Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday during the question period, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) and I engaged in an exchange regarding the land drainage reference study, a study from which we obtained the names of certain sites which the minister had left off a list which he had given to the resources development committee. I want to refer to this exchange because it was shown on television and also because I think it was an important one here.

The Minister of the Environment said: “Indeed, the reason the Leader of the Opposition now knows of some of these sites is because he has called our office, been given that information, then has the nerve to stand in this House and pretend to have found them.”

Mr. McClellan: You are on television.

Mr. S. Smith: At this point, I rose on a point of privilege. I said: “It alarms me that the minister should be so misinformed…Does he not know that I got that list of sites from a federal report which was in --”

At this point, the minister interjected: “That we gave you -- that we gave you.” You will remember this, Mr. Speaker. Then I said, “No. No. Which we got from the Minister of Natural Resources and which the Environment Ministry didn’t even have a copy of.”

Whereupon the minister said -- and I didn’t hear this in the melee yesterday, although it was on the television very clearly -- “Mr. Speaker, in the kindest and gentlest of terms, that is not so.”

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you the chronology with regard to this report and put it on the record so that all can see what the facts are. A researcher from my office saw reference to this study in an International Joint Commission report. She then called the International Joint Commission in Windsor and they referred her for a copy of it to the surveys and mapping branch in the Ministry of Natural Resources in Toronto. She called there and got it from the director, Mr. Code, who agreed to send this report to her.

At the time, she also checked the Ministry of the Environment library, and the study was not in that library. I then presented the report here in the House and asked certain questions on the matter. After that, the researcher received a call from Mr. Ed Turner of the Ministry of the Environment, asking what that report was and where it was from. When she said, “Did you have a copy of it?” he did not know if he had a copy of it. When she said, “Do you remember ever seeing this report?” he said no.

That is the chronology. It is because she happened to seek this report out from the Ministry of Natural Resources on reference from the International Joint Commission that I was able to bring it in and correct the incorrect list of sites given by the minister to the resources development committee. The minister, therefore, either has been misinformed by his civil servants and truly believes that I got the information from his ministry or, if he knows better, he has misinformed the House. Under either circumstance, it is incumbent upon him to correct the record and also to seek from his own civil servants an accurate depiction of what in fact happened.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the Leader of the Opposition would want to correct the record, as he sees it, at the earliest possible moment, but it is customary to wait until the minister is here to give him an opportunity to respond. I am not going to take any action. In fact, there is no action that should be taken by the chair. I am sure the minister will want to give his version of the sequence of events when he comes.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Sargent: This may or may not be a point of privilege, but I will ask you to rule on it, Mr. Speaker. Three days ago I asked the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) for important information relative to the hearings in Hydro. Nothing has been forthcoming yet. I am concerned that it is a dodge and that we will not have this information before the hearings.

Mr. Speaker: It is certainly not a point of privilege. You asked for the information and we assume that ministers respond at the earliest possible time after they have done their research. I don’t think the honourable member should say that it is a dodge. We assume that all honourable members around here are honourable and will co-operate to the best of their ability.

Mr. S. Smith: That takes a lot of assuming.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BELL CANADA RATES

Mr. S. Smith: One hardly knows which of the seven out of 26 ministers who are here today to put a question to. I have one for the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Eakins: He won’t know either.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He has still got jet lag.

Mr. Breithaupt: At least he can take it as notice, which shows that he is here.

Mr. S. Smith: He is here in a spirit of Concorde and harmony, I am sure. Earlier this week the government indicated that it will not be protecting hydro users from drastic rate increases. I would like to know what they have against telephone users. In particular, the minister will know that the CRTC has twice told Bell Canada that in setting telephone rates Bell must take into account the $132 million in profit it may earn in Saudi Arabia. Bell is now appealing that decision to the federal cabinet. Why in heaven’s name is the government of Ontario supporting Bell’s appeal in this regard, especially since the government took the exact opposite view in front of the CRTC in the original hearing in 1978? Why is Ontario supporting Ball in the appeal before the federal cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has always paid careful attention to those sorts of matters. That is why, with some regularity, we have made interventions or appearances on behalf of one side or the other of a case when these matters come up to those boards.

Mr. S. Smith: And sometimes on both sides, as in this instance.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will ask the minister to respond on Monday next when he is in the House; he will not be here this morning. I will refer that question to him.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Was the minister at no time consulted when the Ontario government took a position with regard to telephone rate increases or with regard to the argument that the increase would favour Bell’s technology or something of this kind? As Minister of Industry and Tourism, is he not consulted when the government takes a position either for or against a large industry such as Bell Canada?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We were not only consulted, but we also had a great deal of input into the decision ultimately arrived at by cabinet. I do not think we would be doing anyone a service to purport to have anyone other than the Minister of Transportation and Communications respond to the Leader of the Opposition on that very complex question.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister not aware that Bell transferred something like $25 million towards payment of reserve in taxes so they could keep within the 12 per cent dividend limit on their earnings last year and, if this additional income is added, they are going to be well above that? Does he not think this is an added reason why he should make some representation -- an application -- to the CRTC -- to have those rates reduced for the consumers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, Mr. Speaker, the allegations made by the honourable member are matters which the CRTC is there to deal with.

Mr. Swart: I know. But somebody has to apply.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can assure him that this matter was discussed at length within the government and a careful and reasoned decision was arrived at.

Ms. Gigantes: You are protecting Bell; not the consumer,

Mr. MacDonald: Are you going to intervene?

Ms. Gigantes: They are intervening -- on behalf of Bell.

Mr. Warner: They’ll be there to help out Bell.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the honourable member wants the basis, the background and the reasoning behind that, he can ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications on Monday.

Mr. Swart: Another short supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why don’t you just say you are going to nationalize Bell and let it go at that?

Mr. Warner: That’s what the Tories did in Manitoba in 1906.

Mr. Wildman: What about the Muskoka telephone system? The Tories are used to nationalizing telephone companies.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We all know you want to nationalize Bell and Northern Telecom. That’s what you’re going to do.

Mr. McClellan: Go back to sleep!

Hon. Mr. Davis: You’ll lose every vote in Northern Telecom in Bramalea --

Mr. Speaker: Order! I am sure somebody will direct a question to the Premier later on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You’re quite right, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister’s statement that the CRTC is delegated to deal with this matter, is he not aware that it only sits as a judge and jury; that it does not do any investigation on its own; and that it only takes action on rates, either up or down, if an application is made? Therefore, in the interests of the people of this province, should the minister not now initiate such an application?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I hear very well the complaints and reservations the member has about the CRTC.

Some hon. members: No -- about you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I suspect that, after May 22, when the new government comes in, it will have a fresh look at the CRTC. No doubt what happened in Britain yesterday will happen in Canada on May 22, and there will be a new era for the CRTC. How did Labour do yesterday? I missed the results.

Mr. Swart: What has that got to do with Bell Telephone?

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you try minding the business over here?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you all wearing black armbands? Are you all in mourning?

Mr. Laughren: Are you proud of Margaret Thatcher?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The Leader of the Opposition with a new question.

Mr. S. Smith: Funny, I did not think the minister was such a fan of the Saudi deal as to want to go and support it in front of the cabinet. I am very surprised at him.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: A question, Mr. Speaker -- I guess it will have to go to my hapless friend the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, upon whose shoulders it always falls to stand and refer questions to others, because the others are seldom here.

Mr. Bradley: They’re a government in exile; they are hiding.

Mr. S. Smith: I ask him a question which really should go to the Minister of Energy. It follows the minister’s statement regarding the Babcock and Wilcox boilers.

[10:15]

The minister said in the House on May 1, “I am informed by Hydro the order for boilers for the 600-megawatt Candu nuclear station being supplied to Korea was obtained in 1976 by Foster Wheeler Limited of St. Catharines by competitive bidding against other suppliers.”

Would the minister please check to find out what that means? Is the minister saying this was the lowest bid? If in fact it was not the lowest bid, then what does he mean by “competitive bidding”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why didn’t you ask him when he made the statement?

Mr. S. Smith: That was the day when you and I were not here, Mr. Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Will the Premier come to order, and will the Leader of the Opposition ignore the interjections?

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the Premier wanted to know why I didn’t ask the minister when he made his statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will you please put your question?

Mr. S. Smith: The minister made the statement on a day when neither the Premier nor I was in the House.

Mr. Speaker: You have already said that. You are repeating yourself. Will you please put your question?

Mr. S. Smith: Good. For the benefit of Hansard, I didn’t think you heard me, Mr. Speaker.

If it is not the lowest bid that allowed Foster Wheeler Limited to win over Babcock and Wilcox, if Foster Wheeler was not lower than Babcock and Wilcox, would the minister make a statement in the House explaining the basis for preferring the Foster Wheeler bid over the Babcock and Wilcox bid? The minister at that time also said a number of other people are using the Babcock and Wilcox boilers used in Pickering B, Bruce B -- the Argentina one, and so on. Would this minister ask the Minister of Energy to confirm that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s most recent purchase was the Foster Wheeler one and that they have not bought from Babcock and Wilcox since that time?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Energy. He will be back here on Monday.

Mr. Sargent: Sure you will.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the minister is making the investigation to determine the basis on which the decision was made, would he continue to give consideration to the fact there is severe unemployment in the Niagara Peninsula and that we need those contracts for employment in Foster Wheeler?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What does Monty say about that? What do you say, Monty? Do you agree, Monty?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The minister will also be advised of that.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: When the minister is compiling this report I wonder if he would include in it whether these contracts include design and the guarantee of the design to function on the part of the supplier? Would he say, in that case, whether they would be obliged to pay for any repairs that are necessary on boilers that have given us trouble?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I will be pleased to also include that.

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, given that the Leader of the Opposition has in the past few weeks concentrated an attack on Babcock and Wilcox, will the minister take it upon himself to put forward a formal statement in this House outlining all of the details as to why the situation that developed as a result of the tubing failures in certain plants has developed and who is actually at fault in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, the Minister of Energy always tries to be as helpful as possible in providing information.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Look after the multinationals, Monty.

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could speak on a point of order before the next question?

Mr. Speaker: You can try.

