advertise the money being spent.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member doesn’t really need to explain it. I think the question has been asked.

Ms. Bryden: Will the minister tell us what is causing the holdup on allocation of these health research funds, and whether the Multiple Sclerosis Society is being considered?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The final part of the question was answered last week by my colleague, the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch).

As regards the second part, I met two weeks ago with the delegation from the Multiple Sclerosis Society, headed by Mr. Misener and Mr. White. I indicated they should, in fact, put forward for consideration, specific proposals along with other foundations in the province.

If the member is assuming that the $15 million which has been allocated for health research could be allocated all at once, then she is forgetting, of course, that we are depending on the cash flow, the sales and the profits of the Provincial Lottery. Already, $3.5 million has been allocated for research construction in the Ottawa area, so that a good part of our initial allocation has --

Mr. Warner: Health research lucky draw, that’s terrific.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Does the member want to answer this question?

Mr. Warner: I would be glad to. You can’t.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is very testy today; insecure.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I want to give the facts to the House, not fantasy.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As regards the guidelines that were --

Mr. Martel: He is surly today; had a rough weekend?

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister please ignore the interjections and just answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Gladly, Mr. Speaker, gladly.

An hon. member: Ask if they would stop making them.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The guidelines, the member is quite correct, were issued on March 4 and submissions are coming in now from the various foundations. I indicated at the time that all of the submissions will be subjected to what is known as peer group evaluation as to the potential of the various submissions, and I expect decisions to go out this fall.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: With regard to the cash flow argument, I would ask if the entire $3 million that has already been allocated to one society has been paid out? It seems to me that it’s probably paid in instalments and I fail to understand why it should take so long to evaluate these allotments that societies have to borrow --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question?

Ms. Bryden: I would like to ask why the society should have to borrow when the money is probably there, and why it takes so long to process the applications?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, $2 million has been paid out and that’s been paid out to the Cancer Foundation. That was presented to them on March 4.

As regards the evaluation, the Provincial Lottery funds -- and I have emphasized this repeatedly, first at the meeting on March 4 and then during meetings with the various elements of the research community -- should not be viewed as the panacea. It is $15 million; it is going to be spread among capital for buildings such as in Ottawa; for equipment; for chairs in each of the five health science centres; for research by the district health councils; for research by the statutory and other foundations. The reason it is taking a while is that we had to allow sufficient time first of all for submissions to be made and then, over the summer and into September, we will allow sufficient time for the peer group evaluations to be made of those applications, and for the advice to be given as to which ones merit consideration for part of that $15 million.

I emphasize again, that is not the panacea; I have emphasized repeatedly with the various foundations that they should not in any way let up in their efforts to raise funds publicly, and wherever possible that they should continue to introduce innovations to attract public attention to continue to meet their needs.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health may give the answer to the other question which had been asked previously.

FIRE SAFETY IN NURSING HOMES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to a further question, raised by the member for Wentworth on July 5, with regard to the type of mattresses used in nursing homes and other health care facilities.

At the present time there is nothing in The Nursing Homes Act covering the type of material from which mattresses and pillows may be made, and therefore a variety of materials are in common use in the nursing homes in this province. The mattresses in general use have a spring core and are usually covered by material known as Staphchek, which is a material made of polyvinyl chloride. This cover is waterproof and treated with a flame retardant. Staphchek is manufactured and tested in the United States and I am advised that it exceeds all existing United States specifications. There are no waterproof tickings made in Canada.

I am further advised that most institutions within the last five years have switched to bedding covered by this material, which is mainly manufactured and tested in the state of California. The usual tests involve applying a lighted cigarette to the material and sometimes a lighted match also. According to the National Research Council in Ottawa, at the present time there are no standards for testing the flammability of bedding in Canada. Their products safety branch is working on this matter and is currently trying to establish suitable standards.

The theoretical hazard of nursing homes related to bedding may be defined in terms of residents safety in their bedrooms. Existing legislation requires nursing home operators to adhere to the following provision. I quote from Ontario Regulation 196/12 as amended, section 39(v): “They must develop policies and rules to govern tobacco smoking, including a rule that, except at such times as supervision is provided, a resident shall not smoke tobacco in bed.”

In addition to the foregoing, the entire aspect of general and fire safety in nursing homes is presently being studied as an integral part of a detailed review of the existing Nursing Homes Act and its regulations. The project co-ordinator has been requested to explore this issue in depth with the fire marshal’s office in an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing provisions. It should also be noted that the product safety branch of the National Research Council of Canada is attempting to establish suitable standards regarding such problems.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Bolan: My question is for the Premier, In view of the fact that the rate of unemployment in northeastern Ontario is an appalling 12 per cent, what proposals, if any, does the government have for job creation in that area?

Mr. Cassidy: None.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Our proposals for job creation are well known, I am sure, to the members opposite. While we have a particular interest in northeastern Ontario, we also have a particular interest in northwestern Ontario as well. It is not confined to northeastern Ontario; we are very concerned about eastern Ontario; we are concerned about western Ontario --

Mr. Nixon: Southwestern and the urban areas.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a joke.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and we are concerned about central Ontario. I would have to say that because of the policies initiated by this government, the very sound financial approach we are taking to the management of the affairs of this province --

Mr. Cassidy: You trivialize a very serious question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- while we have a much higher unemployment rate than we would like, it is better than most comparable jurisdictions. We think with this same rational approach that we are taking we are dealing with the issue as effectively as possible.

Mr. Warner: Same old nonsense.

Mr. Bolan: Supplementary: Does the Premier accept the principle recently enunciated by the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. McKeough) that an unemployment rate of 5.3 per cent in this province is considered full employment and is therefore acceptable?

Mr. Roy: You are touchy on that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really didn’t think we were at an all candidates’ meeting here this afternoon, but if the hon. member wants me to reply, if he’s got half an hour, I would be delighted to do so.

Mr. Cassidy: You are grandstanding.

Hon. Mr. Davis: May I start off my brief submission to the new member for Nipissing by saying that my recollection -- and it is only a recollection -- is that the Treasurer never said that figure, whatever it is, was acceptable.

Mr. Nixon: That is your defence.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My recollection was and is that there was a paper presented along with the budget. We’ve been through this several times.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) is whispering to his colleague. “I didn’t ask the question.” I am only endeavouring to help his colleague as much as I can.

My recollection is that there was a budget paper --

Mrs. Campbell: That’s where you are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for St. George wants to raise this issue, I will be delighted to debate it with her too; and any other issue.

Mr. Conway: The Premier didn’t hear Merle Dickerson’s campaign speeches.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s what I say, I didn’t think we were at an all candidates’ meeting. I thought we hashed this out in June.

Mr. Conway: Merle was much better than this.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I am sure. In Deep River --

Mr. Speaker: Will the Premier please continue with the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker; they are interjecting.

Mr. Speaker: That is right, I noticed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There was a budget paper where some people were putting forward the suggestion that, because of the great changes taking place in our society today, one should use as sort of a guidepost a five point something figure.

Mr. Nixon: Mackenzie King the Second.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My best recollection, too, is that the leader of the New Democratic Party nationally has used a three point something figure, or four, I don’t know what the figure is. All I have said, and what the Treasurer said, and I will repeat it here again, and it is again --

Mr. Kerrio: Is he running this place?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Pardon, do you want to ask a supplementary? Mr. Speaker, I can’t concentrate on my answer if they are going to continue to interject.

What we have said is simply that we don’t accept any principle where any person -- male or female -- who wants to work cannot find a job. Our policies are directed to seeing that for everybody who wishes to find a job in this province, to the best of our ability, we will see that a job is available.

Mr. Breithaupt: Even in Kitchener?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Even in Kitchener.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Can the Premier indicate if he has anything specific to suggest for northeastern Ontario and the various areas in northeastern Ontario which are suffering unemployment rates much higher than 12 per cent, such as along the north shore where it’s about 20 per cent. What specifically does he have to offer?

Mr. Breaugh: Nothing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are always prepared to entertain any constructive idea.

Mr. Wildman: Build the Granary Lake Road.

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Pardon; I didn’t hear that. Along with the member’s leader, I certainly don’t believe that nationalization of the resource industry is a constructive solution to the problem. I don’t think that’s going to solve anything for us.

My, I was glad to see that reformation take place on Channel 9 that night.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: So Mr. Speaker, we’re concerned about the north shore --

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: You could build a road through --

Hon. Mr. Davis: We’re concerned about all areas of the province. As I said to the newly-elected member for Nipissing, we will continue to pursue those policies that will enable us to provide fuller employment over a period of time.

Mr. Davidson: The Premier doesn’t have a policy to pursue.

PRAXIS INQUIRY

Mr. Lawlor: A question to the Attorney General about the Praxis break-in situation: On or about July 6 he ordered an OPP investigation in Ontario on this matter; the following day, Francis Fox, Solicitor General of Canada, reversed himself and ordered a royal commission. Is the Attorney General continuing his present investigations, or what are his relationships with that new royal commission?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I forget the precise date, but some days prior to the announcement by the federal Solicitor General of the federal inquiry, I received a letter from Mr. Fox by special courier indicating that certain individuals might have information in relation to the Praxis break-in.

I immediately delivered a copy of the letter to the chairman of the Ontario Police Commission, Mr. Elmer Bell, and requested a report. Mr. Bell subsequently announced the inquiry that is actually being carried on by the Ontario Police Commission with the assistance of the OPP. As far as I know that inquiry is continuing; I know of no direct relationship or association between those conducting that inquiry and those -- whoever they are -- who have been given the responsibility with respect to the federal inquiry.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary: Does the Attorney General agree that they appear to be somewhat related?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, at this time.

CCAS DISPUTE

Mrs. Campbell: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: Surprise, surprise.

Mrs. Campbell: You know, I have a series of questions. I wish we could have time to go over all of them, particularly having heard the Premier talk about the government’s employment policies. I do hope he will be making the statement that he promised about the jobs the government has created.

But with reference to the continuing strike at the Catholic Children’s Aid Society, has the minister considered taking steps to appoint a children’s committee, in view of the seriousness of this matter; or in the alternative, invoking section 18 of The Child Welfare Act, which would allow the minister to replace the existing board of directors with a temporary board in order to resolve this strike?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would like to assure the hon. member that I have taken steps to be fully advised of the alternatives that are available to me as minister should the situation merit such action, either in the near future or the distant future, depending upon how long the current situation continues.

I am advised by my staff, who are monitoring the situation as closely as possible, that the welfare of the children is not at this point in jeopardy. Should there be any indication of a threat to the welfare of the children, I can assure the member that I would be prepared to consider prompt action under those circumstances.

In the meantime, I think that I must be very cautious so as not to unnecessarily intervene, other than for the welfare of the children, into what is from my point of view a dispute between management and employees. If I do appear to be proceeding cautiously, it’s so as not to interfere with that process at this point in time. But I can assure the House that if the member or anyone else has information that indicates the welfare of the children may be in jeopardy, I would welcome that information and review it immediately.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the information coming to the minister as to the welfare of these children come from the same sources who assured him of the ongoing welfare of the children vis-à-vis Metro and the decisions involving residential care?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the staff of the ministry, the staff of the ministry has not changed substantially in that period of time. I must say that I have confidence in their advice.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s the problem.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary to the same minister, given that the absence of 85 child-care and other professional staff, by virtue of the strike, inevitably threatens the welfare of children, will the minister not at least appeal to the executive director to agree to voluntary arbitration? Will he not at least make that appeal personally to him, as I have?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I don’t wish to get into a discussion of the circumstances that prevail at the present time I’m sure the hon. member knows there is even disagreement as to the number of persons who may be on strike at the present time. I think what the hon. member is inviting me to consider doing would be an interference by a minister who does not have jurisdiction to interfere in an area of a labour dispute.

CUPE BARGAINING

Mr. Kerrio: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the fact that in regional Niagara, CUPE was on strike with the region, and at the same time striking the city of Niagara Falls and at the same time taking a strike vote in Fort Erie? In view of the fact that we’re now talking province-wide bargaining for many trades, is there any consideration being given to reasonable area bargaining with CUPE employees?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, under the broad terms of The Labour Relations Act in this province I would think that voluntary movement in that direction could be achieved by both the employers and the unions if they wished to go that way. Certainly the bill we have reintroduced in this session, and which will come up for second reading, is an experiment in that kind of program. We believe province-wide bargaining is appropriate in certain specific instances and that may be one of the instances, I don’t know.

At least, I think the concept of bargaining on a regional basis for those areas in which regional government is in effect might be a much more rational approach than bargaining on a one-by-one basis with the municipalities and suffering the same kind of whip-sawing that one sees in other industries as a result of small bargaining units and a municipality thereof.

Mr. Kerrio: Would I then take the minister’s answer in content to be that she would wait for some initiative from unions or the region rather than some initiative from the ministry itself -- such as the minister’s involvement earlier on?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I don’t think the member can construe that from my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I did say that indeed it could be at the initiative of both the unions and the employers, however.

CAMP BISON

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Acting Minister of Government Services: Has an agreement been reached between the federal authorities and his ministry concerning the purchase of Camp Bison by the feds as a maximum security prison?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am not aware, but I will find out and let the hon. member know.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary then, while the minister is looking it up: If it’s true in fact this agreement has been reached, would the minister find out why the province is delaying finalizing that agreement until a survey of the property can be completed?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can guess at the answer to that one: You need a survey to give a deed.

Mr. Martel: As another supplementary question: Because the government has had three years to do that, doesn’t the minister think it is high time we get on with the business of resolving it rather than losing the money we’re losing there now?

NURSES’ DISPUTE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier: Would the Premier care to elucidate in this House as to what, if any, positive outcome there was to his meeting with the nurses from the Renfrew County Board of Health last week?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, while visiting in that very delightful part of the province --

Mr. Roy: When? During the election?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Roy: Isn’t it nice? You build up --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am of course delighted --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Premier will answer the question. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that at least part of Renfrew county exercises great wisdom, as is evident by the parliamentary assistant --

Mr. S. Smith: If that is the best evidence you have you are in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If I were Leader of the Opposition I wouldn’t look too far to the left or the right or behind for evidence. But anyway --

Mr. O’Neil: That wasn’t very nice, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it was really said facetiously, as were his observations about the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Premier please answer the question.