Mr. Riddell: With about a quarter of the Conservative members able to turn out for a Friday morning sitting, would you use your good influence on whatever body it is that recommends the change of procedure around this place to ascertain the feasibility of sitting on a Wednesday rather than a Friday and let the Conservative members have their cabinet meetings on Friday if they so desire? This is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker: I have always felt it was the responsibility of the chair to maintain civility and decorum; presence, no.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it’s tempting to call a vote because the NDP is in a position to defeat the government right now.

Mr. Foulds: Singlehandedly.

Mr. Cassidy: Singlehandedly, without even the support of the Liberal Party, which is always so difficult to get.

Mr. Laughren: We should have a no- confidence motion right now.

Mr. Cassidy: My colleague, the member for Nickel Belt, is suggesting we have a motion of no confidence and have the vote right now. I have to hold him back because there is another election on right now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Any time you are ready.

Mr. Rotenberg: You will get what Callaghan got.

Mr. MacDonald: Take a look at BC next week. Take a look at the Tories in BC.

SHORTAGE OF SKILLED WORKERS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education about apprenticeships and skilled labour training, which is one of the reasons why that government is going to have problems in the next provincial election.

Mr. Rotenberg: Not with you.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister aware of the Nickerson report on skilled industrial workers in Guelph, Toronto, and Hamilton, which says, “There is in practicality no apprenticeship training scheme in existence in one of the highest areas of concentration of industries in Canada”?

Is the minister aware that that survey showed there were no apprentices in the electrical equipment industry firms that were surveyed, in the aircraft industry firms, in structural steel or in foundries? Is the minister aware that in the firms that were surveyed, apart from the steel industry, 60 major companies with 56,000 workers had only 303 apprentices among them?

Given that record, how does the minister expect Ontario will meet its future needs for skilled workers and how does she account for such an extraordinary failure of skills training in Ontario’s industrial heartland?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the honourable member recognizes the fact that over the last 18 months a great deal of activity has been going on in the area of industrial training specifically related to the machine tool industry --

Mr. Swart: Activity but no training.

Mr. Laughren: That’s not true.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- with exploration of other industries with the solid intention of moving into those areas as vigorously and as rapidly as we can.

Mr. McClellan: After it has been studied for a couple of decades.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are aware that there are very grave deficits in many areas in terms of skills training and skilled workers. We have been attempting to move in those areas in which the deficits seem to be most acute --

Mr. Warner: By running ads overseas?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- attempting to resolve problems in those areas first and then moving on to the others.

Mr. Swart: After 35 years of Tory government.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We share this, I am sorry to admit, with all other provinces in Canada because it has apparently been a Canadian philosophy for some time that the area of skilled manpower training was primarily a responsibility at the federal level. It is obvious that we have not been able to rely on the current and past federal governments to accomplish anything in this area.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you just study it for another 20 years?

Mr. McClellan: There must have been a bad Minister of Education somewhere along the line.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Therefore, we are attempting to move with federal co-operation, I must admit, as a result of some new --

Mr. Bradley: Oh, come on! You should have been doing it yourself.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- enthusiasm which has been engendered within the federal bureaucracy for support of such programs. That’s exactly what we’re doing at the moment.

Mr. Kerrio: That stuff won’t wash.

Mr. O’Neil: When you are at fault, blame the feds.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the monumental record of neglect in the area of skills training by this government, dating back to the time when the Premier was the Minister of Education, and in view of the fact that these figures, which were given to us by the Minister of Industry and Tourism yesterday, indicate that the selective placement service is looking for 400 skilled workers a year in Europe, which is more than the total number of apprentices in these major firms in the Toronto, Hamilton and Guelph area, is the minister prepared to let us know whether there is now an overall plan of skilled labour needs in Ontario, how many skilled tradesmen does the province intend to see trained over the course of the next five and 10 years, how many will industry need and where are those trained workers in Ontario going to come from?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have not completed what I would call a finite survey of all of the skilled trades requirements in the province.

Mr. McClellan: None of your surveys are ever finite. It is a perpetual process.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have had some very good examinations with some reasonably accurate projections. The labour market in- formation division in the Ministry of Labour is working diligently in that direction.

Mr. Warner: Diligently? Your idea of speed is to put roller skates on a caterpillar.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As a result of the discussions about specific apprenticeship programs, it is our intent to move as rapidly as we can to overcome those skill shortages which would appear to be acute at this time and then to attack those which would appear to be less acute which, I think, is a reasonable route to follow.

Mr. B. Newman: Could I ask the minister to consider shortening the period of time in which an individual can receive his journeyman’s qualifications -- not in all skills, but in some certain skills? Also, would she consider supplementing the wages paid to an apprentice, either through her ministry or through some other device, to encourage our youth to go into apprenticeship?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: One of the features of employer-sponsored training programs is an assistance in remuneration provided through the employer to the person who is in the training program.

Certainly, there are some areas in which there needs to be more effort than we have been able to encourage at this point, but I am pleased to say that the employers who have had some reluctance -- and the member for Haldimand-Brant-Oxford --

Mr. Nixon: Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- raised one area the other day which is problematical in that the employers are saying, “There is no point in our training young people because somebody else comes along and steals them.” This is a problem which we are trying to sort out.

I think there are a number of routes that should be pursued and we’re looking at certain alternatives which were raised by some of those who participated in the job skills conference last year. A couple of mechanisms have been proposed.

In terms of the apprenticeship program, I have asked specifically the Industrial Training Council, which has responsibility as the advisory committee to the minister in the areas of industrial training, to examine certain apprenticeships because I don’t know whether the length of the training program is appropriate for the educational level which most of those who are admitted to the training programs now have.

I am also not sure whether the ratios which have been established in certain instances under certain kinds of negotiated agreements between labour and management are appropriate in terms of the numbers of skilled tradesmen required for each apprentice.

I’ve asked them specifically to look at this and to discuss it with both labour and management to try and resolve the problem, because I really doubt whether 6,000 hours is absolutely essential for some trades, at this point, when those who are admitted to that training program have grade 12 education and have had some technical basis in their grade 12 education.

Mr. Cassidy: Given the fact that in the Robertson, Nickerson report 48 of the 69 major companies surveyed had no apprenticeship program at all and the bulk of the remaining companies only had a handful of apprentices each, is this government now prepared to undertake that in future every major company in Ontario will be required to carry not skilled training programs, rather than being allowed to simply poach or import workers from abroad and not carry out the responsibilities to ensure a continued flow of skilled workers in Ontario?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I’m not sure what the leader of the third party’s definition of a major company is. It is my sincere hope, and the route we’re trying to follow, to encourage all companies in the industrial area of reasonable size, with 50 employees or more, to become involved in either employer-sponsored training or apprenticeship training.

One thing I should have mentioned to the member for Windsor-Walkerville is that we already have one pilot project in a shortened apprenticeship program in the motor vehicle mechanic area -- the one at Algonquin College we were talking about -- which we are assessing this year, and it looks as though it is going to be reasonably successful.

Mr. Cassidy: The government has been assessing for 35 years.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, we have not. It has been in existence now for two years.

Mr. Cassidy: The government has done nothing else.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It has one more year to go and that apprenticeship program will be shortened significantly if it proves, as I suspect it will, to be satisfactory.

Mr. Sweeney: Given that one of the major disincentives for young people going into an apprenticeship is the fact they have no guarantee they’re going to be able to finish it -- because of the seniority clauses they’re the first ones to be laid off -- does the minister have any plans or any provisions in place to provide some guarantees that, through the community college or through some other business, whatever the case may be, those who start a program and who want to continue it will have a guarantee they will be able to continue with it, such as they have in other countries?

[10:30]

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In our jurisdiction, that would seem to be a major problem primarily in the construction-skilled trades. It’s less of a problem in the industrial trades. But this is a problem which has been identified and one which is being looked at now to find the appropriate solution to ensure that those young people who begin the program will be able to complete it. That’s important.

I hope we shall have some recommendations about that kind of guarantee. Whether I can call it a guarantee or not, or a strong assurance, I don’t know at this point. But that is being looked at.

HEALTH CARE FINANCING

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Premier in the absence of the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). In view of the fact federal contributions to health care in Ontario this fiscal year will rise by almost double the increase in Ontario’s health spending, and in view of the increasing evidence that the quality of health care in this province is being seriously undermined by the government’s health spending restraints, is the Premier -- and the government -- now prepared, at the very least, to pass through all of the $280 million increase in federal dollars for health in Ontario --

Mr. S. Smith: I asked that question two weeks ago.

Mr. McClellan: You didn’t get an answer, did you?

Mr. Cassidy: -- in order to ensure the maintenance of a decent health care system in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wants the world to know he asked that question two weeks ago.

Mr. Nixon: He wants it to know you didn’t answer it satisfactorily.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I think it was, in that the Treasurer was invited to sit down with --

Mr. McClellan: He wasn’t invited but he’s welcome.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He told me yesterday he was appearing there Monday. I don’t know if he was invited, volunteered or was asked.

Mr. McClellan: He volunteered.

An hon. member: Barged in.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, barged in? I’ve never known the Treasurer of this province to barge in. Anyway, he is going to visit with the committee Monday afternoon and has the figures, which I think will prove interesting, and I think that will be the appropriate time to discuss it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the Premier will not be appearing before that committee, can he explain why it is that when federal contributions to health spending in Ontario are increasing by 13.2 per cent this year, the allocation for the budgets of hospitals in this province this year is increasing by only 3.2 per cent? Why is he taking so much money out of the health budget for areas like grants to multinational corporations, and when will he come back with a commitment to decent health care in the province?

Mr. Warner: Yes. That money wasn’t spent on health. What have you done with it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The leader of the New Democratic Party, who, I guess, must be a little upset today as a result of events elsewhere --

Mr. Warner: Try answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- which, I’m sure, will happen here as well in a couple of weeks --

Ms. Gigantes: What’s bothering you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- really is to a certain extent distorting the issue. The alterations in the financing of health and the financing of post-secondary education are well known to the members of this House. The matter will be discussed, and I’m sure after the discussion on Monday the leader of the New Democratic Party will recognize we are maintaining the quality of the health system, and that it is being funded adequately -- which is, after all, our responsibility. I would suggest that he appear at this committee himself to listen to the explanations from the Treasurer.

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you read the transcripts from that committee, if you’re so sanguine about it?

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you drop into a committee meeting once in a while, especially Hydro, to see what’s going on?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You never invite me.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Industry and Tourism has the answer to a question asked previously.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It’s quite clear the Premier has deferred to the Treasurer, who will be before the committee, and I think it would be fruitless to pursue it any further at this point.

Mr. Cassidy: It would be nice to know where they’re taking the money, Mr. Speaker.

CHRYSLER LAYOFFS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, last Monday and Tuesday, in my absence, several questions were asked, quite understandably, about the difficult situation in Windsor as a result of the layoffs at the Chrysler engine plant there. I want to take this opportunity to provide the responses to several of those questions as quickly as possible.

On April 30, the leader of the third party asked questions relating to the layoffs and pointed out that these layoffs were occurring in spite of incentive grants that Chrysler has received from the government of Ontario. I want to confirm to this House and to the leader of the third party that Chrysler at no time has received incentive grants from the government of Ontario.

Secondly, he inquired as to what we as a government were going to do to ensure that Chrysler Canada lives up to the promises it made to the government to give Canadians a fair share of future production and jobs in the engine field under the auto pact.

My officials have been meeting with Chrysler and, as a result of those discussions, it becomes rather evident that at this time, on the basis of the information we have, the Canadian company is not being discriminated against in favour of its United States plants in the production cutbacks that the overall corporation has found it necessary to make in view of its quite substantially lower vehicle sales.

To this end, I thought the House would be interested in statistics from Ward’s Automotive Reports of April 23, 1979. In essence, those figures indicate that production of Chrysler passenger cars this year is down from 835,833 to 806,498; in other words, there has been a reduction in production at this stage of some 3.5 per cent. We thought it would be interesting to look at those figures to ascertain where the bulk of that decrease in production had occurred.

It is interesting to note that the production of Chrysler passenger cars this year has decreased in the United States by 4.9 per cent and has increased in Canada by 4.4 per cent. So, rather than being in a situation where the burden of the reduction in production of Chrysler automobiles has fallen on Canada, quite the reverse is the case: The burden has fallen on the United States, which is down 4.9 per cent; Canada, notwithstanding the overall decrease in the company’s sales, is up 4.4 per cent

I should point out that this particular plant, the V-8 engine plant, is the sole source of its size of engine for the entire Chrysler family. Since the great majority of engines are shipped to the United States assembly plants -- which is interesting in view of our continuing balance-of-payments dialogue -- the impact of lower US vehicle assembly figures is reflected in the Windsor engine production.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) and the member for Windsor-Walkerville also asked questions that day related to the possibility of transferring the six-cylinder engine production back to this plant, which formerly did make the in-line, six-cylinder equipment for Chrysler.

In point of fact, notwithstanding the move towards six- and four-cylinder vehicles, the in-line, six-cylinder engines formerly made at this plant are very substantially declining in demand, as the industry trends are towards the shorter four-cylinder and V-type engines, which this plant can make and which I will get to in a moment.

We have been informed by the corporation that the elimination of the in-line, six-cylinder production in Canada has not been taken up by increased production in the Trenton, Michigan, plant in the United States, which is the plant now making the in-line sixes for Chrysler. It is interesting to note too that production at that US plant has been cut back twice since the Windsor production of in-line sixes was discontinued. Therefore, the available in-line, six cylinder capacity in Windsor is quite surplus to market needs. Reintroduction of the in-line, six-cylinder production in Windsor, therefore, would be quite a retrogressive step.

On the other hand, the cars that will be built in the future will not have in-line sixes but will have V-8, four-cylinder and V-6 engines; hence, the change last year of this plant from in-line six production to V-8 production is a very important one and the type of transfer that will ensure long-term employment in that particular plant. V-8 engines are used in the very popular vans and trucks as well as still in large passenger cars. Thus the V-8 engines are believed to have quite a good future.

We understand this plant could be converted fairly economically to produce smaller V-8s if market demands so dictate, as we expect they might. These factors, together with the recent expansion, give this particular operation some long-term stability that other plants -- for example, the Trenton, Michigan, plant -- would now be concerned about. It is interesting too to note that the Trenton, Michigan, plant has had a layoff of some 1,350 employees, as compared to the ones in Windsor, simply because that plant is doing the in-line six-cylinder engines.

Mr. Sargent: Time, time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Finally, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) asked some questions relating to our assurance that Chrysler would make sure we continued to get our fair share of the small car production and future production demands. I’m somewhat concerned in that in those questions it was implied that a year previously the then Minister of Labour (Miss Stephenson) had implied to this House that there was some sort of guarantee that she was able to provide at that time. In fact, a close reading of Hansard from that date will indicate she made no such undertaking, but simply that meetings would be undertaken to ensure that all efforts were made to maintain that fair share.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, no. If you’re saying that she misled the House again that’s fine.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: She didn’t mislead the House. I challenge the member to go back and read the statement his colleague referred to and stand up before question period is over and tell me whether he said the Minister of Labour at that time directly undertook to ensure that or whether she undertook to ensure that discussions were had to that end. There’s a great deal of difference. Before accusing her of misleading the House, which she didn’t, he should go back and check the record. I won’t argue with the member now but ask that he go and check Hansard and stand up and either withdraw that allegation or confirm that he stands by it.

Finally, the member for Windsor-Riverside asked questions with regard to the burden of the change in demand for that engine and where it was being absorbed. To take a moment, the simple fact of the situation is that the plant used to turn out at full capacity some 1,900 assembled engines per day. This is made up of some 1,100 fully machined and assembled engines, which is their full capacity to machine in that plant, and 800 machined engine blocks which must be imported. The member indicated at that time, in his question --

Mr. Foulds: You said that, just carry on with the answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I didn’t say that.

Ms. Gigantes: If you knew your ministry, you could answer the questions in the first place.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Windsor-Sandwich said, and I would quote: “Is he also aware that of the 1,900 engines which have been produced up till now in that engine plant, 1,400 of the engine blocks were produced in Windsor?” I want to point out that none of those 1,400 engine blocks was ever produced in Windsor. Windsor does not have the capacity to make those engine blocks. In fact all of the engine blocks, the 1,900, have always come in from Michigan. Eleven hundred of them can be machined in that plant. In order to work at full capacity of 1,900 fully assembled engines, the balance, 800 machined engines, were brought into that plant so that 1,900 could be fully assembled.

It is important to note that in this cutback to 1,380 complete engines assembled, those 500 blocks are still planned to be imported from Detroit even though the Windsor plant has the full capacity to produce them. That was the allegation made. I’m sorry, that was the allegation he made.

Mr. Nixon: Why didn’t you go on a three-week excursion?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In response to that, may I say that of that reduction, all -- and I repeat to the House, all of that reduction -- is being absorbed by a reduction in the imported machined engines from the United States. The current capacity will be 1,350, and all of the reduction will be absorbed by the persons who supply the fully machined engines from the United States. In conclusion, may I say that I think all of this is evidence of several things. While we are concerned --

Mr. McClellan: What is the difference between “finally” and “in conclusion”? You said “finally” two pages ago.

Mr. Riddell: This is a terrible abuse of the question period.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In my absence on Monday and Tuesday you took fully half of question period on these questions. If you want the answers I would have given that day, I’m happy to give them today.

Mr. Warner: We will never ask you a question again.

Mr. Swart: We might as well kill time some way when there are no ministers here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, a $35-million modernization occurred in that plant last year in order to convert it out of the in-line sixes, which are going out of use, to V-8s. Second, there are, as we said earlier, going to be some technological changes which will cause layoffs. Compounded to that is the dramatic decrease in sales of Chryslers this year. In an attempt to meet all that, they have quite properly been careful to make sure that the Canadian components of those cars are unaffected at the assembly. The burden, in terms of the auto part portion, falls entirely on the United States.

[10:45]

In view of these changes, we are concerned of course that any further changes are made up for by increased investment in this province by Chrysler and the other auto makers to ensure the commitments made under the auto pact are kept. I might add that in terms of Chrysler they are being kept and any employment loss replaced in terms of the new investment that will continue to occur. To this end, we are continually meeting with Chrysler to ensure that new investment.

Mr. Speaker: I think there were answers to six or seven questions there so I am not going to deduct any time from the question period. I would like to refer the minister to standing order 27(a) which says in part: “The minister may take an oral question as notice to be answered orally at a later sitting, but where any reserved answer requires a lengthy statement, the statement shall be given under Statements by the Ministry’.” Since it was a combination of an answer to several questions -- about seven questions -- I will not deduct time. If there are no supplementaries we will get on to another question.

Mr. Cassidy: If I can cut through the obfuscations of the minister in his role as a corporate apologist, Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that 550 jobs are being eliminated permanently because of the layoffs at the Chrysler engine plant in Windsor? Will he inform the House what specific steps are being taken by Chrysler Canada in order to ensure some other kinds of jobs are created in Windsor or elsewhere in Canada in order to offset that loss of jobs, since a third of the jobs in the engine plant are being lost for what the minister says is only a three per cent drop in sales of passenger cars by Chrysler?

Mr. Ruston: Some of your members should buy Canadian cars.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My wife drives a Chrysler.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have tried to make it clear we are meeting with Chrysler to ensure that company, which is going through a difficult period, will make sufficient new investment in this country, in this province, to replace those jobs. That’s as simply and as directly as I can put it.

I think it’s interesting to note that last year when Chrysler was quite aware it was phasing out of the in-line six production, it invested $35 million in this same plant to convert it to a V-8 assembly plant to ensure there would be a product made by this plant which would survive for many years. That’s the sort of reinvestment we think has to continue to occur. To that end, we are meeting regularly with the company to make sure they do that.

I might add, I trust the leader of the third party will support this government if we consider giving an incentive grant to Chrysler to make sure new reinvestment occurs and new jobs are created.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the minister whether he is aware a substantial number of the engine blocks, rather than being machined in the Windsor plant, are being machined in Mexico and are coming through Detroit back into the plant for assembly? If those blocks were first produced either in Canada or in the United States, those 550 employees might not have to be laid off.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, that is not our information. All the engine blocks are made in Michigan. This plant has a maximum capacity of 1,100 machine blocks per day. They have gone down from 1,900 fully assembled engines per day to 1,350, but they are continuing to operate at full capacity for the machining component, which is 1,100. In order to get up to 1,350, therefore, they do have to import, as they always have, the differential -- which is, in this case, about 250 fully machined blocks per day -- because they don’t have the machining capacity.