Mr. Wildman: Everything you say is facetious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Where did I leave off?

Mr. Roy: You didn’t begin.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was asked by three of the public health nurses in Petawawa during the course of the campaign if I might discuss the issue with them. They came to my office, along with two representatives of the nurses’ association in company with the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) and the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson). As a result of those discussions, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health plan to convene a meeting, as I understand it with the association of health boards. When that meeting is held, perhaps we will be in a position to have something further to say. But that was, I would suggest, the most direct result of that particular meeting in my office last Thursday or Friday.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: As a result of the Premier’s May 26 meeting in Petawawa, as I understand from a letter written to him on June 13, he promised the nurses in question that from his point of view after June 9 he would be in a better position to offer something substantial and specific in terms of the resolution of this very serious public dispute in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: They thought you would be in opposition.

Mr. Conway: Is there at this point, now fully a month after June 9, anything specific and substantial, as promised by the Premier to the nurses, who are similarly disturbed by this controversy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the three ladies who were present in my office -- and I don’t usually discuss what goes on in my office -- I think I made it clear to them, and I think they understood, that I was referring very directly to the Renfrew county situation.

There was some suggestion that the government had a province-wide solution. I think they understood that they perhaps misunderstood what I had been saying to them earlier, in the midst of a rather large group of people at this meeting, that I did say to them on that particular date that I couldn’t meet with them before June 9; that my timetable was relatively full. I had explained there were other matters to be dealt with and that after June 9 I would be delighted to meet with them. I honoured that commitment, as I say, I think it was last Thursday afternoon, and as a result of that meeting I have already informed the hon. member what the next step is.

ENTERO-VIOFORM PRESCRIPTION

Mr. Foulds: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health advise us what steps he has taken and what power he has to ensure that the drug sold under the brand name Entero-Vioform is sold by prescription only? There is increasing scientific evidence that that drug can cause some brain damage and blindness and it has been sold over the counter as an antidiarrheal drug.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m not familiar with that particular drug, Mr. Speaker, so I’ll have to take that as notice and look into it.

NUCLEAR PLANT SECURITY

Mr. Bradley: A question of the Minister of Energy: In light of the report that three members of the Greenpeace organization were allegedly able to easily trespass on Ontario Hydro property at the Bruce nuclear generating station and elude security personnel for a considerable period of time, is the minister satisfied with security at the Bruce station and other nuclear plants? If not, is he prepared to review security procedures at all nuclear generating stations in the province?

Mr. S. Smith: Great question.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, we encourage visitors.

An hon. member: At four o’clock in the morning by canoe?

Interjections.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: May I add, preferably not by canoe, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What have you got against canoeing?

Mr. Speaker: Now, for the answer.

Interjections.

[3:00]

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I’m not particularly disturbed. There was some dramatization of that. I think we had a few environmental streakers who were interested in a little publicity, but really there was no breach of security. If they’d like to visit the plant like the thousands of visitors who do, then we’d be delighted to show them through.

Mr. Wildman: What if they had been carrying machine guns?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The building that houses the reactor is sufficiently strong to withstand the impact of a 747, so I don’t think we’re going to be too concerned about three canoeists who happen to visit the grounds of the Bruce nuclear station.

Mr. Kerrio: I’m glad you are not the defence minister.

Mr. Cassidy: Did you try crashing a 747 against it?

Interjections.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary: Is the minister satisfied that people cannot have access to areas where they could either endanger themselves or ultimately endanger others, with this apparent laxity in security in these nuclear plants?

Interjections.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Again, I don’t accept the question of a laxness of security. There’s really not much difference, in that situation, between a conventional plant or a nuclear- fuelled plant in terms of the exterior. It’s when you get within the confinement of the building that the added security is present. It’s much more secure and safe, I’m sure, than the conventional type of generating plant or a transformer site.

RENFREW NURSING HOME

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I would like to know if the ministry had foreknowledge, when it granted the transfer of the nursing home licence for Grove Park Lodge, that all its staff would be dismissed?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not that I’m aware of, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: I’d like to know why it’s considered adequate that a transfer should take place when what the minister describes as the identification of a possible nursing care problem has arisen directly from the fact that there didn’t seem to be foreknowledge? Why should that be considered adequate in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point is that prior to transfer, a considerable number of meetings are held with the new or proposed owners to apprise them of the regulations. During the initial stages a number of visits are made to ensure that they are not only aware of the requirements of the Act and regulations but that they are being followed.

In this case, which involved the changing of a number of staff, our supervisors of nursing indicated that the inexperienced people should be spread among the shifts and not concentrated on any one shift.

So our concern is for the level of care. Certainly we did not, to the best of my knowledge, have any prior knowledge that the new owners proposed to do this. It is certainly not a normal practice.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: I’d like to ask the minister to state clearly to the House that the regulations involving a transfer of nursing home licence will be changed so the ministry finds out, beforehand, whether all the staff is going to be fired immediately on transfer.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is being a little bit --

Mr. Reid: Ridiculous.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well, what’s a synonym?

Mr. Swart: He’s concerned about people.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister will just complete the answer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are naturally concerned. Our first concern is for the care of the patients.

Mr. Deans: That needs staff.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t think it would be wise, to do as I think the member is suggesting, to require a new purchaser to take everyone, lock, stock and barrel, so the new owners wouldn’t have any choice at all as to who would be a problem.

What if we were to get an answer, “No, that wasn’t the intention. It happened afterwards.” We would still be as much involved in making sure that if everyone did leave --

Ms. Gigantes: After the fact.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: By the way, not everyone did leave, let’s make that clear. The member is trying to paint a picture that everyone was dismissed. Everybody wasn’t dismissed.

Ms. Gigantes: That was the information.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, not everyone did leave.

Mr. Deans: Eighteen were fired.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Roy: My God, you make some stupid decisions sometimes.

Mr. Speaker: The clock is five minutes after the hour.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member should take back that remark.

Mr. Roy: No. You allowed three supplementaries and then you cut me off.

Some hon. members: Oh, sit down

Mr. Speaker: I have to abide by the clock.

An hon. member: Rules are rules.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECLAMATION COMMISSION ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill 58, An Act to establish the Ontario Waste Disposal and Reclamation Commission.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to establish an Ontario Waste Disposal and Reclamation Commission to have the authority in matters concerning disposal. reclamation and recycling of liquid, solid and gaseous wastes, with particular reference to the possible development of energy from these sources.

Mr. Conway: The Tory ad campaign.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUCCESSOR RIGHTS (CROWN TRANSFERS) ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moved second reading of Bill 4, An Act to provide for Successor Rights on the Transfer of an Undertaking to or from the Crown.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the bill. We feel it is of great usefulness and utility that these arrangements can be made now by law so that the successor rights in the transferences of contracts are going to be established in a way that is going to be effective, we believe, and no doubt on the basis of both parties, with sufficient assistance by the two boards concerned so that there will be an objective approach to any problems that might arise.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement with the bill but we would like to have some discussion on at least one of the points in the particular bill before we proceed with it to final reading.

In section 6(1), the bill says: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, (a) a trade union or council of trade unions shall not exercise representation rights or act as bargaining agent in respect of employees employed in an undertaking transferred from an employer to the Crown unless the trade union or council of trade unions qualifies as an employee organization under The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act ... ”

When one checks The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, section (h), it very clearly states: “Employee organizations mean an organization of employees formed for the purpose of regulating relations between the employer and employees under the Act.”

We think the bill itself is a good one. There is a long-overdue need for successor rights in this field, as there is in the whole area of the trade union movement, not just with unions that may be involved in the public or the governmental field. But this bill does not seem to be reciprocal. It means that coming in from an outside group to The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, a union could be put in a position where it has to recertify.

I say that because there is at least one example on record, and that was the effort to organize the Workmen’s Compensation Board employees back in 1974. CUPE at that time was denied certification based strictly on that section, that the unit was not an organization set up to represent employees under The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. They had to go through a second effort at organization, a second re-signing, and set up a specific local to take care to qualify under The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

It’s a concern of at least some people in the field, the various unions that may be involved in these fields, Mr. Speaker, that it’s not really a reciprocal bill, which it should be. It doesn’t seem to work both ways and I think there should be chance for the parties who are interested to have some input in this particular point.

We’d like to see it broader. We’d like to see some of the restrictions, including political activity, removed. But even without those the bill itself is a good one. It establishes a principle that has to be established, but I think we have to answer the question of whether it works one way only and whether or not it is reciprocal, and there are serious reservations on the part of some of the unions as to whether or not it is a reciprocal bill. We would like to discuss that matter with the minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, my own position is that it is a reciprocal bill because the same provisions apply. Somebody who is going out will be under The Labour Relations Act, anybody who is coming in would be under The Crown Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act; but in view of the agreement in principle by both the other parties I’m prepared to send this to committee of the whole House and we will deal with it when the House resumes. At that time we can discuss these matters. Perhaps in the interim we may be able to solve some of these questions.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. B. Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 22, An Act to amend The Labour Relations Act.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for a chance to say a few words concerning this bill, a bill to give us province-wide, single-trade bargaining in the commercial and industrial sector of the construction industry. It is a bill that will have a great effect on the labour scene in the province and a bill which we hope will clear up some of the labour-management relations in the provincial construction industry. It is hoped that its enactment will result in the reduction of bargaining situations from approximately 250 to approximately 25 as a result of the requirement that bargaining within that sector be conducted on a single-trade, province-wide basis.

We will be supporting the principle of the bill but I must say that the enactment of it by this government is long overdue. First introduced as Bill 176 and then as Bill 14, the delays encountered because the ministry has not taken a strong initiative in seeing it passed have proved disappointing to all parties.

I would like to point out to the Legislature that some time ago very pertinent statements were made concerning this legislation by the previous member for Sarnia, Mr. Jim Bullbrook, as far back as 1968 and again during discussions on the bill in 1976. At that time, Mr. Bullbrook called for the principle of this type of province-wide, single-trade bargaining, because he recognized at that time that the leap-frogging and whipsawing that was going on was leading us down the path toward inflation. This has, indeed, proved true. It is indeed unfortunate that governments did not recognize this at that time.

I might say it is because of the representations made by Mr. Bullbrook, along with other politicians and those far-sighted people connected with the contractors’ associations and the trade union movement, that the bill is finally coming to light.

Last week, our caucus met with Mr. Tom Armstrong, the Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Franks of the Franks commission, some members of the contractors’ association and some leaders of the trade unions for further clarification on the bill. This meeting proved very informative and we thank those people for their comments and suggestions, and the minister for having Mr. Armstrong speak to us.

Since approximately 70 per cent of the agreements in the Construction industry expired last April, and large segments of the industry are working without contracts and most of the renewals have been for only a one-year period expiring in April, 1978, we are sympathetic with those who have talked, written and wired us stating the bill should be passed in time so that parties concerned have time to make adequate preparations for 1978 negotiations.

I must say, though, that we have some concerns. We feel that the bill should go to committee so that persons wishing to have further input will have a chance to do so. We hope that committee meetings can be completed early this fall, before we reconvene in October, giving an opportunity for speedy passage at that time so that these preparations for 1978 negotiations can be commenced and completed.

Some of the things that we feel should be dealt with in committee are the concern of the smaller union locals who are worried that their autonomy may vanish and the big unions may control all; the examination of how similar legislation has worked in other provinces; and the careful examination of an employer co-ordinating agency, and if a need is found for some sort of co-ordinating agency the extent to which governments should be involved in regulating the details of the agency’s power and so on -- should it be left only to the Lieutenant Governor in Council or left more to the responsibility of employer groups?

The committee should also be concerned with the effect of the legislation on Canadian autonomy. Also, the committee could deal with some thoughts on the selection of negotiating teams, ratification of agreements, processing of grievances locally, discrimination against those who are members or wish to join Canadian unions in order to make sure that it does not affect the welcomed trend toward the greater Canadian autonomy within international unions. We are also disappointed that no new initiatives are incorporated in the bill to assist in resolving disputes on a continuing basis.

It is hoped that with public input on these and other matters, this bill will be passed -- a bill that we can all be proud of.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief on the bill, simply because it is going to receive what I hope will be an adequate public airing over the course of the summer months. By the time we get back here in the fall it will have been changed substantially; or failing that, at least the people in the construction industry who have expressed grave reservations about the implications of the Act and the effect of the Act on the way they normally conduct their business, will have made themselves heard by the ministry so that appropriate changes can be made and their fears allayed by what is told to them during the course of events.

I want to tell the House that since the first introduction of the bill there have been a number of occasions when I have discussed the import of this legislation with people in the construction industry, both on management side and on the trade union side, and I have gathered from this experience a great deal of deeply-felt concern about how that bill will affect them.

I find it very difficult, during discussions of that kind, to be able to explain adequately what the ministry might have had in mind when it was putting the bill forward, although I say to the minister, without any hesitation, that the thought of providing a vehicle for province-wide bargaining in certain areas is one which we have long toyed with and felt would probably serve a useful purpose. I think that the fears of some of the individuals may well be fears brought about by a lack of knowledge.

In some cases, they are going to be legitimate. They are going to be legitimate to the extent that they will detrimentally affect the individual people involved, and it may well be that one overall agreement may not adequately serve all people in a single trade, regardless of where they happen to be in the province of Ontario at any given time. I think that has been the concern brought forward most frequently, that conditions change dramatically. The needs in various parts of the province change somewhat from region to region and the collective bargaining process is intended, and over the years has taken those things into account.

With that in mind, of course, it is necessary to insure that opportunities to pay recognition to and take appropriate action to alleviate hardships that occur, region by region, should be maintained in one form or another. That doesn’t mean there can’t be one overall contract governing those matters which have universal application.