I don’t know where those machined blocks come from, but wherever they come from that of course enables those persons working on the assembly end to continue to operate at full capacity. One of the points of my statement was to indicate they have not cut back on their machining capacity, pro rata for example, with the cutbacks throughout the system. They have kept that operating at full capacity.

[Later (11:12):]

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Industry and Tourism raised some questions about the assurances given by the then Minister of Labour on May 2, 1978. I have had the chance to look at the minister’s assurances, or what we thought were assurances. The exchange was as follows:

“Mr. Cooke…Has the minister had any discussions with Chrysler ... in order to convince the company we should be getting a fair share of the small car production and a fair share of the future production demands in Windsor?

“Hon. B. Stephenson: That was precisely the burden of the message which was conveyed to the Chrysler officials who were here at the time of our meeting.

“Mr. Cooke: What was the answer?

“Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.”

We had every reason to understand that that was an assurance that we would be getting our fair share of both the small car production and of the future production demands in Windsor. If that doesn’t mean an assurance about jobs, I don’t know what does.

Ms. Gigantes: It is a government of half-truths.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, just to put this in context, the member for Windsor-Riverside said the other day that I ought to be aware of the fact that last year the then Minister of Labour had given an assurance that there would be no job losses.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not so.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That was the allegation, and I’m reading from Hansard of last Tuesday. He asked if I was aware that the Minister of Labour a year ago had given an assurance that there would be no job losses. That was the allegation the member made three days ago, that the Minister of Labour had assured there would be no job losses. On the basis of what the leader of the New Democratic Party has just read from last year, it’s quite obvious that she did not give an assurance that there would be no job losses.

She gave an assurance that we would get our fair share under the auto pact, and that was the burden of the discussions that were carried on with Chrysler.

Mr. Swart: Stop splitting hairs.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not splitting hairs.

Mr. Foulds: What does “yes” mean? Does it mean “maybe”?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Either the leader of the third party should confirm that the Minister of Labour a year ago said there would be no job losses or that she did not. That’s the burden of his point of privilege. She clearly did not say there would be no job losses.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It’s obvious that this is counter-productive. There is a difference of opinion and there is a difference of interpretation that we’re not going to resolve here. All I can do is suggest to the member that if he is not satisfied with the answer to a question, he can avail himself of the provision of standing order 28.

[Reverting (10:50):]

TEACHER-BOARD DISPUTE

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Education. In view of the fact that a petition was brought in on April 23, requesting her ministry to step in by May 1 and get the students in the Haldimand educational system back in the school -- May 1 was on Tuesday of this, past week -- does the minister have a report for the House in this regard?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: On Tuesday evening, I believe it was, of this week, the parents of the area of Haldimand-Norfolk called both the teachers’ federation and the school board to a meeting and proceeded to be as effective in terms of directing those groups as any group of individuals I have ever heard in my life. They admonished both to begin to behave in an adult manner and to sit down together at the bargaining table, which they will be doing today and tomorrow.

The board and the teachers’ federation have reinstituted negotiations under the direction of the parents of that area, who are telling them the problems are soluble and that in fact they should be able to do it by themselves. The parents have requested that there not be any intercession by the Education Relations Commission because they have suggested that both the teachers and the board of education should be sufficiently intelligent and adult to resolve the difficulties.

We are continuing to monitor the situation on behalf of the educational program of the children.

Mr. G. I. Miller: If they don’t get back, what are the minister’s plans? Does she anticipate moving in, or is she going to let it continue to go on for weeks in the future?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As I have explained several times to the honourable member and to others, the responsibility of the Education Relations Commission under Bill 100, to monitor and assess the potential damage to the educational program of the children, is there. They are monitoring it and they will report to me as soon as they believe there is any urgency to resolve it.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Isaacs: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Now that the honourable minister has had an opportunity to ascertain the facts of the case which I brought to his attention yesterday, is he prepared to withdraw his accusation about political gain and recognize the seriousness of this case and of the situation which I described, that is, two days without hospital beds being available? Is the minister prepared to consult with his colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) to order a coroner’s inquest so that all the facts of this case can be established and so that steps can be taken to ensure that a similar situation, in which all the hospital beds were full, does not arise again?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, a preliminary investigation which is being carried out this morning and is continuing through the day would indicate that clearly this is a matter of medical judgement.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. If the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition want to engage in private conversations let them do it behind the Speaker’s chair.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order. It is an admonition from the chair. All I want to hear is the answer from the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, to continue: a preliminary investigation this morning would indicate that it is a matter of medical judgement. I have asked my staff to complete the inquiry today and to present to me all of the facts about beds available at that time. I think the best way to ensure this kind of thing does not lead to unnecessary and unfounded concerns is that there be an inquest, and I am going to ask for an inquest.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am very pleased to hear that, and I am sorry to note that the Premier doesn’t regard the question as seriously as I do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Point of order: I resent that implication. The member’s own colleagues were not paying attention. There was some discussion here. To say that we were not interested is totally unfounded. It just demonstrates to me he has a lot to learn about this business yet.

Mr. McClellan: He knows a clown when he sees one.

Mr. Isaacs: Now that it has been demonstrated conclusively that the cuts in beds and the arbitrary formulas which are being used by the government result in situations like this, in which no regular treatment beds were available for two whole days in a large community such as the city of Hamilton and the surrounding municipalities, will the minister table for the information of this House the health reasons on which the cutbacks in beds are based, and will he review the situation, not only in Hamilton but also in every municipality across the province, to ensure that situations like this never arise again?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, let me tell the honourable member that in the hospitals in the Hamilton area there have been no cuts in beds recently. In fact, I am told that as of this morning they have 1,872 beds. There have been no recent cutbacks or realignments in that area.

With respect, I think the honourable member -- and I am sorry to have to say this -- for the political purposes of that group, says that it has been conclusively shown --

Mr. Warner: Look, you had better stop that nonsense right now.

Mr. MacDonald: You’re going to have an inquest for crass political purposes and get yourself off the hook.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- the people over there start out at the conclusion and then look for something, no matter whether it is half-baked or not, to try .to prove their point.

Mr. Warner: You are attacking the doctor; that’s what you’re doing. The doctor said you are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Once I have all the information from my staff on the bed census figures from that day as to what beds were available where in the area, I will be glad to share that information with everyone. Whatever the figures at the bottom line, I am still going to ask for an inquest, because I think that is the most appropriate way to resolve this kind of thing and settle it once and for all -- not the kind of political doggerel the members opposite keep throwing around.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister’s concern. In view of the temporary and from time to time overcrowded facilities in Hamilton, and in view of the difficulties associated with getting across the Skyway in emergency situations, would the minister agree that the most appropriate solution possibly would be the construction of a small emergency facility within the far east end of Hamilton or Stoney Creek?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, that is a suggestion that has surfaced in the last six to nine months. I asked the health council there to put together what has been referred to as the east end task force, to look at the question of hospital services and specifically emergency services in the Stoney Creek area part of the east end. In order to solidify the data base, as my friend knows, I have approved a request from the council to look at the relative costs of keeping the hospital where it is as opposed to moving it. That is a possibility, and I look forward to getting that report as soon as it is feasible so that we can settle once and for all where we are going to rebuild the hospital and what services we can provide to ensure there is an equitable distribution in that part of the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

MINISTRY ADVERTISING

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. I noticed in the Globe and Mail of April 12 that his ministry advertised for three directors and on April 26 for a manager of tourism planning. Would the minister explain the necessity for running all these advertisements he has been placing in the newspapers? Is he trying to tell us he does not already have the people employed in his ministry who could be promoted to these managerial positions? Why does he not give the people in his own ministry an opportunity to work their way up and to occupy these positions? He has capable people there; why not give them a chance?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are, of course; but that is directly in accordance with the requirements for advertising those positions through the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Eakins: Why don’t you give them a chance?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have given them a chance.

We have no choice about the advertising; that is the route we must go through when we fill those positions. We have had several applications from within our ministry, as I had hoped we would, and I can assure the honourable member that they will get every consideration. But that is exactly in accordance with the system We must follow through the Civil Service Commission rules.

[11:00]

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister will assure us he will give the first opportunity for these promotions to the people already within his ministry. I also wonder if the minister could tell us how many personnel in the ministry have been demoted and how many have been red-circled since he has become the minister. Could he also tell us to what extent his ministry has grown in personnel since he has become the minister?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe the answer to the last one is that there has been no increase in numbers of personnel.

Mr. Nixon: Did you advertise Marvin Shore’s job?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have made several lateral changes. I don’t think there are any red-circlings or demotions, but I would be happy to get that information for the honourable member. I know the member for Victoria-Haliburton has supported and does support the extensive reorganization that has gone on in our ministry. It has been a difficult one but an important one, and I know he supports it.

I do finally want to assure him that we will not only be sure to consider applications from within our own ministry but we have encouraged several people in our ministry to apply for those very jobs.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have a serious point of privilege. On reflection I intend, because of the seriousness of the situation, to raise it through the procedural affairs committee -- and I will do so at the first opportunity that is provided for me. Thank you.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: How can be stand in this House and say he always promotes from within and that he is complying with the civil service requirements by advertising in the paper, and at the same time have appointed Marvin Shore the way he did, with no advertisement and no competition within? He has to justify that to this House right now.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Very simply, the position Mr. Shore has is an industrial development officer three or four which does not require that sort of advertising through the Civil Service Commission.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: These positions are all positions which require that advertising and that particular route. In both cases we have entirely followed, as we must, the rules laid down by the commission for hiring.

An hon. member: Who’s Marvin Shore?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He used to be your Treasury critic.

FLOOD DAMAGE

Mr. Wildman: In the absence of a statement by either the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) or the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, I will ask the secretary a question, since neither the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) nor his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) is present.

Is it correct that neither MTC nor MNR notified the Ontario Provincial Police last Friday that highway 17 in Thompson township bad been flooded by the Mississagi River? The Blind River detachment was unaware the highway was flooded until the MTC crew on duty brought a driver whose car was swept into a flooded ditch into these headquarters. Could the minister say if that is correct? Also, why didn’t they notify the OPP?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and have a reply as soon as possible.

Mr. Wildman: That will be fine, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister can confirm whether or not the flooded site was left unmanned after the first accident, with no one stopping and directing traffic there, so that a second accident occurred 20 minutes later, resulting in the death of a young woman driver?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That will also be answered.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Minister of Education, please, Mr. Speaker: Given the decisions the minister made yesterday about assisting the Toronto board, but more appropriately, given the fact that board has a waiting list of 500 students for special education, is the minister prepared to make any changes in the grant formula to recognize the greater needs, not only of the Toronto board but of many boards in this province, to provide special education services to their students?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Especially in northern Ontario.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sure the honourable member knows that in the process of examining the proposed legislation on special education all of these factors are being considered. I can’t make a statement to the House at this time.

When I did talk to the Toronto board yesterday, I asked specifically whether there was a possibility of reordering some priorities which the Toronto board seems to have established. I do not know whether the action which the board took last night will ensure there will be an appropriate number of special education teachers for those students who are said to be on the list of 500.

It would not appear, from the figures which were made available to me, that there will be the capacity to move specifically to aid those young people. However, having said that, I also asked the Toronto board whether some of the things it has suggested it would do this year might not be better deferred to program, because surely program is the most important part of the board’s function.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: If the Toronto board was prepared to guarantee to the minister that the teachers it is going to retain would be directed to meet the special education needs, would she at that time be prepared to re-examine the grant formula and direct more money specifically for that purpose?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not for Toronto alone, no.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary: Would the minister not say that the fact that the citizens of Toronto, not the teachers of Toronto and not the Toronto board, were the major factor in bringing the board to this decision because those citizens have a very serious concern about the quality of education, and since the cutbacks instituted by her ministry have caused these major concerns about the quality of education, it’s time just to react to citizens -- not political arenas -- who want her to give more money so that the board is not put in the position of raising property taxes? Those citizens are even willing to have their property taxes raised to accommodate it, but it’s a regressive tax and they should not have to do so. Will the minister not act?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, a decision of that sort is the responsibility of the board, if it is going to request that there be more property taxes in order to support the program. The amount of money which has been allocated on a per-pupil basis to the Toronto board has increased every single year. There was a reduction this year, on the basis of their lack of capital requirements, under the criterion established by the Ministry of Education in discussions with boards over the years.

The capital allocation for Toronto boards was reduced by about $75, but there was a significant increase in the amount of money made available to the boards on the basis of the per-pupil grant for the provision of programs. That, it seems, is the most important part of all of this problem right at the moment.

I have specifically asked the board to look at whether it needs to spend the $2 million which I gather it is going to spend, in spite of the fact that it is not really going to get any ministry support for it, to build a new school at Frankland School site, because the projections for attendance there would appear to be entirely not in support of that kind of decision.

In addition to that, the Toronto board has lost students in the elementary system in the order of 15,000 over the last four years, but the Toronto board has seen fit not to modify any school situations in order to accommodate that very dramatic deadline in enrolment. Is it necessary?

Mr. McClellan: That’s not true at all.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The Toronto board has closed two schools, and that’s it.

Ms. Gigantes: How can you say things like that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Because there are 15,000 fewer students in the Toronto board system and there are two schools that have been closed in the last four years. That’s what the facts are. Sorry, five years, 1974. It’s five years, not four years. It seems to me there is a slight problem in this area, which perhaps the Toronto board should look at, and this is what I asked it to do yesterday.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the minister is making special concessions for Toronto and others --

Mrs. Campbell: She’s not.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Well, she’s looking at the situation in Toronto and other areas. Would she look at the situation in northern Ontario in terms of special education because of the peculiar circumstances of geography and so on? Also, did she or did she not make a commitment in Sault Ste. Marie that she would be coming up with additional funds for northern Ontario schools because they’re all having difficulty because of the cutbacks and declining enrolments?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You won’t blame the declining enrolments in the north too.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I announced in Sault Ste. Marie that there was the first step in the GLGs to attempt to help the northern boards which were having specific problems because they have small numbers of students and, particularly, those boards in which the percentage decline in enrolment is greater than the provincial average. That first step has been taken this year. I said it was a first step and I meant it was a first step because we are looking at that.

I would remind the member that for certain specific boards we have maintained a floor to ensure that the decline in enrolment would not be as dramatic in terms of the funding levels provided. Toronto is one of the boards which enjoys the support of that floor. We are not at this point making additional grants of money to any specific school board, such as in the request that was made by the Toronto school board, because we don’t have any more money. We are, however, examining the grant system in order to ensure that it is the most appropriate for the present circumstances.

Mr. Warner: It’s called cutbacks.

Mr. Foulds: They are cutbacks in special education.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not a cutback in special education.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In view of the shocking revelations in the nuclear hearings downstairs in the select committee on Hydro affairs, I am concerned that the Premier does not show enough concern to drop in to see what is going on. I think he should be there.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Sargent: It is a point of privilege to me.

Mr. Speaker: It’s not to me.

REPORT

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the Financing of the Huronia District Hospital.

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the Village of Cookstown.

Report adopted.

[11:15]

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CROWN TIMBER AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Auld, moved first reading of Bill 77, An Act to amend the Crown Timber Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill -- the main purpose of the amendment -- is to enable the Minister of Natural Resources to enter into agreements with companies whereby companies will have the authority to undertake the management of forests on crown land on a sustained yield basis. Such management will lead to a more effective integration of forest harvesting and regeneration operations.

In addition to the major purpose, the bill provides for some housekeeping amendments aimed at deregulation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I notice on Friday the usual packed House.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On your side, there is no one there; one frontbencher, one in the second row.

Mr. Bradley: I felt most members would probably want to stay around for the budget debate because I know they hang on each and every word every individual member brings forth in this House.

However, I recognize also it is an opportunity we have as individual members not only to comment upon the budget but to expand upon those items we feel might have usefully been in the budget. It is an opportunity, particularly for individual members again, to express a point of view that is not necessarily that of a party, or of a partisan nature.

I will begin by commenting on the disappointment those of us who are relatively new to the House have at the degree of partisanship we notice in the debates. We recognize the British parliamentary system is an adversary system. Indeed, the opposition is here to exploit the weaknesses of the government -- and that is often easy to do in this particular case, sometimes not so easy. We also recognize it is almost expected that in this House we are to perform in some manner -- and I use that word in almost a theatrical way -- perform and posture, on some occasions, to make the opposing parties, in this case the government and the party to the left, look less desirable to the population of Ontario than the party we happen to represent.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s easy.

Mr. Bradley: I recognize this is part of the political game, if you will, but I still express some disappointment and I’m sure it’s shared by those who are relatively new to the system and who find it difficult to become accustomed to it, or who come from levels of government, particularly the municipal level of government, where the degree of partisanship is not nearly what it is in this House or in the federal House.

Mr. Philip: It’s just a little bit more under the table, that’s all. Ask the man who’s in the chair.

Mr. Bradley: I think we recognize there are people of great ability on all sides of the House. On some occasions we are not prepared to concede that, particularly during election campaigns. I can’t help but express to the House my admiration for a number of people who sit on the benches of this House, at all levels, not just on the front benches where, of course, the people of experience or those who are reputed to have a degree of expertise or usefulness to the House are often elevated. There are many others we recognize who are on the middle and back benches who make a contribution, particularly in the committee system where they’re not bound so much by partisan reins.

I also recognize we tend to have a friendship or a camaraderie among members of the House that perhaps the public doesn’t recognize. I don’t like to use the term “back rooms” but in the hallways of Queen’s Park there are many who would find far more consensus on the manner in which to attack certain problems in this province than is the case when we stand in the House to vote or when we stand in the House during question period or at other times to express our points of view.

I also express, I guess, disappointment to a certain extent -- certainly concern -- about the fact that individual members of this House, as individuals, do not possess the kind of power the public feels we have and perhaps some of us felt we might have at Queen’s Park, and I am sure the federal people feel the same way.

The population at large, as we all know from dealing with our constituents, views us as being authoritarian figures to a certain extent, who can pick up a telephone and, for instance, instruct the Workmen’s Compensation Board that the individual constituent who, of course, is very deserving, should get $750 a month starting tomorrow. This simply doesn’t happen.

It is frustrating for those of us who sit in this House to know there are very deserving people who do not have the ability or connections themselves to make known their position, or perhaps dramatize their position to such an extent as to get the kinds of results they want. It is frustrating that we, ourselves, are not able, in many cases, to get these results; consequently, the public tends to view us as being not as useful as they would like us to be.

Mr. Wildman: Do they feel that way about you?

Mr. Bradley: I haven’t really concluded that the entire population has yet. I am I sure the people of Algoma have had a little longer time to evaluate the member there and have come to the appropriate conclusion.

In relation to the overall budgetary situation in the province, I look at minority government and how it is working in the province of Ontario. I must say, initially I thought we would have great difficulty with minority government, particularly if the government in power were not responsive to the needs of the opposition. However, as a result of the two opposition parties having the number of members we do on committees, and having the consultative process of negotiation take place between the House leaders and others, I feel that minority government is producing, for the people of Ontario, something better than majority government has in the past because it is better reflecting the viewpoint of all of the people of Ontario instead of those who represent a plurality as opposed to a majority.

Unless we had a system of government -- and I am not advocating it because I think it has many drawbacks which allowed proportional representation in the House, based on the percentage of the vote across the province, then we often have, in essence, a government which rests in power with even less than 40 per cent of the population approving of its policies at an election time. So I think a minority government is probably the in-between which can at least reflect to a certain extent the viewpoint of the entire population of Ontario.

I recognize as well that we, in opposition, are forced to be, if you want to use the terminology, more responsible as a result of a minority situation. When the government sits in the majority, it is easy to vote against all government measures, to be critical of all government because we are safe in the knowledge that we will not be precipitating an election at the drop of a hat. However, it is much more difficult, as members of the opposition, to vote for some measures that we are not entirely happy with, or to give some faint praise here and there when we feel the government is moving in the right direction so as to indicate to the public that we are responsible as well as being merely critical of what the government is doing in many cases.

I previously mentioned the committee system and some of the benefits I think we have at the present time. One is that it is not as partisan as the House. We also have the opportunity to examine witnesses and to have the kind of informal exchange of views, which is not always possible within this particular chamber.