Frankly, I felt that time was needed. When we were looking at the legislation earlier this year, one of my fears was that we were attempting to push it forward much too vigorously, much too quickly, and that there wasn’t going to be a sufficient time span for the working out of the detail that was so necessary if it were going to be accepted.

The one important part about this legislation, and the thing I am most concerned about, is that the legislation should gain acceptance. It won’t work otherwise. There has to be a general and broad acceptance not only by the leadership of the trade unions and the leadership of industry, but there has to be a fairly broad acceptance by the rank and file at the level of both the smaller contractors who are affected by the industrial relations that go on at the larger level, and the rank and file in the trade unions who somehow feel they are not being represented adequately in terms of the expression of their concerns.

So I think that if this summer affords the process that will enable those people to become sufficiently familiar with the legislation; if the minister is open-minded enough to accept the recommendations that will come forward, that do speak to the individual concerns region by region, of many people that are legitimate; if the minister recognizes that it won’t he possible in the province of Ontario to move into an overall province-wide collective bargaining procedure that will quickly bring about single contracts governing a particular trade, that there will be a transitional period -- and that transitional period will vary from trade to trade, in some instances, because of the great disparities between existing contracts; if she is prepared to recognize those things and allow for an adequate period of time for the transition to be made, helping along the way in whatever way we can to ease that transition -- to make it possible to bring about, in the final analysis, a master contract that will affect the overall working conditions, and allowing for subsidiary contracts wherever they are required to pay particular heed to special problems -- this process will ultimately work itself through and will be beneficial.

If, on the other hand, the ministry were to be bull-headed and to insist on more rigid contractual arrangements, then I suspect it would cause nothing but chaos throughout the industry, and we would be faced week after week with confrontation, both in the work place and here. I don’t think that any of us who are in the business of politics, as I am and the minister is, would want that to be the end result of anything that we did.

I am particularly concerned. I think the bill as it now stands does not have the kind of universal acceptance that the minister’s aides and advisers may have led her to believe it has. I believe there is substantial and justifiable concern out in the community, in the work place, on both sides. I believe that that concern will only be taken care of -- will only be allayed, I suppose -- if we are able to give an adequate period for consultation both now, as we go towards third reading through the committee process, and beyond, as the bill finally becomes the Act and the Act finally takes application over the people in the field.

I want to say to the minister that if we were required to vote on this bill and to make it a law, we would not be able to support it in its present form. But we also say to her in all fairness, that since she has been reasonable in making sure there will be adequate opportunity all summer and into the fall to have the bill heard throughout the province, and that people who are concerned will be able to travel reasonable distances and express their concerns, since that has happened we will reserve judgement, on that basis, on the final bill, which we think will likely be considerably different from the bill we have before us; we hope it will be considerably different from the bill that we have before us.

At that point, on third reading, we may want to have further comment then on what may normally have been considered a debate on principle. Since, as I say, I suspect the principle will have changed at least to some degree between now and third reading -- I think it will -- if it has, then I think on third reading we may have some more comment to make. If the bill even at that point doesn’t meet with what we judge to be in the best interests -- and this is obviously a personal decision, a decision depending on from which side of the fence one views things -- if the bill came forward in a condition that we didn’t feel met the Objectives that I mentioned to the minister, we would not be able to support it at that time.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few brief comments on the bill. I think it’s important that a contribution of one individual who is no longer here be put on the record. That is a contribution of the former member for Sarnia, Mr. Bullbrook.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It was put on the record and that is the contribution --

Mr. Roy: Yes, I’m putting it on. Don’t start annoying me because I’ll compare his contribution to the minister’s and then he’ll be in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If you had been here you would have heard the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil) put it on the record.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Albert, stop being so snarky.

Mr. Roy: It’s my day. Monday is always that sort of a day.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has put on the record that we are supporting the bill and has made a number of comments appreciating the fact that the bill will be studied during the interim period, but I think I should emphasize and put on the record the contributions made to this House in relation to this legislation by the former member for Sarnia, Mr. Bullbrook.

I can recall discussing at length with him and many of us who were in the caucus at that time joined in, the difficulties when the province-wide bargaining did not exist. He used to emphasize, and he has done so for a number of years, the difficulty that created. Of course we saw radical examples of it during the inflation years of 1973, 1974, 1975 -- during that period when there was what was commonly called “leap-frogging.” This was when a particular area would hold out for a particular amount of money and then other areas would take that as a base rate and proceed from that.

I can recall the former member for Sarnia commenting about the type of legislation that was necessary to avoid that sort of thing. He said it just was not logical that bargaining proceed in that fashion.

Having talked as often as he did in the House about this situation, and having brought forward certain suggestions how leap-frogging could be avoided, I think this bill in some measure is a reflection of some of the ideas he brought forward. I’m not saying the ministry doesn’t deserve some of the credit for it, but I think that certainly he made a contribution in that direction. I would hope that if this works out, as we’re all hopeful it will in the long term, if the member for Sarnia had made no other contribution that would be a substantial contribution to the welfare of the province. I think that type of contribution on a bill such as this should be underlined and he should be congratulated and given full marks for, over a number of years, having brought forward this type of idea.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I too want to say I support the principle of this bill. There are a number of changes that should be made in the bill, but I have felt for a long time that larger bargaining units or areas would be effective and would resolve some of our disputes. There are those who might argue it concentrates your strength as well. I don’t really think that would be the case. I think there are enough counter arguments in terms of being able to settle for an industry or trade and that you can make a good point for larger collective bargaining units and areas. I think that in itself makes a lot of sense.

But one of the things we have to be careful of in this bill as well is that when we’re legislating legislation like this the intent is to resolve some of the disputes that exist, and in particular some of the problems that have existed in the construction field. I think if we can reduce some of the conflict there, it’s going to be of benefit not only in the construction industry but to labour generally.

There’s been some spillover through disputes in the construction field for a long time in the trade union movement, and I think for that reason the bill makes a lot of sense; but it also makes a lot of sense that the bill be one that does accomplish that. If we start out with a bill that further splits the trade union movement right off the bat, or the construction unions, we’re going to be in trouble; we’re going to have a fight for X number of days, months, or the first two or three contracts, until they find out just how the thing’s working. There are always disputes along the way.

[3:30]

It seems to me one or two reservations are held, not only by the group within the construction field that oppose this bill generally, but some of those who have taken a responsible look at the necessity of making some changes and who agree with the bill. However, one or two of the areas that all of them agree with is that it seems to be a little bit difficult to understand how we would legislate CLARA, or the construction association, but not legislate a certification that prevents double-breasted unionism; or a contractor being able to just set up another dummy company or non-union company and operate in other parts of the province and not be covered by a province-wide collective agreement that may be negotiated.

There are some reservations in the bill and some changes that should be looked at. Probably most of all those people who are directly involved should have a chance to sit down at public hearings and voice their arguments; and those that carry some weight may convince the ministry, I would hope, to make some changes, I don’t think they would be major changes in the bill. If they can’t convince the ministry of that then that is another matter.

I do think the idea of sending it out to committee is an excellent one, and thus sending it out for hearings in the province. I don’t think it will hold the bill up that long. I think it can be done relatively quickly. We have to make an effort to understand the differences of opinion that do exist in the construction union field before we legislate what we think is the answer to some of the problems. In my own opinion, I want the bill, or the bill hopefully with a few changes, to go through, but we would be crazy if we don’t first see if we can resolve some of the fears that are held out there, and fairly strongly held, by Some of the groups in the construction field.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am very pleased to find there is general acceptance of this legislation, which I might say is constructive legislation. it is important to realize that much of the discussion of the principle of the bill was carried on last December. At that time I acknowledged, with some profuse words as a matter of fact, the contribution which had been made by the former hon. member for Sarnia to the development of this legislation.

I would have to say, as well, that the consultative process has been well and truly used in the development of this specific piece of legislation. It is as a result of the concerns expressed within this House and within the industry that the Franks commission was appointed. The Franks commission held hearings throughout the entire province consulting this specific segment, the commercial, institutional and industrial sector of the construction industry.

In addition to that kind of consultation, there was major consultation with representatives of both employers and employees in the many segments of the construction industry in the development of the draft legislation itself. So it has withstood already a good deal of the consultative process.

To be subjected to it once more is not a destructive thing. I think it will be a very worthwhile process, if it does nothing more than to allay some of the groundless fears which are being expressed out in the community by some of the groups to which this bill will apply.

I should say that it is not like the legislation in other provinces. There are major differences. Therefore, I do not foresee the kind of floundering which has occurred in a couple of other jurisdictions. It should -- and I would agree -- support the concept of increased Canadian autonomy; I think it does that. There have been some facts expressed that for certain of the unions the direction in province-wide bargaining would come from Washington. I don’t believe we can afford to let that happen.

We have to make sure this bill is sufficiently strong to ensure that that happens as rarely as possible.

I think there does have to be some flexibility within this kind of legislation, and I really felt it was built into the legislation. The legislation is not written at this point so rigidly that modifications are not possible within the understanding of the regional differences which occur within the province of Ontario. I think the process of sending it to committee, which I most heartily support, will give time for examination of detail because, as the hon. members across the floor have said, this kind of legislation will only work if it does have general and fairly widespread acceptance.

I believe that that acceptance will be there and I believe the hearings which must be held in order to allow the input of both union groups and employer groups throughout the province will provide us with the opportunity to inform all of those individuals about the error of their concerns, or to make minor modifications which may in fact help this bill.

I believe very strongly that this bill is absolutely essential if we are to begin to make real progress in labour relations in this specific segment of a very important sector of the industry of this province. I believe if indeed we can provide the leadership in this area that many other segments will indeed follow, perhaps voluntarily, and that we will begin to attack the kinds of problems which have led us in the past, I am afraid, down the garden path towards inflation and increasing disharmony in labour relations and labour-management relations which has done no one any good.

I believe this bill is to the benefit of all it affects directly and to the ultimate benefit of many other segments within the industrial sector of our economy. I am very pleased to know that both parties are going to approve it in principle.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for standing committee on resources development.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved second reading of Bill 23, An Act to provide for the Transfer of Services relating to Children.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address myself to this bill and I regret to say that to me it is a mean little bill.

Having in mind the fact that we have had reports over years on the need to address ourselves to the matter of residential services for children, it is tragic to me that the government has only been able to move itself through the mechanics of transferring services to one ministry, and that it has not before us at this late date either an expressed philosophy or indeed an omnibus bill that would give to those of us with concern, some feeling that the ministry is in fact addressing itself to some guidelines covering both programs and care for children in our communities.

That, as seems so often to happen with this government, is something that will come along down the road. How far down the road, one can’t possibly know, except that from experience one knows that it may or may not be within the life of this Parliament.

The minister’s statement of Thursday -- and I say it was somewhat, to me, a black Thursday -- regarding the progress of the reorganization, was certainly in the light of the history of this chaos, at best disappointing and at worst indicative of the total chaos which seems still to continue.

When at last an operating or line ministry undertook to make changes that obviously could not be made by the secretariat, which totally failed in its function in this area, I had hoped there would be some direction that would be not too quick to allow for proper consideration, but where we would not see the new deputy in this area spending his time prancing around the country rather than looking to the problem in depth as it exists. If he had been going around the country looking at the various residential services it might have been better, but instead it would seem that he was simply going around to meet with the municipal people and to try to assure the staff of their continuing function.

When we come to the organization which was provided to us by way of a chart, that reorganization speaks volumes. It would appear that the same people are running the show, with few exceptions -- the same people who had so adroitly covered the Browndale situation and the true state of the group home situation in Ontario. For example, the unlicensed homes, the fire and safety problems. If you will remember, Mr. Speaker, nobody apparently knows how many of the numerous unlicensed homes are operating contrary to fire, health and safety regulations.

It is encouraging to see that the minister has chosen someone as able as His Honour judge Thomson to bring this matter into focus. But I wonder what good it is to bring in someone like Judge Thomson, like Claude Chamberlain and other very able people, putting them at the top of the organizational chart without a total rationalization of the structure underneath. It does seem that the same set of empires continues to exist, albeit under one roof.

Having discussed the organization, I suppose we now see the reasons why the timetable would suggest that basic reforms are very far off indeed. I suppose it is characteristic of this government, as I said earlier, to get the mechanics sorted out and then if, perchance, some element of philosophy creeps in, it may do so in some subterranean fashion, and it will be a long time before we address ourselves to the total concern for children.

I think specifically of the references made by the minister to the children’s committees. It is clear that the minister at this point has no idea of the composition of such committees. Perhaps we can expect that he will be prepared to accept Mr. Robarts’ suggestion, at least for Metropolitan Toronto, although honestly I would be saddened if we don’t have something closer to the children than what is suggested in that report. However, the ability to delegate is present.

Certainly it would seem there is a battle shaping up over this question -- not only between municipal officials and service providers, but within the government itself. When, for instance, under this legislation, will we see any rationalization of the wide range in per diems which we have frequently attacked and which the interministry report identifies as a serious issue? When, for instance, will we be permitted to have answers to the questions which have been on the order paper for so long? I suppose when someone feels that it is important to address oneself to something other than mechanics.

[3:45]

What is more, on the per diem issue, it is a major waste of money, and that is public money, without apparent advantage to children. Because when I use the word “waste” I do not for one moment resent any money that is spent to assist our young people, particularly those who are very troubled. When I say “waste”, it is because the minister and no one else seem to have come to grips with the responsibility of government to look at the question of accountability -- each and every day this government continues to allow the unsupported and unjustified flow of public money to continue without accountability, this government will stand condemned, having made no basic reform in this field at all. In this mean little bill there is still nothing.

On this issue of accountability, it shocks us to see so little recognition by the government of the need for immediate accountability both in program and financial terms. There would appear to be some tacit acceptance that children’s committees will wring accountability from all the various service providers one way or another. But the minister seemed to indicate that initially at least -- and we don’t know in this government how long initially is -- they will be looking again at mechanics and again at budgets.