I do, however, still have some concern that there is a degree of partisanship which should not be there. The individual sitting in the chair at the present time is a former cabinet minister and has a good deal of expertise in a number of fields as a former cabinet minister and in specific fields in the areas in which he served. Committees are well served by those who have had these positions in the past and can view things now from a different point of view, from outside the confines of the cabinet. While there is a certain prestige to being in the cabinet, I think one can certainly see the ease with which these members participate in a meaningful way in committee deliberations and bring their expertise. They do so on a less partisan basis than one might expect from former members of the cabinet.

I think the committee system offers an awful lot to us if we are able to take away those political strings, and if we’re not forced in our own minds, if not by whips, to defend the position of the party at all costs. It seems to me in this way we’re able to come forward with the best decisions for the people of Ontario instead of those which are only politically popular.

I look at a situation we have in the province as well, because the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the people on the other side naturally, tend to look to the federal government and place blame on the federal government when things are going wrong and take credit when things are going well. We expect this within a political system. I’m sure the federal government on many occasions looks to the provinces to blame when certain things go wrong as well.

What concerns me is the fact many see this situation and want then to erode the powers of the federal government. I spoke on a resolution in the private members hour, a resolution which was presented by the member for Humber (Mr. MacBeth) as an individual resolution and one about which he felt very strongly. I indicated at that time a great concern about this erosion of federal powers. We have a very large nation, a very diverse nation. I think we all recognize that At the same time, we have some particular interests in terms of resources, in terms of finances, and in terms of cultures, which are in effect being protected by the provincial government.

It is right to a certain extent that regional viewpoints should be reflected within provincial government, but what concerns me is more and more people in this country seem to be thinking in provincial terms as opposed to national terms. I’ll take away the word federal and use the word national terms. We have a situation where it seems to me that only, and it’s a generalization, the people of Ontario and the people of the Maritimes see themselves as Canadians first and as provincials second.

The reason in Ontario, as I think I indicated at that time, seems to be we have virtually everything here. We have the national capital here. We have most of the national institutions within Ontario or in very close proximity to Ontario. It’s natural we would feel a greater affinity for those federal institutions and for the national government than those perhaps who are in the far reaches of the nation.

Secondly, the Maritimes, because of their financial position in the past and even to the present, are largely dependent upon the rest of Canada for some kind of assistance. If they were to develop and have natural resources which would make them self-sufficient, perhaps that national feeling would be eroded a little bit in that particular case.

It concerns me we have only two areas of the country where I think people look at themselves -- I’m generalizing, I recognize that -- and think of themselves as Canadians first.

Naturally, we are all concerned about the province of Quebec and the situation there. I think we are heartened by the fact we have seen candidates who are committed to Canada winning in two recent by-elections. What is concerning me about that particular aspect is many people in this country -- the population at large is generally apathetic and not really that interested, I don’t think, about what is going on in the province of Quebec, unfortunately -- seem to view this victory by Claude Ryan and by the other Liberal candidate in the Quebec City area as being a victory for federalism by sounding the death knell of separatism.

If we are to be lured into this false sense of security, it will be tragic for this nation. Those who have had the opportunity to travel into the province of Quebec to talk to the opinion leaders, to talk to the average individuals from Quebec, cannot help but be moved by the fact there is a renewed nationalist feeling in that province. While many are prepared to continue in the country they know as Canada, and are prepared to see themselves as Canadians in the foreseeable future and into the far future, they are concerned their own culture and their own language should not disappear.

[11:30]

The rest of us seem to look upon certain language legislation in that province as being stupid, as being ill conceived. However, we must recognize that the language legislation which has been passed in that province has a good deal of support, because there are those who are very concerned that in a milieu of 200 million or 300 million people in North America it is going to be difficult for the French language and the French culture to continue to exist.

It seems to me that we have to be somewhat tolerant -- more tolerant than we want to be -- of the idiosyncrasies of the present government of Quebec, whether they reflect the viewpoint of the population or not. If we are not prepared to be tolerant, if we are not prepared to make certain accommodations that perhaps we don’t feel in our own mind we would like to make, the result is going to be a separation of one province. Let’s be clear about this: If the people of Quebec indicate through a vote that they want complete separation from this country, it is going to be very difficult to prevent that unless we are prepared to take military action.

We have seen examples of other countries where, if the viewpoint of even a minority is thwarted -- in this case let’s take it as being a majority viewpoint -- if that is thwarted, the people tend to turn to violence. I am somewhat sceptical of those who say that at all costs we would keep Quebec in because we own it, because it is part of Canada. When the bombs start going off in the mail boxes or the department stores in Metropolitan Toronto from those who would be extremists, the viewpoint might then change, because we recognize that violence has been somewhat successful in other areas. It cannot be justified in a democratic country, in my view, when the viewpoint of the majority is being reflected and a minority is not being unduly oppressed. Nevertheless it does exist.

I would hope that we, as legislators, even though we are at the provincial level, would see it within our own minds to talk about this issue, to be leaders instead of followers in the opinion-making in this province. The popular point of view -- let’s face it -- is to be anti-Quebec, anti-French, anti-Albertan or anti-something else, because we tend to then play upon the lowest common denominator, to play upon the basic instincts of people for their own survival; they look at others and are fearful of what others might take from them.

It is easy to go about in an election campaign saying “We are not going to concede any more to those westerners who” -- legitimately or not -- “are wanting more for themselves economically” or “We are not prepared to concede one more point to those who want francophone rights preserved across this country, perhaps on a national level, through the constitution.”

We have seen examples, as we see in the present election campaign, of people who are running against things. During provincial elections -- and this government is certainly not exempt from this -- it is traditional in this country that provincial governments tend to run against the federal government. It is easy to blame the feds for everything. We saw an example of that to a certain extent -- and I have a great deal of respect for the Premier of Saskatchewan, who I think has played a vital role at national conferences and who understands this country very well in terms of the national consensus that’s required -- when even Allan Blakeney during the provincial election campaign in Saskatchewan took some pot shots at the federal government.

Some may say the federal government deserves those particular criticisms and that he was within his rights. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Premier Lougheed in Alberta, Premier Blakeney, the Premiers in the province of Quebec over the years -- right across the country, Premiers have generally run against the federal government. Now we have a situation where the Prime Minister is going about the country in effect turning the tables and running against the provinces. This has been national gamesmanship, I guess, for a number of years, but it seems to me that when we get this out of our system that we should look into the 1980s.

We are going to have to be looking more at, to recoin an old phrase -- I don’t know who originated it but certainly I was noting in a newspaper article the other day that Jean-Luc Pépin was always a proponent of what we call co-operative federalism. If we are going to really realize a situation where we have co-operative federalism within this country it is going to be incumbent upon provincial Premiers, provincial opposition members, government members, the members, of the federal parliament, to look more in a national sense to avoid cultivating within the population within their specific area an anti feeling, anti somebody feeling, and looking more at pulling together.

I recognize this is easier said than done and in the heat of an election campaign often these idealistic goals are somewhat forgotten. But I would hope, once again, that we would not have members of this Legislature who would go about the province in the next election campaign running on an anti- French ticket; or in the province of Quebec, during the next election campaign that takes place there, that we would have people running about the province of Quebec on an anti-English binge, which they hope would get them elected.

I talk about this as being a rather lofty ideal, but I think we have a sense of responsibility as individual members, particularly the leaders and those who have been around this House for a long time. The media look to these people for a reflection of the party views. I see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) sitting across there. His record in this regard has been a fine record indeed. He has been one of the most progressive spokesmen in terms of federal-provincial relations and in terms of the French-English situation in this country that you could find on the government benches, and I say that not merely because he is in the House, but by being in the House he just reminded me of that fact.

We have seen one of the booklets that has been put out in this regard, where the minister discusses this problem. He comes from an area which I don’t think has a large number of francophones and I am certain if he were to run an election campaign taking a rather stridently anti-French point of view within his constituency he certainly would not be thrown out on his particular record in that regard.

Mr. Philip: He should speak to the Yakabuskis and the Eatons.

Mr. Bradley: The member for Etobicoke brings up an interesting problem. If this is to be successful then we have to have pretty well a commonality of interest among members of all parties who are prepared to speak out on this issue and not be negative about it. I am certain it is embarrassing to some of those who hold these progressive views to have members within their own parties who are somewhat less than responsible in this regard.

I don’t want to dwell on individual members at this particular time, but I think members of this House know from media reports across the province those who are prepared to do that and those who are prepared to take the high road that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has taken over the years, particularly in these recent years.

I move on to the situation of employment within the province of Ontario and the employment situation, perhaps being a little bit parochial, that exists in the Niagara Peninsula. We have been viewed for a number of years in the Niagara Peninsula as the land of milk and honey, and once again I bring the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs into this discussion, because he had an opportunity to visit the Niagara Peninsula recently and commented publicly and otherwise on the fact that when one visits the peninsula the finds out that everything isn’t going as smoothly as we would like.

If it cannot be declared as a depressed area of the province it is certainly not the area that had all of the advantages that existed in the past, particularly when you look at the Lake Erie end of the Niagara Peninsula where unemployment is extremely high. It is consistently shown in the figures that unemployment is high in this area. When we see this area excluded from specific programs, be they federal or provincial which might provide some kind of incentives to employment in the area, we become somewhat concerned. We are always lumped in in the Niagara Peninsula with the golden horseshoe, and the idea that somehow things are booming -- and indeed the auto industry in my area is booming.

The unfortunate situation that exists is that we have people who are working seven days a week, 12 hours a day. Many of these people are my neighbours, who work this long and this often and it provides them with a good income. But one must ask himself on that basis, if they are working seven days a week and many 12 hours a day, aren’t these job opportunities that could be shared with others? So we have a situation where industry -- and I recognize some of the reasons why they would rather go to overtime than hire new people -- could have the opportunity to train and hire new people and to provide a greater employment base, yet this is not happening. Government can intervene to a certain extent to assist in this regard.

We have had cases cited in this House; the leader of the New Democratic Party recently raised in the House the newspaper advertisement in Britain advertising for skilled tradesmen for the auto industry. Previous to that we have had other members from all parties -- particularly the opposition parties, because we tend to look at these more publicly perhaps than the government members -- citing cases in other areas. I think of Port Weller Dry Docks Limited in St. Catharines, which for years have imported skilled tradesmen to do many of the jobs that are essential there. Whether that is still happening I cannot say for sure, but this has happened in the past.