I wonder when we will have the right to know what is going on in these various residential services, when we will have the right to have questions answered? Does the minister expect that once this bill passes -- and of course we have to support it because it’s the only way that we know to get the government to move another step -- does the minister feel he must wait five years down the road before he can answer the question of accountability on these services? It’s been some years now since we’ve been asking the questions, and there has been no accountability by the government.

I recognize the fact that this is not deemed to be a major piece of legislation and one would certainly understand that it is not. I have expressed my concerns because I find so often that when I’m prepared to say okay, go ahead, get the thing in motion, for the second stage it’s “hope deferred maketh the heart sick.”

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise and join in this debate on the children’s services bill. We do so with more than a certain amount of anxiety and apprehension, I want to tell you. We intend to support this bill on second reading, but we do so very reluctantly; and we are reluctant because we know this ministry so well.

The issue that we should probably address ourselves to in this debate is the competence of the Ministry of Community and Social Services to assume the new and enormous responsibilities which are vested in it by virtue of this bill.

It’s not the first time the Ministry of Community and Social Services has made promises of major reforms in the social service area. It’s not too long ago that this House approved The Developmental Services Act, which was said to be a major step in the transformation of not only services but the whole way that we, as a society, look after the mentally retarded. That was only three years ago, and here we are today once again being asked to trust the Ministry of Community and Social Services with an even more awesome and enormous set of responsibilities.

I want to say, in my remarks to this bill, that we need to learn from the lessons of what happened with The Developmental Services Act and the so-called reforms that were promised by the same ministry in 1974. We are not going to tolerate the same history of failure and incompetence with respect to children’s services that has characterized the government’s so-called reforms with respect to mental retardation.

I want to spend a few minutes, by way of illustration, to set out before you, Mr. Speaker, what in fact happened to those so-called reforms implemented so unsuccessfully by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, because they bear on the issue of the competence of this ministry to do what is assigned it by the present bill. That’s why I want to raise it; it goes to the very heart of the matter. The very issue that we’re debating is whether or not this ministry has the competence and the capacity to assume its new responsibilities.

If you will remember, Mr. Speaker, the original impetus for reforms of mental retardation came from the Williston report of 1971. Mr. Williston set out a series of ideals which were then adopted by government as policy. If I may just summarize them: “Society must provide each mentally retarded person with such assistance, protection, opportunity and shelter as will enable him to take his place as a contributing member of the community and assure him a decent standard of living so that he can walk through life with dignity. That stated idea became the basis of the ministry’s normalization program.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, by way of reinforcement of that idea, Mr. Williston promised to set forward as a goal, a series of programs making available to the mentally retarded, patterns and conditions of every-day life that are as close as possible to the norms and patterns of the mainstream of society. It was in 1971 that that goal was stated. That goal was adopted as a major policy of reform to be implemented by this same ministry -- the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- in 1973. Now, after four years --

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Your point of order?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I don’t wish, in any way, to attempt to curtail the debate on this matter but it strikes me that it stretches one’s imagination to see how this particular tack directs itself to the matter of the principle of his bill.

Mr. McClellan: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I stated what the principle of the bill is, which is the assignment of new responsibilities to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It is my contention that it is absolutely germane to the question to establish the competence of this ministry to assume its new responsibilities. I intend to illustrate my concerns with respect to its competence by looking at the last major reform that this ministry assumed as recently as 1974. I don’t want to dwell at extraordinary length on it, but the point is utterly essential.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate your comments on the point of order. I do recall that when you began your remarks I was on the verge of asking if you would keep your remarks within the principle of the bill. I would ask you to do so.

Mr. McClellan: I would like a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, with respect to whether you agree that it is legitimate for me to address myself to the principle of this bill by the route of discussing the competence of this ministry to assume its new responsibilities, in the light of its recent history.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would like to suggest to the member that there could be some appropriateness to your comments. However, I don’t feel that you should spend any great length of time on the competence of the ministry. You should refer directly to the principle.

Mr. McClellan: Again, I feel that that is the principle. Respecting your ruling, and even respecting the concerns of the minister, let me attempt to conclude that section of my remarks very quickly.

Seven years after the Williston report and three years after The Development Services Act was implemented, we are still as far away from any kind of a meaningful program that would bring about normal community living for the mentally retarded as we were in 1971. This ministry simply has failed, almost completely, to undertake those responsibilities assigned to it.

I can refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a study that was done by the Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto in February 1977, which states categorically that the kinds of non-institutional services and facilities promised under those reforms have not been brought in. The ministry failed, almost completely, to achieve the goals that it had set out for itself in that series of reforms. We are justified in being apprehensive and profoundly nervous with respect to whether or not the ministry will succeed with these reforms on the basis of that monumental failure in the field of mental retardation.

With those remarks I will leave that subject, but I assure the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I will pick these up again at his estimates debates in the fall and we will go in, chapter and verse, to the failure of the mental retardation program to achieve the goal of normal community living for the mentally retarded.

It’s good to remember, for the purposes of this discussion, why it is that we are at this stage today. We are here in response to the report of the interministry committee on residential services, which gave one of the most scathing indictment of government policy and program that it is conceivable to write. These indictments were written, not by outside observers, but by the government’s own senior administrators and officials across a number of ministries -- some six ministries. The interministry report, having been suppressed since April, 1975, until December 16 of last year, gave an utter, damning indictment of this government’s social development policy and of its social development programs.

It did not touch simply on children’s services. It detailed critiques of virtually the entire range of social service programs in this province.

To refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker, the interministry report documented in detail how the elderly in this province are victims of “wasteful competition,” institutional gamesmanship, jockeying for clients. It describes the complete absence of standards with respect to senior citizens’ care and incompatible ministry service philosophies. It describes how the elderly are pressured into institutions because of the lack of non-institutional alternatives.

[4:00]

It dealt in part of its subject matter with the services for children and youth; and that is the piece of that indictment that we are dealing with today in a very preliminary kind of way. Services for children and youth are described as -- I am quoting -- “a deeper maze of philosophies, funding varieties, staffing patterns, standards in supervision.” They go on to tell how the placement of troubled kids in any of 10 separate bureaucratic systems is “purely a matter of chance.” Needs have no place in the process of placing kids in this province at all.

As the member for St. George stated very aptly, we are dealing with what is a very mean little bill. It is a mean little bill indeed in terms of the enormity of the problems within the social service field.

The problems do not rest simply with services to children and youth, as the report of the interministry committee has clearly detailed. The shambles in social development policy in this province goes right across the board, from income maintenance to services to the elderly to services to the mentally retarded, and including services to families and young children. The government has before us a very small piece of the essential and needed reforms in social service policy.

We see this as a kind of an organizational clearing of the throat that is necessary before the real work of restructuring services to families and kids in this province can take place. As such we are prepared to support it, understanding clearly that this is seen as an essential Act that probably should have taken place years and years ago, and does not begin to deal with the guts of the matter. We have stated on many occasions that we are in favour of a policy of devolution -- that it makes sense to us to try to put coherence of services back together at the local level.

We are in support of the general thrust of the minister’s overall reform package, but we lament enormously that everything excepting this little bill that is before us today is vague and ephemeral and still largely incoherent.

The minister has given us a timetable for the implementation of the essential --

Mrs. Campbell: Don’t hold your breath.

Mr. McClellan: The member for St. George asked how long it might be before the Act, which we will pass today, gets translated into some concrete reorganization of services at the local community level -- which is what it is all about -- once this preliminary clearing of the throat has taken place.

The minister tabled in the House an implementation plan. I can’t remember the date; it was only about a week and a half ago. It seems to me that buried among the bureaucratic gobbledygook and “plannerese” that characterized that largely incomprehensible document, I must say -- and I am a planner quite familiar with “plannerese” --

Hon. Mr. Norton: I found it quite comprehensible. It might say something about the reader.

Mr. McClellan: -- that the implementation timetable for the local children’s services committees is, in my view after reading that largely incomprehensible document, 1982. I come to that conclusion by looking at the implementation plan on the third page of the minister’s tabled statement. He describes how he intends to proceed with the children’s services reforms.

It is good to remember that when the minister first announced his policy statement in April, he indicated that the local children’s services committees would be in place by early 1978. That target was quickly abandoned in a flurry of hedging and backtracking and has resurfaced now in the implementation plan as the target date for the first pilot project April 1, 1978.

Unfortunately, these local children’s community services committees, wherever they will be, will not be in full operation until 1981, according to the minister’s own timetable. They will not assume complete and full responsibility until 1981 and that is clearly stated in the implementation plan.

And the clinker is, as far as I can tell from reading the material, no other committees will be established in the rest of the province. That is to say, the network of local children’s services committees will not be implemented in other parts of the province, aside from the pilot project areas, until the one or two pilot programs have matured fully, which is 1981.

So we are talking then about an implementation timetable which takes us until 1982 before the machinery is even in place which will begin to address itself to the shambles and chaos and scandal that is revealed in the interministry report. That is simply unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.

We can accept that the ministry wishes to engage in a consultative process, that the ministry does not wish to impose arbitrarily a predetermined scheme or model upon the province. And we can accept that in a province as large and as varied as Ontario it makes sense that there be a number of models; that no single model is going to work equally in Metropolitan Toronto and in Thunder Bay and in Belleville; that there is obviously a need for flexibility in the kinds of structures that are adopted.

But we cannot accept that it should take five years -- six years if you include 1977; eight years if you trace it back to the original publishing of the interministry report on residential services -- to develop and implement child welfare reform. We are going to be stuck with the present state of chaos for an intolerably long period of time.

I think it is fair to say that ever since the tabling of the interministry report in 1976, the situation has deteriorated in the child welfare field. The Holland decision, which both myself and the member for St. George have spoken to repeatedly, in questioning, in the estimates debates and outside this House, has destabilized what was an already chaotic situation. The one element of that whole shambles which operated with a measure of coherence and served to provide a measure of co-ordination and direction -- the court -- has been stripped of its capacity to fill that role by the Holland decision and by the subsequent failure of the government to fill that vacuum in any sensible and coherent way. The situation is substantially worse as we stand here today than it was four or five months ago when it was described as a state of complete chaos.

Words fail, Mr. Speaker. One cannot simply describe adequately the degree of shambles in child welfare services as they were. We stand here today and say with complete validity that they are now worse and the government is offering us an implementation timetable which brings us to 1982 before we can hope to see a resolution of this shambles. Not to say anything about the other areas of disaster within the social development policy field -- the services to the elderly, services to the mentally retarded, day care, income maintenance. Name the program and one is describing an area of catastrophe, administratively and philosophically. One approaches a bill like this simply with a measure of rage and despair.

We have some specific concerns with respect to some details of the transfer. If you read the report of the interministry committee, Mr. Speaker, you will find, and perhaps be puzzled at the inordinate amount of print that is taken up with the funding quagmire, with the set of incompatible and nonsensical discrepancies in ways and means of funding various social service programs according to which ministry happens to be running them. There is no sense; no rhyme nor reason.

There is an appendix H in the inter-ministerial report which sets out in all its lurid nonsense the variety of funding inconsistencies in government programs with respect to all categories of people. The fundamental incompatibility that the report addressed itself to and was not able to resolve was the incompatibility between programs funded on the welfare principle -- all of the programs within the Ministry of Community and Social Services, for example -- and those services funded on the insurance principle, on the basis of universal funding and universal access -- virtually all of the programs currently under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health.

There is no doubt at all in my mind that those programs currently under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health, regardless of whatever shortcomings they may have, are infinitely better than the programs that have been operating under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The most enormous problems in the child welfare field reside at present within the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It is accurate to say the question of funding is not irrelevant to the question of effectiveness and capacity of services to meet their stated goals.

We would be incredibly upset if the transfer of social services and children’s services from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Community and Social Services had the effect of introducing the welfare principle into services that are currently funded and made available on an insurance principle. By way of illustration, homes for the retarded; at present children are effectively barred from availing themselves of homes for the retarded because of the 20 per cent fee that parents are required to pay. That has simply resulted in a complete vacuum in adequate non-institutional residential services for kids.

One can trace that kind of thing out right across the board, from the elderly to whatever group at risk one wishes to choose. When the government operates its programs on the basis of welfarism -- which means selectivity based on income testing, and ultimately on the basis of a concept of services as being a matter of charity rather than as a matter of legal rights -- one gets into, of necessity, the installation of a whole series of barriers to effective use and barriers to effective service delivery. When one insists that municipalities have to assume --

Hon. Mr. Norton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, once again without wishing in any way to restrict the scope of the debate, it strikes me that there is, first of all, nothing in this bill that addresses itself to the question of the method of funding. Secondly, there is nothing in this bill at this time that would any way change the method of funding of any of the programs that are referred to in the bill. Therefore, I question whether or not the speaker is dealing with the matter of the principle of the bill.

[4:15]

Mr. McClellan: On the point of order, this is a very multiple bill. One of the things, for example, that it does is transfer the administration of The Children’s Mental Health Centres Act from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

I am trying simply to raise the concern we have. Perhaps I have overdone it. I want to make the point that at present The Children’s Mental Health Centres Act as administered by the Ministry of Health is operated on an insurance principle. I want to make sure that when the transfer takes place to Community and Social Services that this does not mean there will be a change from the insurance principle to a welfare principle without that matter coming explicitly before this House. Maybe I’ve dwelt on that excessively and in the course of my illustrative remarks have managed to goad the minister into pique. That was not my intent. My intent was simply to outline the concern.

Mr. Renwick: Of course you were in order on that occasion as you were on the former one.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, absolutely. I regret I have not been able to develop my concerns with respect to the capacity of this ministry as fully as I would have liked. As I said, I will save those remarks then for the estimates of this minister in the fall.

I will conclude by saying, as the member for St. George said, that we support this bill largely because we have no other recourse. We do not support it out of any enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, if you had understood and heard the wealth of my scathing denunciation of the competence of this ministry, you would understand why we have so little faith in the capacity of the ministry, excluding the present minister, which I am doing, and excluding as well his very excellent senior staff whom he has chosen. These remarks were not intended in any sense as a personal attack on the minister who is new to the ministry and who has come in with a stated commitment to undertake major reforms.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Thank you.

Mr. Roy: He’s wet behind the ears.

Mr. McClellan: Whether he’s wet behind the ears or not, we have to grant him the courtesy of an opportunity. I hope he understands how massive the task before him is, how singularly this ministry has failed in the past to achieve its own stated goals and how repeatedly this ministry, in the face of absolute failure to achieve its goals, has altered those goals, has abandoned those goals and imposed another set of objectives in response to failure.

And that history goes back. I’ve been a ministry watcher since 1964, since the inglorious days of Louis P. Cecile. I have watched this ministry since those hideous days of Louis P. Cecile.

Mr. Roy: And there’s been no improvement in the ministry.

Mr. McClellan: I would say that the member for Ottawa East is correct. There has not been, until now, a substantial improvement in the capacity of that ministry to meet human needs. We will hope that things are going to be different, but there is nothing in the history of that ministry that would indicate things will be different.

I used to come down here every year when Louis P. Cecile was minister so that I could watch this House vote to reduce the salaries --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wonder if the member could get back to the principle, please.

Mr. McClellan: I’m just making my concluding remarks, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You are going further back into history than I care to respond to.

Mr. Walker: That is prior to your birth.

Mr. McClellan: We will support it reluctantly, not because there is anything in the history of this ministry that suggests capacity, but because we feel a constraint to give this minister an opportunity to achieve his stated goals, because we have a certain amount of approval of the senior staff that he has appointed -- more than a certain amount -- and because the structures he has established make a certain amount of sense.

I would say again, the timetable for implementation is too long. I would like the minister to understand that we have a profound appreciation that he may take as long as five years to bring these reforms about. That is going to be longer than the length of this Parliament; it is liable to be longer than the length of this minister’s tenure in office, and the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) is scurrying frantically in the back-benches with his eye on the front.

Mr. Conway: Oh, he will stay there for a while.

Mr. McClellan: I would think the minister should, even out of basic self-protection, strive to move more quickly.

Finally, we are prepared to support his bill because we are in a minority situation, and because both parties on this side of the House share a determination to make this program work and to hold the minister and this government accountable for its objectives. I have more confidence in the ability of the reforms to take place within a minority situation than I have at any time in the past under the succession of bumbling incompetents who have occupied the current incumbent’s spot. We will take that, I suppose, leap of faith, and promise to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, to be a watchdog for the progress of these reforms with as much vigilance as we can command.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of my colleague that this administrative reform is not the complete answer to our problems in the child welfare field in this province. I think we should be very careful that we do not regard it as such and that the ministry carry on with solving the urgent and pressing problems and doesn’t consider this an excuse for inaction on them.

The report of the interministry committee on residential services showed a very shocking situation in residential care in this province, and there are urgent needs for reform in that area in particular. I think we have to clear away the tangle of bureaucracy that has allowed us to develop such a wide variety of programs for residential services. I understand there are 23 different programs, all with different standards, different means of funding, and different tests as to who qualifies and so on. This sort of chaos is what we hope this bill will cure, but we can’t wait five years for the cure of many of the problems that have been created by this bureaucracy and this administrative tangle.

I would just like to suggest a couple of very key areas where I think the minister should be moving faster and perhaps looking to fairly immediate solutions rather than this long timetable. One is the question of payment for children who are ordered by courts into residential care facilities. As we know since recent court decisions, that area has been thrown into some confusion and the municipalities are refusing to carry the burden for children who are in some residential care homes. I think that question has to be solved immediately.

Another area that needs some immediate attention is the wide variety of payments that are made to different kinds of group homes under the different ministries that have been operating them in the past. There have been three ministries providing group homes -- the Ministry of Correctional Services, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, all with very different rates of funding, different standards, different contractual arrangements.

As a result, a lot of the group homes have not been able to develop proper staff training programs because some of them have been completely inadequately funded. They have not even been able to comply with the employment standards legislation with regard to the hours of work and the conditions for their employees.

It’s really because the various ministries have not funded them adequately that they have been unable to provide proper working conditions and proper wages to enable the staff to develop a real career in this kind of work. As a result, the children have probably suffered, although a lot of dedicated people have certainly contributed their services to these homes at very low wages and worked very long hours.

That’s another area that I think the minister should look at immediately -- to rationalize those payments and to see that they are adequate for the kind of services that they’re expected to provide. It seems to me that in the past, the welfare of the children has come last and that the bureaucracy and the saving of money by the ministry and the restraint programs have come first. I hope this bill will turn around the thrust of the legislation and that the welfare of the children will come first.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will try to keep my remarks brief, but at the outset I would like to assure those of faint heart on the other side who have expressed so many grave reservations with respect to the “mean little bill”, as it was referred to in the mean little comments by the hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mean little comments, my foot.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I might add, Mr. Speaker, that those comments became less noticeable as her speech proceeded. We are approaching this amalgamation of children’s services within the province with what I believe to be, on my own part and on the part of my staff and this government, courage and commitment and determination. I wonder if the hon. member for St. George really comprehends the magnitude of the task that we have undertaken --

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, yes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and I wonder if she has taken the trouble to look at the experience in other jurisdictions and realizes that within the last couple of months or three months, we have proceeded further than they have in a period of five years in many other jurisdictions.

Mrs. Campbell: But you were so slow starting.

Mr. McClellan: You’re so far behind.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is of some solace, I suppose, that the hon. members have found it difficult to be as critical of the present as they have found it easy to develop a scenario of the historical perspective. But it is something I don’t choose to respond to, frankly. I will try to direct myself to the comments at hand.

The reference to my prancing around the countryside was, I suspect, based upon -- I can’t believe that the hon. member does not understand that if one is going to consult -- and it wasn’t just with municipal officials -- that it does require some travelling about the province to meet with people and to consult with them --

Mrs. Campbell: I didn’t say “prancing.”

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and I think that the use of the words “prancing around the countryside” as applied to the particular official to whom she directed them, were really unnecessary. I’m sure she understands what the purpose of that was and she has seen some of the results of it in terms of the report that was submitted with the package that was referred to her and other members in the post couple of weeks.

I admit that this is just the first step in the rationalization process. That is all that this bill is, in itself, intended to accomplish. It is a first step. I understand the magnitude of the path that lies ahead of us, but I also understand that it is essential, if we are to succeed, that we proceed in a manner which is going to carry with us and the people who are involved in serving children in this province, at all levels.

[4:30]

Mrs. Campbell: We should have had it before the last election.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the hon. member had not participated in thrusting us into an election campaign I might have had more time to engage in that consultation process myself.

Mr. Gaunt: I am glad you are smiling when you say that.

Mr. Conway: The $6 million members are thumping it up on the back benches.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That was a fateful Thursday night when the hon. member had to vote against this government.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: With respect to the question of standards, which were raised by the hon. member for St. George -- and she also made mention of her concern about the fact that there were so few new people. First of all may I say that some of the old people are not as bad as they are painted, I think, by the hon. member of the opposition.

Mrs. Campbell: Try getting information from them.

Hon. Mr. Norton: But, in addition to that I would like to point out specifically in the area of standards, we have a new person by the name of Michael Ozerkevich, whose prime responsibility is and whose experience in other jurisdictions has been in the work of development of standards, for just such services as we’re engaged in delivering.

I want to make it clear that those are areas in which we share concerns with the hon. member. I think that if she were prepared to give just a little more credit for the efforts that we are making the situation wouldn’t sound quite so bleak as she has attempted to portray it this afternoon.

Financial accountability is another item with which we are very concerned, but I’m sure that she also understands that we cannot proceed on all fronts at the same time and be finished as of the end of this week. It is not an easy task, but it is one which I assure her we’re approaching with determination. We will see it through to its subsequent phases.

As to the timing concerns expressed by the hon. member for Bellwoods, I’m not sure where he gets his dates in speaking of 1982.

Mr. McClellan: From your own material.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I don’t see that date anywhere in our own material. I do see that as early as 1978 we will be implementing projects -- or pilot projects, if you wish -- across the province. I did not say anywhere there would be one or two. We do not know for sure how many we’ll be able to place in operation as of April 1, 1978.

Subsequent to April, 1979, we will then proceed with the implementation of others across the province. There’s nothing in there that I have seen, or that I’m aware of, that suggested the date of 1982 as the implementation date for the local committees.

Mr. McClellan: Give us the date then.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Of course, I’ll point out it’s folly to get into the act of trying to predict something even that far down the line. The target dates that we have, as the member can see from the information that was provided to him in the implementation plan, is that in early 1979 we will be in the second phase of the development of the committees that were put in place in April, 1978. Immediately following that, we will be in a position, hopefully, to proceed with the implementation on a broader scale.

Mr. McClellan: By 1979?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would hope that it would be sometime during 1979. If the member thinks he is going to pin me down to a specific date he’s not, because it’s folly to even attempt that. But I would hope we could proceed with that during 1979. I don’t expect they would all be in place during that year. But to try to do it precipitately, without giving the models that are being developed an opportunity to work and to be subject to careful scrutiny, seems to me to be very shortsighted. We must be careful as we proceed, because the services and the system of delivery of services that we develop in consultation with the communities is, undoubtedly, going to be a system that we will have to live with for some time. It will have a tremendous impact upon the lives of the children whom we seek to serve. I am sure, if the members think about it, they would not try to push us into a situation where we proceed so quickly that we make unnecessary errors in the course of the implementation.

I think the timing that has been developed and proposed is very realistic. During that time we also have begun development of the omnibus legislation. I will be introducing an amendment in committee to change the name of this bill because inadvertently the name that was inserted was the name that we intend to use for the omnibus legislation when it is introduced.

We realize that that is the place in which the more detailed and complex questions of standards and details with respect to the services will have to be dealt with. That is something that requires a greater amount of time than has this first phase, although I wouldn’t want members to underestimate the amount of time that has been required to make the necessary transfers in terms of budgets and staff. This involves something like 3,000 staff transfers. That is no mean task, even though it may be a mean little bill -- it represents a tremendous amount of work and competent work on the part of some very competent staff people.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, since there is some dispute between myself and the minister with respect to his stated implementation timetable, I would like to direct the minister’s attention to page eight of his statement to the House on Thursday, June 30, where he says: “The stage six committees will not be established until the pilot projects have assumed full responsibility for service delivery in their areas,” and he very clearly indicates in the first paragraph that it will take two years before they begin to review budgets. The implication is that it will take a third year before they assume full responsibility. So extrapolating from his own remarks, I concluded that the pilot projects would not be in a position to assume full responsibility until late 1981, which gives us then an implementation timetable for fully effective local children’s services committees across the province of 1982.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to respond very briefly, if the member looks at the implementation plan and the dates that are set out on that sheet, it indicates that the second stage of the --

Mr. McClellan: Yes, I did. I am not trying to play games with you.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, and I don’t think much is to be accomplished by trying to figure out a date here in an exchange across the House.

Mr. McClellan: I want to know when it is going to be in place.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would like to know precisely too, but I don’t happen to be clairvoyant. I would suggest that a reasonable objective is some time during the year 1979 when we will be developing them across the province. I am not suggesting they will all be in place in 1979 by any means, and (I think that subject to any further conversations perhaps outside the House that the member would like to have about it, that’s all that I care to devote to that at this point in time. I am not sure that it accomplishes anything in the context of this legislation.

I don’t think I have much more to add to this than just to reassert that this is a matter we are approaching with a strong commitment and with a determination to see the matter through. I am very proud of what the staff in my ministry have accomplished in a relatively short period of time, so that we can at least, as of July 1 of this year, say that we have accomplished the transfer at the provincial level of children’s services under a common ministry. We have therefore opened up the opportunity to work towards the standardization of everything from financing to the development of better province-wide standards. The question as to whether this is the most appropriate ministry or not, I leave that with the hon. members opposite. I am confident that my staff and I are firm in our commitment to seeing this through.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES ACT

House in committee on Bill 23, An Act to provide for the Transfer of Services relating to Children.

On section 1:

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I raised our concerns with the minister during debate on second reading. I don’t want to raise them again, except to say that we would have an enormous problem supporting this bill if the bill involved a change from an insurance principle for funding children’s mental health centres to a welfare principle. I would like an assurance from the minister that before such a major change in government funding policy takes place, it will not take place within the orbit of this bill, but that separate legislation will be brought before this House which can be fully debated.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can certainly assure the hon. member that nothing is changed by this bill at the present time. I would not wish to give him any binding commitment with respect to what the ultimate rationalisation of the funding might be, because that obviously is one of the matters that we are looking into. I can assure you that as we proceed toward a rationalisation of the funding, I would welcome any input that the hon. members opposite have. But clearly, that is one of the tasks that we have to approach as a ministry, because the funding is so disparate across the various programs at the present time that cannot continue indefinitely.

Mrs. Campbell: Just on the point of the financing, we are taking the position that this will come back to us for discussion. Perhaps you might allay some of the concerns in this caucus if you would undertake to ensure that before we rise for the summer vacation we do have answers to some of those questions of funding that we have been asking for months. This would then assist us in believing that we would have some input into the financing as it is developed by your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure that I will be able to give the hon. member the information she requests before the House rises for the summer. The discussions are still in progress, and in fact, they are in progress this week with court officials and with some municipal officials with respect to that very question of financing, that she refers to. I will not be able to give her any further information until such time as I know what the outcome of those are going to be.

Mrs. Campbell: As a result of the answer, do I take it the minister is consulting court officials with reference to the material for which we have asked consistently for at least a year with reference to Browndale?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, Mr. Chairman. I wasn’t referring to Browndale at all. I thought that the hon. member was referring to the question of the placement of children by the courts and the funding of that particular program.

Mrs. Campbell: Then perhaps if the minister understands the question now, he might be in a position to give us some assurance that we will have the answers by tomorrow, since under our standing orders, if we were to be sitting here Wednesday -- I believe that even under the misinterpretation of the rules the minister would have been required to answer by Wednesday the questions which have been on the order paper.