It concerns us that we have such a large number of young people in this province who want to work. Let us just put aside this idea that the young people do not want to work. Young people want to work, they want to earn a living, they want to be independent. We have this number of people across the province who are concerned about getting jobs and we have a situation where we are importing skilled tradesmen. I think we have to condemn the system which has provided this particular situation in Ontario.

Therefore, at long last we have to get really serious in this province about an apprenticeship program. I recognize that it is not government alone that can initiate and can be successful in carrying this out. It requires a good deal of persuasion of industry to co-operate in this regard, perhaps even to a certain extent some incentives to industry to do so. I am not talking about the outright giveaways, I am talking about certain incentives that might be made to industry to co-operate in an apprenticeship program.

There are those who would say that the unions are opposed to this, that somehow they are trying to block it, which of course is nonsense. Among the population of Ontario the unions have been those who have been pushing most for government programs which would provide employment. So an updating of this system, an improvement of the apprenticeship system, and perhaps a rechannelling of our activities within education to providing specific job skills is essential.

I think we recognize -- as a former teacher before entering this House, I recognize -- the goals within the education system have largely been, at least in the past 10 or 15 years, to provide skills at the senior elementary and particularly at the secondary level for further education. In other words, we had young people going into grades nine to 12 or 13 with the goal and working towards preparing them for either university or an applied arts course within a community college.

Once again, that is a lofty goal and there are many people we want to see continue their education, for education does provide not only skills in terms of job opportunities but other skills which we hope make people good citizens. But it seems to me that for those who are not prepared to or do not want to go on to higher levels of education we should be providing some skills so that when they leave secondary school they can market themselves as a marketable item in the job market.

That is difficult to do, one may say, because we have a situation where we have some cutbacks in education. When I say cutbacks I do not mean in the total number of dollars, but the general public is not as sympathetic as it was in the days when the Premier (Mr. Davis) was the Minister of Education or even in the early days of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs as Minister of Education. I am sure the public was much more sympathetic to the spending of tax dollars on education at that time.

It is unfortunate, but it is inevitable that the public is not so willing to spend those dollars now, because there are fewer and fewer people who have a direct interest in education; in other words, who have children within the school system or who have grandchildren within the school system even. When they cannot see a direct benefit from this, they tend to want to spend less on education, and when they look at declining enrolment they think it makes logical sense that they should spend less on education, perhaps forgetting the fact that there are many expenditures which are constant expenditures which are there regardless of the number of students who might exist within a school system.

[11:45]

It means that we in opposition, and those in government, have to recognize there are going to have to be dollars spent on programs of this nature to change it around, particularly if we are to update the technical skills that can be acquired at the secondary school level so people can either move into an apprenticeship program or have skills which will allow them to step into employment at the ages of 17, 18 or 19.

I see, also, the need for an industrial strategy. We all talk about it. Some people don’t know what it means. It has a different meaning for everybody, I suppose. We in the Liberal Party released a very large document indicating what our industrial strategy would be. The government from time to time has come up with measures which, while they haven’t called them industrial strategy, one could say would be the government’s industrial strategy. The New Democratic Party, of course, has talked about this and made proposals in this regard for a number of years.

I think we recognize now, to put it in a general context rather than to be specific, that we can’t just go about this in a hodgepodge manner, throwing in a popular program here or meeting an immediate need there. We have to think in long-range terms for Canada.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) has discussed industrial strategy in this House on many occasions. We’re all concerned about it, particularly those of us who have manufacturing industries within our constituencies. We are concerned about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the effect it can have on industries within this province and within this country, and the need to rationalize our industries to compete in those areas where we can best compete instead of trying to have tariff barriers which will forever protect industries which, in economic terms, simply should not be protected.

Nevertheless, we all tend to be protectionists, I think because we look at protecting individual jobs. Once again, it gets back to the education system, channelling people into different areas, retraining people through manpower retraining programs and so on so that if there are going to be closings in various industries these people are able to go to new job opportunities. Looking at it from the social program point of view, we have to make certain that welfare benefits -- in terms of national health and welfare as opposed to particular government assistance -- we have to look at the situation in terms of portability of such things as pensions and other benefits, so that people can easily move from one job to another without losing the kind of things that come with long-term security in a particular job.

Mr. Riddell: One of Trudeau’s recently announced proposals.

Mr. Bradley: I hadn’t heard that. I don’t get a chance to read the papers much because of my duties provincially.

One of our concerns is the $200 million the government is prepared to give away in an unsupportable program. I recognize, I’ll be fair to the government, a highly competitive situation exists in North America at the present time. I know they talk about the south and all the potential incentives and the attractiveness of putting money into the southern United States, the sunbelt, for various reasons -- one of them being, that the labour union movement is not as strong in the south, and you can somehow get away with things in some of the southern states that you can’t in the north; and also they have better weather and they might have other advantages as well. However -- and this was expressed by the late Minister of Industry and Tourism, the former member for Sault Ste. Marie, Mr. Rhodes, and by the Premier himself, and certainly by many of us in opposition -- we have a great reluctance to get into a bidding game.

The Ford plant deal was a good example. It looked like the cannons were pointed at our heads, that someone was about to touch off the torch and boom, everything was going to be gone south. Somehow, a decision had to be made; and we, as legislators, this government and the federal government, were stampeded into making a decision.

If you are from Windsor or the Windsor area it’s great to have the Ford plant there; it’s a great employment opportunity, not only for the young people but for other people in that area. And the construction industry; it’s a real boon to Windsor and will create an economic boom for that area of the province. We’re happy to see that.

What concerns all of us in this Legislature, I suppose, is where does it all end? If you give it to Ford, who else do you give it to?

I’ve been invited to different affairs where I’ve had the opportunity to talk to representatives of industry. I’ve met with the chamber of commerce in the city of St. Catharines, and with representatives from the auto industry and other industries there. I stated at that time my great reluctance to support his kind of program of taxpayers’ dollars being given away to large corporations which have enough funding to expand. But to a man, or to a woman, they have said to me, “As long as that’s the name of the game, we’re going to get in on the game.” Surely we could foresee this somewhere down the line, that everybody to now going to be saying, “We’d rather go to Alabama, Tennessee or Georgia, but perhaps if there is a little cash in the kitty we’re prepared to stay in Ontario.”

It seems to me, rather than do that, we have to provide an economic climate in the province which makes them desirous of investing here without giving away the ship. These direct incentives are not necessarily the answer.

The president of General Motors, Mr. E. M. Estes, was in the city of St. Catharines a few days ago and I had the opportunity of attending a luncheon as the local member -- the mayor and regional chairman and so on were invited. He talked about many of the advantages we have here. Not once in his conversation, I don’t know whether he is aware of our program or not, did he mention any incentives.

We like to be self-deprecating, I suppose; we like to look upon ourselves as being somewhat less technically able than the Americans and maybe not having the skilled workers and so on -- at least some critics of our industry in the province like to say that. Mr. Estes took a contrary point of view. First of all he said we are very efficient in this area. He said he was happy with his operations in the Niagara Peninsula and that we had a very productive work force. He said we had a stable community there and that he was very happy; this was one of the more successful operations he had.

Contrast that with those who have been saying, for a number of years, that Canadian workers are lazy, that they don’t want to work as hard as the Americans or they’re not as skilled or things of that nature. The president of General Motors is saying exactly the opposite. So it seems to me we have a lot of assets in this province without getting into the giveaway game.

How we phase out of it is another matter. It seems to me there has to be some negotiation, and I recognize this is difficult between the Canadian government and the American government. There must be negotiation between the American government and its various states and the Canadian government and its various provinces over withdrawal from the giveaway game, because everybody seems to be playing that game. I do recognize if we don’t do something we will be somewhat left behind.

I mentioned the labour situation in the province. I come from a community where there are approximately 10,000 members of the united auto workers, another --

Mr. Mancini: They all support Jimmy.

Mr. Bradley: -- large number of people from the United Steelworkers and members of other strong unions. We have had our share of strikes, but by and large the collective bargaining process has worked quite well within our area, and certainly within the province. We see headlines which indicate to us that somehow we have the worst strike situation in the world. We forget -- and the Minister of Labour has mentioned this on occasion -- that most of the contracts that come up are signed without government intervention. If there is government intervention, most are signed without resort to the strike.

Mr. Philip: With respect to the post office, our rate isn’t I all that bad either to look at.

Mr. Bradley: I understand, compared to some countries, that is the case.

Nevertheless, we’ve had reasonable success. But we recognize the fact it isn’t the perfect process.

I went through a situation in my community where a plant was closed down; Columbus McKinnon chain, which for years had been a very important part of the community. This was something which caused anguish for the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), who shares the city of St. Catharines with me and knew many of the people who worked there; the Minister of Labour, who worked very hard on that; and members of both opposition parties. The latter expressed their concern, in the House and otherwise. and voiced certain points of view on how this might be solved.

In Ontario in 1979, it seems to me, there should not be a situation where a plant closes down because a dispute simply can’t be solved; where a company says. “That’s it, we don’t care if the Minister of Labour is going to take any action.” Of course the company’s ultimate decision being made on the other side of the border frustrates all of us.

I recognize there are some on the other side, and perhaps some within my own party, who will say that if we make the labour laws too strict and too tough in this province we’re going to scare companies away. We will have companies moving out and others will not move into the province. If the laws are fair and if they are clearly defined, it seems to me that won’t happen; if we have other attractions, that won’t happen.

In this particular case, as a minimum, without getting into a dictatorial policy, there should have been a situation where that company should have been required to make a final offer to the individuals who work for that company. It made an offer. We recognize that the strike had been on for a long time. I had asked the then Minister of Labour (Miss Stephenson) to intervene personally. She chose not to. Perhaps that might have helped; perhaps it might not have. I’m not prepared to point the finger of accusation without the kind of evidence I would need to show that her personal intervention would have helped, but I personally have the feeling it would have.

She had her top mediators involved. We had a situation where one party was on one floor and one party was two floors down. We did not have the across-the-board confrontation in negotiations that were necessary to bring about a resolution. The company was never required, at the last point in time, to put an offer to the workers and say, “Look, this is our economic situation. This is all we’re prepared to offer, take it or leave it.”