[4:45]

It is, Mr. Chairman, because of these discrepancies, because the very same people who have not been giving us answers over the years are still involved, presumably, with developing in some measure the funding for this ministry, that we have serious concern. I would hope the minister would understand that. Those questions should have been answered months ago and they’re only here again as, in effect, new questions because of the new session. And if the ministry is still unable to answer those questions, then I want some assurance as to how we’re going to get input when you’re developing the total question of financing of services for your ministry. I would like an answer, Mr. Chairman.

I understand that the minister was going to propose an amendment which comes, I believe, before section 1 of this bill.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, in response to the issue of questions, I presume that the hon. member is referring to the questions which on the order paper are directed to the Ministry of Health. It was my understanding that those questions were answered by the Minister of Health in the information tabled the other day, or just a matter of a few days ago. I’ll check with you afterwards, but that was my understanding -- that he had in fact tabled answers to those questions in the House last week.

Now beyond that I’m not sure what the thrust of the question is. If there is further information required, please redirect the question.

Mrs. Campbell: I suppose not to prolong it, I would just point out to the minister the questions were addressed to the Minister of Health, because the questions related to his ministry. But in view of the fact that I assume that all of his staff has been seconded to this ministry, I don’t know who he’d have left to answer the questions. Neither do I know who in the new ministry, or in the new function of this ministry, is capable of answering them, since they haven’t been capable of answering them in the long months before.

All I want to know is are we going to get these answers so that we can then believe we’re going to have some input into the whole question of financing these services under the composite ministry?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will check with the Minister of Health because I thought that the answers had been tabled. I wonder if the hon. member is certain that they have not.

Mrs. Campbell: I am certain they have not.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Norton moves that section 3 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “3. The short title of this Act is The Children’s Services Transfer Act, 1977.”

Mrs. Campbell: Sounds like The Land Transfer Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment and asked for leave to sit again.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 23, An Act to provide for the Transfer of Services relating to Children.

ESSEX COUNTY FRENCH-LANGUAGE SECONDARY SCHOOL ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 3, An Act to require the Essex County Board of Education to provide a French-language Secondary School.

Mr. Speaker: When we rose last in consideration of this bill the member for Carleton-Grenville was about to start his remarks. He may continue.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, may I express my pleasure at representing the people of Carleton-Grenville in this Legislature. It is not without difficulty that I rise to support this bill -- difficulty because of the strong traditions and feelings of the people of my riding towards their English culture. One need only reflect to this past weekend when I attended the Loyalist Day celebration at the town of Prescott. The people of my riding are indeed proud of their English heritage. Many of them, including myself, are descendants of the United Empire Loyalists who trekked long distances to the north shore of the St. Lawrence.

There is also difficulty because of the insensitive attitude of the federal government in the implementation of their bilingual program. The people have seen and experienced a waste of human and fiscal resources which I think was unnecessary. The designation of far too many positions in the federal civil service as bilingual have robbed many of my constituents of their future.

And a new problem has risen since November 15, 1976. The Parti Quebecois is not only acting through Bill 101, but through regulation enforcement and business transactions the people of eastern Ontario are being antagonized. There are real problems which we must deal with in the very near future. I have pointed out these concerns of my constituents. I think it important that the back bench, as well as the front bench of this government indicate our support of this bill. It is imperative that we in Ontario demonstrate and show leadership if Canada is to remain united.

The bill before us goes far beyond providing bricks and mortar for a French-language school in Essex county. We are, in fact, engaging two major political realities of our time, namely the concern felt everywhere that local issues be determined as much as possible by local governments, and the accompanying concern that the provincial governments ensure that the province’s constitutional obligations and responsibilities to all the people are not ignored and impugned by the local political process.

The bill before us is a stark reminder of how these two realities may be joined in stalemated conflict over a question fundamental to local sentiment and interest, but challenging to the validity of a profound provincial responsibility. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, one would be hard pressed to find a more hope-rendering example of how Canadian federalism should and can be made to work when a provincial government chooses to recognize the responsibilities entrusted to it explicitly and implicitly under the terms of our constitution. One is saddened that this bill is necessary, but rejoices that a solution is at hand in our constitution, and by virtue of the resource and courage of this government to ensure that the French-speaking Canadians of Essex county may have access to a French secondary school.

The problem of separating the local and provincial responsibilities has never been easy, and in today’s increasingly homogeneous society, where there are fewer distinctions than there were even 20 years ago, the task has become much more complex. Indeed, if the issues provoking conflict between local and provincial jurisdictions were categorized one would find that in most cases there are very sound arguments on both sides.

Since becoming involved in the work of local government in Rideau township, and particularly since succeeding the Hon. Donald R. Irvine as member for Carleton-Grenville, I have come to know and understand the anxieties and frustration felt by many of my constituents over the erosion of the local political process and its gradual loss of autonomy to regional and provincial jurisdiction. There can be no mistake as to the emergence of a new sense of community within all areas of my constituency.

The operations and responsibilities of multi- tiered government must more adequately accommodate local autonomy. Certainly, the jurisdictions of government must take one another more into account than they have in the past. The instance of stalemate, to which this bill is addressed, is but one of these conflicts. However, it occupies a category of its own. We all know that the local authority, the Essex County Board of Education, has the power to remedy the plight of French-speaking citizens in that county. That community wants to, but is unable to, send its children to a French-language school. We know that our provincial government has done everything within its power to encourage that board to act. It is obvious, then, that the local legislative process has exhausted itself without providing a remedy to these citizens.

In the absence of the local authority to legislate, there is activated a greater constitutional and jurisdictional responsibility which the provincial government bears explicitly for education and implicitly for the protection of minorities. Where one process ends in stalemate, on a question of such entrenched importance, the safeguard provided for in our constitution becomes operative at the choice of the provincial government. If it were not made operative, Mr. Speaker, we would invite the stain on our body politics as in the social inequities of the Manitoba school question, or as in Bill 101, as it now stands in the Quebec assembly. That path is the way of racism, not the civilized tolerance that constitutes the chief patrimony of our history. This government rejects it out of hand.

Essex county’s problems, Mr. Speaker, are not peculiar to Essex county. My constituency of Carleton-Granville makes up, in part, the old historical cultural frontier between Quebec and Ontario. Our local record on language rights is not perfect, but our two school boards, the Carleton and Ottawa boards of education, have managed to go a substantial way in improving that record. Their progress has not been easy and their decisions to implement more French-language curriculum have not always been right. But they tried.

The measure of success they have enjoyed is attributable to their recognizing that language is the only means open to a people to preserve its culture, whether English or French. If we cherish our English-Canadian culture and heritage, as we should do, we will not only know why our language must be important to us, but we will also understand why French-speaking Canadians take the same view of their language. We will appreciate, too, why Franco-Ontarians, wherever they are concentrated in large enough numbers, should have access to schooling in their parent tongue, as we have.

We must continue to encourage, on a voluntary basis, each cultural group to learn the other’s language. This can be done without shoving another’s language down anyone’s throat, as has been done in the federal civil service. Of course, the provincial government cannot legislate attitudes, nor should it try. But, we are the only constitutional guarantors of our national responsibilities in the field of language, education and culture. I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to speak to this bill and to be associated with a government ready to exercise that guarantee.

Mr. Roy: I think this is one of the more important debates that I have had occasion to participate in since my first election back in 1971. I think it’s extremely significant that at the time we in Ontario are debating a bill such as this, in the federal House there is a debate going on regarding the question of national unity, and in the Quebec Legislature there is discussion on Bill 1 which has been withdrawn and replaced by Bill 101. In that House they are discussing entrenching some of the rights of the majority in that province and, to some measure, trying to retract some of the rights of the English-speaking minority in that province. We know the concern that that is causing, not only in the province of Quebec, but across the country.

[5:00]

So, it’s extremely significant that at a time when one thing is going on in the province of Quebec, that we in this province, through this type of legislation -- and I intend to say something about the method that was used on this legislation -- are entrenching, or at least legislating a principle for a specific area and assisting a minority in an area which has been fighting for so long for a right that’s been basically accepted in so many other areas of this province and across this country.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member for Carleton-Grenville I congratulate that member for the stand that he’s taking in his support of the bill. I’m extremely pleased. I was extremely pleased, first of all, that he was able to succeed in his nominating convention over the other character who was running against him. I’ll not repeat his name here, but we know who we’re talking about. I think his winning the nomination certainly was quite an improvement. I shudder to think what would have happened if his opponent in that particular race -- I’m talking about the Conservative nomination now -- had been successful.

Mr. Rotenberg: We are talking about the other, I thought you were talking about the election.

Mr. Roy: Well, you come to eastern Ontario and you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member even now, and I don’t want in any way to denigrate his predecessor, the Hon. Donald Irvine, and the approach he took in this House, but I was listening to what the member had to say. It appears to me that it takes a considerable amount of courage for that member to stand in this House and support this bill knowing that, I suppose, unanimous consent would be difficult in your area on this type of legislation. I know the difficulties that the member has in his riding. But I think he’s showing -- and I’ve talked to him before privately about this -- basically what we as Canadians must show when we get into areas of this nature, whether it’s language minorities, religion or other -- leadership. That’s what’s going to be required, Mr. Speaker, in the years to follow. It’s a question of leadership.

We cannot allow radicals, Mr. Speaker -- and we have them on both sides -- whether it be in the province of Quebec, whether we’re talking about the separatists or we’re talking about people, to oppose certain basic rights for certain minority groups. The time has long passed that we let a minority of people stall progress or impede what the majority fervently believes in and what this country is all about.

I feel that this debate is Ontario’s contribution to the national unity debate, and I can’t emphasize again how significant it is that federally, in Quebec, in Ontario, things are going on, that are going to have a significant impact in the long term on the unity of this country.

Mr. Speaker, in a non-partisan way, and I want to approach this debate in as nonpartisan a way as possible, I want to pay tribute to the people of Windsor-Essex, and pay tribute to the Franco-Ontarian minority in that area of the province. Their struggle has been long, it’s been difficult and at times it’s been extremely disappointing.

Can the members just imagine, when one looks at this in an objective context, that these people were part of the founding peoples of this country; these people in Windsor-Essex are not overnight guests, they’re not people who have just come along and intend to move out when things get rough or if the country should separate, or something of this nature. These people were part of building what this country’s about. And the minister, through some measure in his speech, has referred to the history of the Franco-Ontarian community in that area of the province.

One has to pay tribute to their tenacity, to the fact that they were not prepared to give up and were prepared to continue to struggle. If I may say so, I think a lot of the rights obtained by the Franco-Ontarian community in this province are due largely to their own initiative, their tenacity and their dedication to the preservation of their language and culture at the same time as contributing to the national entity of this country and at the same time as being proud to be Canadian. But they were prepared to do this.

What they have obtained, what the people of Windsor-Essex have obtained, is not so much due to the initiative of government. I get annoyed about this sometimes when I hear government, and especially the people on the other side, say. “Well, you know, we’ve been awfully kind. We’ve given this. We’ve given that.”

The government has not really given anything to them, it has been pressured into it. That’s what’s got to change in this country. We’ve got to do it by way of initiative, by way of leadership and not always through pressure and through delays of this nature.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to these people and congratulate them on finally -- and maybe I’m being premature even to offer congratulations, because that school is far from being built and that school is far from being administered. I’m concerned about the future of that school as well. But nevertheless I think that it’s significant that a bill will pass in this House which will again underline and accentuate the importance of the rights of that minority.

Je voudrais vous dire, Monsieur l’orateur, si je peux parler un peu en français, que je crois qu’il est extrêmement important que la minorité franco-ontarienne dans la région de Windsor-Essex reçoive nos félicitations.

Je crois qu’il est important qu’on souligne ici durant un débat aussi important que celui-ci le fait que les franco-ontariens n’ont pas lâché et qu’ils ont fait preuve et qu’ils vont être fiers et leurs enfants vont être fiers d’eux pour la lutte et la bataille et l’acharnement qu’ils ont démontré dans la lutte de Windsor-Essex.

Monsieur l’orateur, je ne peux m’asseoir sans les féliciter et leur dire: ils ont vaincu parce qu’ils n’ont pas lâché.

C’est un exemple pour tous les franco-ontariens la lutte très très difficile qu’ils ont eue dans la région de Windsor-Essex; je crois qu’il est important, Monsieur l’orateur, de les féliciter, de dire à ces gens-là qu’ils ont obtenu quelque chose à cause de cet acharnement. S’ils ont obtenu quelque chose, c’est parce qu’ils n’ont pas lâché.

La lutte a été longue. Je regarde ici un éditorial dans le Droit du 10 décembre 1971 ou on donne un événement après l’autre, ou sur toute mesure objective on aurait pu être découragé, on aurait pu perdre l’espoir. Mais ces gens-là n’ont pas lâché, même dans des épreuves extrêmement difficiles.

Je me rappelle quand on a publié un tract, je crois que cela fait maintenant cinq ou six mois, et des accusations criminelles ont été déposées contre certains individus. Ces gens-là tout de même, sans se décourager, ont continué la lutte, et aussi cet après-midi, Monsieur l’orateur, on discute la victoire de cette lutte, ce fameux bill.

I think the role of governments in these disputes is important. I want to say to the minister I compliment the ministry on bringing forward this bill. I want to say to the minister I have read as much as I could of the speech at the time that he introduced the bill -- I think that was back in April 1977. I thought it was an excellent speech. The minister went through the history of the Franco-Ontarian community in Windsor-Essex -- in fact, the history of the francophone community in this province -- and he enumerated the long struggle.

I want to say to the minister that I thought it was an excellent outline of the problem, of the frustrations and, finally, of the different disappointments that the community in Windsor-Essex had to go through before we finally had to go through this type of legislation. But, having congratulated him, I want to say to the minister that I felt, and I still feel -- and I said it in 1973 and I’m saying it again now -- that I don’t think this bill would have been necessary had we done things right in the first place.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the minister’s right and there was no way of avoiding this. But I still feel that had he accepted suggestions that we made back then, some of the suggestions of the Symons commission report, this type of legislation would not have been necessary.

I’m really sad when I consider all the things that have gone on in Windsor-Essex and that things have reached this point that it is necessary to bring forward this type of legislation.

I look, first of all, Mr. Speaker, at the division that this type of conflict causes in a community. We went through it in Sturgeon Falls in 1971. If you recall, the Symons commission was created in 1971 because of the problems in Sturgeon Falls.

We went through it in Cornwall in 1972-1973. We saw the type of division that it creates in a community.

This is why we got the Symons commission report. This is why he put forward certain suggestions and recommendations to avoid this type of conflict. Because of the whole issue this is the saddest part of all.

You have a community which has lived together -- minorities and the majority, the people have lived together for centuries -- and yet you get an issue like this where sides are taken and you’re splitting the community. I saw it in Cornwall. I saw it in Sturgeon Falls.

It’s so obvious in Windsor-Essex that people feel they must take sides -- friends across the fence or across the way -- because of this particular issue. There’s a draught that comes between people. People, having spoken publicly on this, wonder what the results may be towards their friends, towards even relatives and so forth. I think that this is just the type of thing that we should avoid and this is what Symons was talking about in his report.

When things get as bad, for instance, as when hate literature was circulated some time ago and criminal charges were laid, I thought when I was reading this that whether it was the English who were putting this out or whether it was the French, either way it had to be a pretty desperate move. Whatever the motive for putting forward this type of hate literature it was pretty desperate. That gives you an example of how desperate people were.

When I review the events such as these I have to stand here in the House and say at one time the anger would have been more aggressive. But frankly, Mr. Speaker, I speak more out of sadness than anger when I review some of the events, such as Windsor-Essex, that are taking place and are really ripping this country apart.

I can recall, just a year ago, the dispute over the use of French in the air over the province of Quebec. How divisive that was. I can recall, prior to that time, discussions about Bill 22 and, latterly, about Bill 1, or Bill 101 or whatever it might be called.

We can talk about some of the events after November 15, but these are things that we cannot allow to fester for any period of time. These are things that just tear this country apart. Very often these are things that are allowed to happen because there’s a certain minority of individuals on both sides who, in fact, gained the upper hand on this. The majority very often is silent. It doesn’t take a position.

This is why it’s so important to look at the role of government which brings us to a bill such as this. I look at the role of government in this case and I think the role of government is important. I go back to 1971 and look at that time to a speech made by the hon. Premier (Mr. Davis). He was the newly elected leader of the Conservative Party and that was just before the election in October 1971. If you read his speech at that time, Mr. Speaker, he went on for pages about his bilingualism policy for this province. If there’s any document which frustrates a Franco-Ontarian community more than any other is when they take out this document and wave it and say: “Here’s what we were promised then.”

[5:15]

Six years later the promises made in the field of education, in the field of health, in the field of government services, in the field of courts, and so on, were exactly that -- promises. And it’s sad to say this, but I think this is the type of thing that government has to avoid. The Franco-Ontarian community is united at this time. Promises are no longer good enough.

I look at some of the government policies. I look at some of the comments, Mr. Speaker, made during the election by the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle). I participated in an hour’s debate with that member and I found it sad that one who is a member of the Franco-Ontarian community understood so little of what the hopes and what the necessities are of that community today.

When he was asked what progress we have made, he took out his credit cards and said they were bilingual. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have gone past that stage. The survival of a people is more important than just having bilingual cheques or bilingual credit cards. I am reading from the Globe and Mail now but I can remember -- I was sitting across from him during the debate -- when he said -- and he was talking about the headline, “‘Can’t Legislate French Rights,’ Brunelle Says,” -- “French-Canadian rights in Ontario are gradually being introduced by the Progressive Conservative government as a matter of policy and it would be useless to guarantee them through legislation.”

Well, have you ever heard such idiocy? What are we doing here all the time passing legislation if we are not guaranteeing one right or another through legislation? He says the legislation would be useless and he goes on to say: “It is not necessary. The Franco-Ontarians will have all possible rights.”

And again he is confused. You don’t have a right if you don’t have legislation to back it up, but he keeps talking about rights. He should be using the word “privilege,” I suppose. “But we will do it gradually where it is needed. It would be useless where there is one or two per cent of the population that is francophone. I do not believe it’s necessary.”

Well, he’s right of course, if he is talking about one or two per cent francophone in a particular area, but that’s not what we’re talking about, Mr. Speaker.

In an area of basic rights, there is the question of schools. And you look at the assimilation rate of the Franco-Ontarian community. For an instance, I turn to Windsor-Essex. Look at the tables there which indicate that in an area like Essex we are down to 3.9 per cent of Franco-Ontarians who use their own language. As assimilation takes place, gradually but methodically across this province, you know this is what we are trying to avoid and this is why it’s necessary to have certain rights.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, the francophone community across this province is united on one thing -- that we have had it with “privileges.” What is important is rights. That’s why I get annoyed sometimes in this House when I hear the Attorney General saying that to legislate certain rights in the legal field would he window-dressing.

I get pretty annoyed about something like this because as much as we may be francophone, we want to fight for this country. How can we go into Quebec and say, “I think we are concerned about your Bill 101 which you are imposing on the anglophone minority,” if at the same time there is a law in our books here which says, “You are prohibited from using your language in the courts”?

The Attorney General says it is window-dressing. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we have to change our attitude here. I come back at the role of government in this situation. We went through this experience in Sturgeon Falls, we went through it in Cornwall, and finally we had the Symons report.

The recommendations of the report -- which was dated February 17, 1972 -- were finally passed through this House. Of course, they were passed back in 1973 under a Conservative majority government, and some of the suggestions that we made at that time were not accepted. I pointed out to the minister at that time that it was important that the Languages of Instruction Commission, the commission that was created to arbitrate a problem between the school board and the French-language advisory committee, have its decision be binding.

At that point, we were starting to face difficult decisions. In other words, by 1972-73, in all areas of this province, basically there were no problems, the schools were operating, and the Franco-Ontarian community were sending their kids to school. No problems, things were going well.

That is what is sad about this type of dispute. It is just like an airplane crash. Nobody talks about the millions of passengers who get home safely; they always talk about the plane that crashed, or the one that got hijacked. Just like this situation, there are hundreds of examples of where schools were created in this province, where the parents are pleased, where things are working out. These aren’t the things that are going to make the headlines. It’s going to be the one at Sturgeon Falls, or the one in Cornwall, or the one in Essex. But, unfortunately, that’s the type of environment and the type of society we live in. That’s why we must avoid it. That’s why Symons made certain recommendations at that time.

I had a long discussion in 1973 with the minister about a bill that he was bringing forward at that time, I think it was Bill 180 or Bill 181, to amend The Education Act. I said to him at that point that the part I found extremely frustrating or unsatisfactory in the bill was the section that dealt with the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario. I say to the minister that he has not followed the recommendations of Symons, because what he is basically doing again is going back to mediation.

The Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario is not what I suggested to the minister that Symons had in mind. Somewhere along the way, should local autonomy fail, and we agree with local autonomy, if people can’t solve their problem -- and when it becomes obvious that they cannot, when there is a conflict -- mediation is not going to solve it. Somebody has to make a decision.

I said to the minister at that point that it was important, that in the area where we were having conflict we were going to continue having difficult situations across the province. For instance, after Windsor-Essex, any other situation we may have in this province is going to be difficult because we have gone through the areas where it is relatively easy, where goodwill exists in a community, and where the francophone minority is of sufficiently substantial number to have their views put forward and accepted by the majority. The other areas are going to be difficult.

This is why Symons, in 1973, made the proposal dealing with the Languages of Instruction Commission. Unfortunately, they were not accepted by the minister. I’ll just read what Symons had to say in the recommendation that he put forward at that time. He said: “If such a procedure does not produce a settlement, the commission shall, within 30 days of notice by both the committee and the board, prepare its decision on the matter in question, which shall be final, unless appeal to the Minister of Education within 30 days.” Unfortunately, that was not accepted and the proposed role of the Languages of Instruction Commission was not accepted by the board. Now, here we are, having to pass legislation.

I would hope that we have learned through these mistakes and that the minister would give serious consideration to accepting the bill that we put forward last week, a bill which, in our opinion, would solve that sort of problem. The minister says he doesn’t think it will work. But I say to the minister it is strange that he takes the attitude that this particular law will not work, when day in and day out we are passing legislation on the premise that it will be followed. I don’t see why it shouldn’t be followed in this case.

I can recall the great argument dealing with seatbelts. Everybody was saying, “Oh well, you can’t enforce it.” Well, we passed the legislation and we know that this year we have saved 200 lives because of the seatbelt legislation. So, I say, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we have learned from our mistakes and that we would change.

I continue to look at the role of the government. I just wonder, when I look at the various problems here, whether it was a wise decision back in 1976, when the minister decided to cut the funds from 95 per cent to 77 per cent.

When I look at that particular decision I say to the minster he didn’t have to give them an excuse down there. Any excuse that was given for stalling or changing their minds may well have been a valid one. But the point that was important was that we not give them that sort of excuse. I find it ironic that we cut the amount of moneys that we were sending down there and now we’re back into a situation where we’re going to fund the whole thing again. Or we’re going to fund at the same rate, I’m told by my colleague from Windsor. So, was that decision necessary?

The argument that I put forward dealing with the necessity of taking away the permissive part of that legislation, as we call it, is extremely important. I read an editorial from the Globe and Mail of March 25, 1977. It states: “That is where the trouble has always lain. The province’s legislation should never have been permissive. That only invites a squabble with all the ugliness of this one. The legislation should be amended to make it mandatory for a school board to provide a French-language high school when the local demand for it is sufficient to make one viable.”

So, Mr. Speaker, I would sincerely hope for the future that we could avoid this type of conflict by changing the legislation. I say again and I emphasize again to the minister, other situations will crop up across the province and other situations which we are facing are going to be extremely difficult. I think it’s high time that we avoided this type of conflict. We’ve had enough bitterness, not only in Windsor-Essex, but in Cornwall and Sturgeon Falls.

The minister referred in his speech to the history in this province of Franco-Ontarians, and I think it’s important again to emphasize what some of my colleagues here have emphasized, that we’re talking about a very basic right. We’re not talking about people who have come into a province, have imposed themselves and are asking for a special tax break for something that they don’t deserve. I can hardly think of an example which would follow just what I said, but in any event we’re talking about people who have made a contribution to this country, to this province, to that area since the turn of the century. And what they’re asking for, very simply, is an opportunity to educate their children in French.

You know. Mr. Speaker, one must understand what this country’s about. This debate cannot be segregated unto itself. It must be looked at in the national context. This is one of the reasons, of course, that we feel, the government feels, all of us here feel, that we have to pass this type of legislation. It’s taken on a context of national proportions which have for all intents and purposes muddied any local frustration.

So what’s this country about, Mr. Speaker? You’ve got English provinces. You’ve got Quebec, your French province. You’ve got the union together. You’ve got the federal government which is supposed to serve them in both languages. It sounds neat enough when you’re building a country on that particular basis. There’s one problem though, and it is that you’ve got minorities in both areas. Just as the English minority in the province of Quebec are Quebeckers and have contributed to that province, the Franco-Ontarians in this province have made a contribution here as well. They’re not overnight guests. They’re people who are Ontarians. They’re proud to be exactly that and they want to stay here. They’re asking for something that is extremely basic.

It becomes exceedingly difficult for us in this province, or for the leadership in this province, or for the government in this province to comment about the rights of the minority in the province of Quebec when we look at the way we’ve treated the Franco-Ontarian community in this province.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the basic rights, apart from the fact that it’s from a basic point of view that they’re entitled to the legislation of their rights, in the national context there is nothing that helps the strength of this country or this province as much as a viable Franco-Ontarian community.

[5:30]

One must understand what Levesque and these separatists are talking about. One of my colleagues from the NDP was saying if Quebec wants to separate then we should talk to Quebeckers. There is a basic difference when we are talking about talking to Quebec. We are not talking about talking to the separatists. They have made up their minds and no matter what argument one brings forward they are not going to change. But the majority in the province still has an open mind on this. And those are the people we have to talk to.

But the whole thesis of Levesque’s argument is that the nation for the French in this country is the province of Quebec. He says that the only viable nation is the province of Quebec. And so his argument, the thesis, is that if you have a viable community elsewhere in the province of Quebec you undermine his whole argument.

What I am trying to point out, and I have said this in this House many times, is that for those people who feel that in giving certain rights to the Franco-Ontarian community we are giving them something they don’t deserve, for those anglophones who feel that maybe we are going too far, it is really in their best interests.

For those who believe in the strength and the unity of this country, it is in their best interests to have a viable Franco-Ontario community so that when Levesque tries to tell me that I am a dead duck, that I have no business in this province, that I should be with him in the province of Quebec, I am proud to stand here and say no, we have a viable community here. We are surviving. We are not dead ducks. We don’t believe that the only way I will survive, that my children can go to school, or can keep their language and culture, is to move into the province of Quebec.

I believe that. But I need some help. I think it is important that we put forward some of these views, and not all of us here under and that basic right. Mr. Speaker, as I walk through the corridors of this Parliament, I often look at the pictures, and some of them date way back. There is one fellow at the top of the stairs by the name of Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine. I’d heard about him, but I often wondered what his picture was doing in this place. But knowing of his contribution to the history of this country, there is justification for it. But the other day I ran across something that he said. If I may, Mr. Speaker, just read to you what he said on September 13, 1842:

“Placés par l’Acte d’Union dans une situation exceptionnelle d’infériorité, si nous devons succomber, nous succomberons au moins en nous faisant respecter.”

What Lafontaine was saying on September 13, 1842, was simply this: “We French, placed in a situation of exceptional inferiority by this Union Act, if we are going to fall, if we are going to be assimilated, we are going to do it by being respected.”

Then he went on to say; “It is my duty to maintain this character of respect. Even with people who use a strong hand, like Lord Sydenham.” I must tell you I am not too sure who he is in the sphere of things --

Mr. Foulds: You are lucky.

Mr. Roy: Anyway he says it is his duty, if nothing else, as one who is French in this country, to respect their heritage, and not to tarnish the honour of his ancestors.

I think that is extremely important in a context of the national unity debate, Mr. Speaker.

Some of us -- I think hopefully most of us in this House, in this province -- are concerned about what is dividing this country. Those Franco-Ontarians in this province, Mr. Speaker, who are extremely anxious about what is going on find it awfully tough, as much as they want to, to go into the province of Quebec and say to them: “You are welcome in the rest of the country. Don’t limit yourself to the province of Quebec. French-Canadians, this is all your country.”

How can I argue with any sincerity, how can I be convincing to these people if they bring out examples where I am not respected in my own province? It’s important that we remove some of these impediments. And as the discussion continues, it is so important that we emphasize the question of schools.

There has been a tremendous change going on in this country. But the rallying point for these minorities is no longer the church, but their school. They have survived because of their church for a number of centuries, but the focal point is now their school. If you deny them their school, Mr. Speaker, you are basically denying them theft existence, their survival. And that is why the fights, whether it be in Cornwall, Sturgeon Falls or others, have been so bitter. And this is why it’s important that we pass legislation to avoid this type of situation.

As the dispute goes on and the debate goes on, a lot of people like to stand up and say, “We’re proud to be Canadians and we are going to fight against those who want to divide this country,” and things of this nature. Being a Canadian is not only going to parades on July 1, or saying it publicly on various occasions, at various meetings and so on. It’s going to be important; we’ve had it too easy in this country.

It’s ironic -- and I’m sorry for taking so long -- but I can’t help but think we are fighting in this country about two of the major languages in the world. I look at some other countries -- for instance, in Russia there are something like about 15 different dialects; even in India they speak something like 20 dialects. I could name you federation after federation where they have that sort of problem. We have an opportunity in this country to benefit from two of the major languages and cultural groups that exist in the world, yet we are fighting over it.

People are talking about “shoving French” or “shoving English” down somebody’s throat. I get frustrated. I just can’t understand what the fight is all about.

I suppose that if this country does split up sometime, our children will look back on it and say: “What the heck were they fighting about; what could they have been fighting about?” If some people were starving, or were being attacked, if there was violence, then I could understand it. That’s why I emphasize to be a Canadian today is not only a matter of standing up, but it’s a matter of giving leadership.

I don’t want to be unduly harsh with certain people, but some people say some of the things Levesque is doing to the minority in the province of Quebec, or some of the aspirations that he is putting forth, are in fact anti-Canadian. And I agree. But at least Levesque doesn’t kid anyone about it. He’s got it up front. Where he’s kidded the people, I suppose, is saying there was going to be a referendum when he won the election. Now, he’s acting as though he’s already won the referendum.

The fact is Levesque and his ministers, with impunity -- that’s what is so frustrating when you believe in the country -- are saying that, logically, things are going to split up. People consider this to be anti-Canadian. Well, I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker, certain actions by certain people against certain minorities in this country border on the same thing. Because people who one day will stand up and say, “I am proud to be a Canadian” and talk about what can contribute to this country, at the same time derogate a particular minority because it’s French-Canadian. Next time it’s going to be the other minority, because this country is a country of minorities.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is important. And what we are doing here, basically, is giving leadership. I want to participate in that. I’m concerned, because I look at some of the difficulties. I was talking earlier about some of the things that this government did. And I want to say to the minister that it was unfortunate he didn’t pass this legislation before the election.

That’s another thing. Why did this thing have to go through the whole election where it was again a divisive force? But you know, I have some sympathy. I don’t agree with some of my colleagues and the position they are going to take on this bill, but I have some sympathy and I think it could have been avoided. But I look to the future. Some people say -- you know, some of my separatist colleagues in the province of Quebec -- I suppose the difference between a French-Canadian separatist and a federalist is one has his hopes on the future and the other one just keeps looking at the past. I look at the future, but I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, in looking at the future I think there are some major things that we can do in this province. I want to participate in these things and I say this is a start. But, let’s not stop there.

We’ve had the situation exist. I can recall the spirit of ’67. Remember when everything was working out well in 1967? Then, when the threat seemed to be removed, we went back to our regular complacent selves. We’ve got to work at this country. I think we’ve got a country that’s worthwhile saving, but let’s work at it.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, together I think we should look to the future. But it’s no longer good enough to pontificate and just make promises, we’ve really got to give leadership. We need legislation and this is why I’m supporting this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this bill, I would first like to begin by giving it a new name that would be much more appropriate and applicable to this particular situation. The name that I suggest for the bill is an act to cover up the blunders in Essex county of the Minister of Education. I think the bill should be named this way because I feel the evidence indicates a complete mishandling of the whole situation by this government, and in particular the Minister of Education.

I believe the French community has been asking for a homogeneous school for French-language students since approximately 1968. Various surveys and studies have proven beyond any doubt that a school was needed. The Essex county board and the Windsor Board of Education met a few years back -- I believe it was back in 1974 -- to see how best the two boards together could meet the need of the French students. These meetings led to a formal agreement between the Essex county board and the Windsor board whereby Windsor would purchase education from the county for a minimum of 125 French-language students in the proposed new school. I was party to that agreement, when I was on the board of education, I supported that agreement.

In the spring of 1975 this formal agreement was approved by the school boards. As well, the Essex county board approved construction of a French-language school at 95 per cent grant level from the provincial government. Then came this government’s great restraint program where among other things, it lowered the rate of grant for construction of the new school from 95 per cent to 77 per cent, at which point the whole issue was reconsidered.

In April 1976, the Essex county board reconsidered the issue and a motion to continue with planning and construction of the school lost in a tie vote. I was at that meeting and without a doubt the major reason the school was defeated was because of the change in the rate of grant and the policy of restraint this government was advocating. The government then appointed a mediator in an effort to come up with a solution. Mr. McLeod, the mediator, recommended early this year that this school should be constructed.

For this government, however, I believe the most important date in the whole problem was November 15, 1976, the day a separatist government was elected in Quebec. The Minister of Education admitted as muds earlier this year in a TV interview when he was asked if the PQ election had an influence on his decision to force construction of this school. In a very lengthy reply he said yes.

I think it is clear that the government was not serious about French-language education in this province until this year. I think it is a shame that it took the election of a separatist government in Quebec to get Ontario moving. It is also a shame that this government has used Essex county in an effort to prove that it is now committed to French-language education. If this government was really serious, it would bring in a general bill to guarantee that situations like this never happen again in Ontario. I hope we see this kind of legislation in the fall.

[5:45]

To get back to the way in which this government has handled the situation, I should point out that it was not until one year after the Essex county board stopped planning of this school that the government raised the level of grants back to 95 per cent, even though my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) asked the minister to raise the grant level months before that. In the meantime, the issue became more and more emotional in Essex county to the point where we have a split that has never existed before and will take years to disappear. This is something the people of Essex county should never forgive this government for.

However, I believe, properly handled that this government could have had the school approved this spring at the new grant level, but the Minister of Education completely destroyed this chance when he told the Essex county board that if they did not approve the school he would bring in legislation to force it. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, more than one trustee stated he voted against the school for that very reason. Now, as a result of this government’s mishandling of the situation, we are being asked to approve legislation that is very offensive to many of us, and for me the decision to support or not support the bill is very difficult.

I fully support the concept of a homogeneous school for French-language students in Essex county because I feel the need has been adequately proven, but I resent this bill because I know if the government had handled the situation properly it wouldn’t be necessary.

I resent the fact that after 10 years of blunders the minister has cast himself as a protector of minority rights in Ontario, which is certainly not the case. I also resent the fact that in some parts of Canada, the people of Essex county are being viewed as bigots, and that is not the truth.

During the recent election I discussed this whole situation with many citizens in my riding, and with few exceptions the feeling was that a French-language secondary school was acceptable; but they were confused, and understandably so. The handling of the situation by the government was confusing enough, but at the same time school enrolments are declining. Schools are being closed and the government is advocating restraint. However, I believe the mood of the people in Essex county was one of compromise. Some felt that a good form of compromise would be the use of an existing building.

At a glance, this seems to make sense. In 1970, the enrolment in Windsor secondary schools was 16,000. The projected enrolment for this September is 12,700, and in 1982 it is expected to be far less than 10,000 students. At present in Windsor, due to city-wide lowered enrolment, there is room for about another 1,000 students in existing secondary schools. So one can see there is room for students. However, in order to make use of the existing buildings and to make an entire school available, the boundaries for schools across the city would probably have to be adjusted, and that would present a serious problem for the Windsor Board of Education.

Another major problem with using existing facilities is the decision of who will run it. It is my impression that if the school is in the city of Windsor, and that’s the only place there are existing buildings available, then the Windsor Board of Education would have to run it. They would be very reluctant to do so since most of the students will be coming from the county.

However, putting aside this problem of who would run the school, I think the major problem in using existing facilities is the fact that even though the Essex County Board of Education and the Windsor Board of Education have had over two months to explore and present an alternative to a brand new building, they have not done so; and this, I must say, disappoints me greatly. This has put me in a position of supporting the use of an existing building, but I have come to the conclusion that it is not feasible, partly because of the lack of action on the part of the Essex county board.

However, I do not blame the Essex county school board totally. I feel their lack of initiative is partly a feeling of, “what’s the use.”

I think most of the members are aware, that the Essex County Separate School Board did offer to build the school, but because of this government’s refusal to extend grants this was not possible. I mention this because I think it is further proof that the people of Essex county believe, as much as anyone else, in providing Ontario’s French students with equal opportunities.

I want to finish by saying, once again, that I resent this bill having to come before the Legislature and I blame the government entirely. I believe very strongly that a school must be provided, and since there are no viable alternatives I shall not oppose this bill. I shall support it, but with great reluctance.

I should point out, however, that this bill may not solve the problem and that the life of this school may be very stormy. Here again, the government has to bear responsibility. For my part, I shall do everything possible to encourage the trustees of the Essex county school board to follow the legislation and to build the school on their own, and I will work toward making the school a success.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is a rather difficult situation for myself. I have followed this problem in Essex since the minister got involved. I stayed out of it completely as long as it was in the hands of the board. I did not think it was my responsibility to make any pronouncements at the time the board was dealing with it because they were elected to deal with it.

It was only this spring the minister announced that he was bringing in legislation to force the building of the school. My first impression was that I could not support that; maybe it was because I was elected to municipal council, maybe it was because I was a reeve of a municipality for a number of years and I felt the decision that we made should be binding.

I find it very difficult too, since I’m obligated to vote against my party, and I must say that I am a Liberal and I intend to stay a Liberal.

I suppose that I may be more qualified to speak on this bill than most people think I am. My forefathers settled in this country many years ago. We’ve lived in the same area, that I’m aware of, for 175 years -- maybe not quite that long but somewhere in that vicinity. My great grandfather, my grandfather and my father settled in the community that is predominantly the French part of the county. We have lived happily in that area all that time. I suppose we’ve assimilated some and some have been assimilated by others, and so forth in the family. Around our dining room table, when everyone’s home, I guess we have the United Nations, they are from all races.

If you have followed the goings-on of the school board over this time, Mr. Speaker, they have been in very difficult situations at times. We want to learn French so that we can speak French, but when you’re raised in a school that doesn’t give you any French, then of course you don’t learn any French. I myself never had the opportunity of learning any French in school up to grade eight. We had it in grade nine, but I must say I took it for one year and found that my marks were not very high so I dropped it. I might say, though, that one of my favourite songs was a French song that I led our group in many times.

I’m just thinking of a bilingual school and I’m thinking of a gentleman who gave a position paper on French and on what we should have at the school in Essex county. There was a very well prepared speech made up by the former member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Burr) I guess it was a speech that was never given but when he came to Toronto on the week of, I think April 28 or 26, we intended to debate this bill and Mr. Burr, who was the member for Windsor-Riverside, had done a very thorough study on what we needed in Essex county in the way of a school. Being the scholar he is, he made a very thorough examination of the whole complex. His speech, in as much as it wasn’t given in the Legislature, was published in a small monthly paper, the Tecumseh Tribune, with some documentation from the owner of the Tribune.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, the owner was from a very respected French family in the town of Tecumseh and St. Clair Beach, the Lacasse family who have carried on business in that community for years. Their father was a senator prior to his death in Ottawa. I think some of you may have heard of one of the Lacasse family, who has since passed on, who was a great designer of flags. He put them in his yard and made them for many people.

They are people highly respected in the community and their position on a school was not for a unilingual school, Mr. Speaker, it was actually what we would call a bilingual school, but French oriented.

Just to give you an idea of what they had in mind, I think it’s important I read this part before we recess for dinner: “A bilingual complex should be open to more people. Thus the argument of separate facilities and extra costs could be largely demolished. The French-language students must go to school anyway. They must be provided for. A bilingual school proposal could be integrated in the board’s overall construction plans without division and without the need of distinctly separate facilities. It could also provide a greater opportunity to more students to learn a second language.

“I would be willing to concede,” and I am quoting here, Mr. Speaker, “that such a complex, since it would be the only one of its kind in the county should retain a French atmosphere and all those attending this particular type of school should be willing to take French to some measure, even if it was initially just an extension of oral French programs. Hopefully as the oral French programs became more firmly entrenched in those lower grades and down to kindergarten, we can, in an intelligent manner, over the years develop a truly bilingual institution, tailor-made to our area.

“Learning the French language, spoken by some 30 per cent of Canadians, should be: 1. of free choice; 2. should be a fun thing and not a matter of confrontation and devisement.

“It seems to me that we cannot develop goodwill by building a wall around us or by separating ourselves from the community. I strongly believe that the establishment of a bilingual complex established in good faith and with the tools at our disposal can meet the needs of our time and build a bridge of unity.”

I will end the quote there, Mr. Speaker, and I may use parts of it later on, but it being 6 o’clock I will stop.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.