I am a person who comes from a family which has been involved with labour unions in the past. My father actually worked at Columbus McKinnon Limited before the strike and had been through a strike a number of years before, a strike of about four months’ duration. I know many of the people who work in that plant, and that probably makes even a greater impression on an individual legislator. It’s one thing to talk about facts and figures in labour confrontations and economic issues; it’s another thing to know the individuals and to know the guys who are sitting on the negotiating committee. They’re your neighbours. They’re people who, because over the years you’ve gone to the plant gates, can call you by your first name. As politicians, we probably tend not to go to the plant gates enough. We go there when we’re looking for votes and we don’t go there any other time, it seems to me. We go to labour meetings when they invite political members. This is an aside, I suppose.

Here were people I knew, some of whom had worked there for 20 to 25 years; who had security, who didn’t mind their jobs that much, and who, in the final analysis, when an offer was put, might have been prepared in the short term to accept a contract for less than what the negotiating committee originally thought was desirable. I worked with Mr. Bill Marshall, who is a well- respected individual. He is the international representative for the United Autoworkers of America in the city of St. Catharines and he does a lot of negotiating. I thought he was being very fair in his negotiating process and in what he was prepared to accept and sell to the guys who had been out on strike for a long time.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), who was very new to the job -- that’s the first problem I hit him with -- worked very hard in this regard. I had a good deal of respect for him in this. He was very concerned and genuinely disappointed and disgusted when in effect he went to the company in this case and said, “Look, I’m prepared to go over the heads of the union and call for a vote which my ministry will bring about in this plant among the workers if you are prepared to put a last offer on the table.” For a new Minister of Labour who would not want to alienate the labour union movement to say this because he recognized the desperation of the situation, to be turned down by the company officials is disappointing.

It seems to me we have to work in this House toward better conciliation methods, better mediation methods and perhaps alterations to the labour laws of the province of Ontario, at least to make compulsory a final offer to the workers in a situation such as this.

In the peninsula and across the province as well, we look at the field of environment. We in opposition have talked a lot about balancing the budget and so on. I personally think it’s difficult to balance a budget in difficult economic times. It’s a goal we try to work towards. Perhaps we can be critical when we see people trooping across the province during an election campaign telling people they’re going to balance the budget and then don’t, we can be critical from that point of view.

I want to be fair and reasonable and recognize that the role of government is not the role of business. We’re not running a business here. I dislike it when I hear people say government should be run like a business. Yes, we like to employ many of the methods of business. We want to be as efficient as possible. But government is dealing with services to people.

[12:00]

When the provincial Treasurer comes forward with a budget, he has to recognize within that budget that he is providing services which are essential to people, particularly to those people who do not have the position, socially or economically, to defend themselves; therefore, government must be in a position of doing that.

When I hear about deregulation, and when I hear about government withdrawing from this area and withdrawing from that area, I wonder who is going to speak for the small individual, if not government. We talk about big government, big business, big labour and so on. To centralize on big government for a moment, government is there largely to speak for the individual who is unable to defend himself. Big business will be generally all right without too much government intervention.

When I talk about big labour, the large and successful labour unions will extract from the companies those benefits and wages which they feel are deserving for their members, and they are successful because they are large and united units. So there are workers within this province who are organized by unions and who are living a pretty good life compared to others.

But what about the large number of people in Ontario who are not protected either by their financial position in terms of business or by a large labour union, the unorganized and others across the province who are perhaps not involved in the work force but do not have anybody to protect them? It seems to me this is where government comes in.

One area I look at is that of consumer and commercial relations, for instance. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations goes across the province and tells people he is going to deregulate here and deregulate there.

On the other hand, we have a population at large which is saying, in effect, “We want government to protect us against the ripoffs -- to use modern terminology -- that we have within society, particularly in terms of two things: price increases that cannot be justified logically or fairly and the quality of products being produced.

It seems to me that, rather than the government getting out of everything holus-bolus, they should be very selective in those areas from which they are going to withdraw, because the public, once again, is not in a position to look after itself in this regard.

We must also look at why the government is there in the first place. If certain industries were able to clean up their own act, then the government across the floor, with the support of the members of the opposition, would not have had the government intervene in specific areas. If business is prepared to police itself in a meaningful manner to protect the public, then government is in a position to withdraw. There are many people who are rather sceptical about that situation, except in those areas where they have demonstrated this in the past and where they have a good public record.

I would hope, when we talk about budget cuts, that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations would continue its role -- or at least get into the role of consumer advocate, because sometimes we feel they are not necessarily continuing the role.

In education we see once again, without being repetitive, the fact that the government feels continued expenditures at the rates at which they took place in the past cannot be justified. We ought to recognize -- and those of us who have been directly involved in the education system probably recognize this -- that the schools in recent years have assumed a new role.

With the number of families now where both parents are working for instance, the number of hours the students spend in a day at school is probably greater. Lunch hours are often now times where students stay at school. We have a number of families where both parents are working. We have far more single-parent families now existing. The social aspects of the job, those things which the public is looking for schools to do, are far greater in number than they ever were in the past. The schools are going to do this; we are going to have to have the personnel within those schools; we are going to have to have the training for those who are working within that system; and we are going to have to fund it in a proper manner, largely from the provincial level.

I am now saying now that it should be 100 per cent funded from the provincial level overnight, by any means. I am suggesting the province should assume a greater proportion of the cost of education. Some have suggested up to 80 per cent over a number of years, and I think that might well be a reasonable goal to set. I say that mainly because, and it’s been said many times in this House, the provincial government has available to it many more financial resources -- albeit it all comes out of the taxpayers’ pocket -- and fairer methods of taxation and a broader tax base from which to choose where it is going to get its funds. The government, once proud of its spending on education, now seems to recoil at any suggestion there should be further increases or we should continue the funding at the rate it took place in the past.

The value of education at the higher level cannot be denied. There are some who say, and we in the opposition have said many times, it used to be you were guaranteed a job if you came out with a general BA or with a grade 13 degree. That cannot be said now; however this does not mean education should not continue to be very important for people.

One area I would specifically like to look at in terms of funding is that of special education. I was at a meeting the other night that had nothing to do with special education, I think it was a sports meeting of some kind, however an individual who was there, who is a constituent of mine, told me a rather heart-rending story of which I wasn’t really aware. I think somewhere along the line I had one of his children as a student, his daughter or son, but he was talking about a younger son. This is now a grown man, a man who is involved in athletics and the last person you would expect to be emotional, but he told me he had on more than one occasion sat down and cried in frustration at the fact he could not say to his son the kind of education he needed could be provided in terms of special education.

His son happens to be an individual who does not function well within the general academic situation we have in our schools. However, because of a lack of necessary funds, his son was not able to be assisted on an individual basis or on the kind of basis necessary to bring him up to a level around his age. We are talking about a boy of about 14 or 15 years working at about a grade five level. It is a tragedy for this individual that somehow the education system had failed his particular child.

He recognized the child had special problems and the general education system could not be expected to handle these problems, but he was very bitter about the fact he could not give an answer to his son. They sat down together in tears of frustration over the fact this boy was not able to advance and to acquire the necessary skills. That human aspect should be taken into consideration when we look at spending on education.

In the field of the environment, I would like to very briefly mention that we who live in the Niagara Peninsula, since we have been in the forefront of publicity in terms of the environment, see the expenditures given to the Ministry of Environment as very useful. I am appalled, as I am sure are all members of this House, by the situation that exists in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and those rivers and streams that run into Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. I am appalled by the amount of waste that has gone in and at the lack of co-operation we’ve had internationally over the years in solving this problem. It seems to me people in this province, even though they talk about cutting back and so on, are still very concerned about the quality of life. If you were to go door to door and in simple terms ask them: “Do you want Lake Ontario cleaned up although it’s going to cost you a pile of money?” I’m certain you would find the overwhelming majority of people would be prepared to put forward the kinds of dollars necessary to keep our environment clean where it is clean and to clean it up where it is not so at the present time.

I hope the government does not hesitate to get into the monitoring of the lakes for such products as dioxin and others which are detrimental to the health and safety of people within this province. I hope the government continues to pursue, albeit some of us are not very happy with the rate at which it is pursued, the cleanup in terms of industry.

We recognize we are in a situation where there are those who will say it’s either jobs or the environment and we can’t have both. Members of the Legislature to a person should not be prepared to accept that. We will disagree in some cases on the rate of cleanup that is necessary. We will disagree on who is responsible and who shall pay the bill. We will disagree on the nuances but, to a person, in this Legislature we should be committed to clean up the environment and not to submit to the kind of blackmail that some within our society were prepared to face us with in the past.

Mr. Gaunt: Amen, brother.

Mr. Bradley: This is housekeeping, so I don’t know how expert I am in this. I haven’t found yet in my two years in the Legislature why we have provincial secretariats. Is there a good reason for having provincial secretariats of things?

Mr. Ruston: No one else has either.

Mr. Mancini: Ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch).

Mr. Bradley: Perhaps I am wrong, and I concede that, but I really don’t know what provincial secretariats do. Perhaps I should read some information on the secretariats more than I do during the estimates. I really somehow think that we could get by without the provincial secretariats and have the ministers either shifted into other areas or somewhere else, heaven knows where. I just haven’t found any use for the secretariats. I somehow think that the money could be either saved and returned to the taxpayer or channelled into areas which would be more productive. I haven’t found an argument against that yet. I see smiles amongst members of the House, so I guess this is not a new matter which I am introducing for their consideration.

I want to pick a couple of other areas to touch on, and I promise I won’t be too much longer because there are other members waiting to speak. Being an urbanite, my desire is to see agricultural land in this province preserved. This is not a very popular position, may I say, in an area where there is high unemployment. Once again, just as they use the argument that we can’t have a cleaned-up environment and jobs at the same time, they will say we can’t preserve agricultural land and have jobs at the same time.

In the Niagara Peninsula, we feel we can. We have some unique land across this province that must be preserved. We must make it viable, of course, for the farmer to continue to exist. We must have defined urban boundaries which allow growth for municipalities and which allow room for industry to expand, but ultimately we must have a commitment, which we see to a certain extent in the green paper -- I think it’s a green paper -- produced by the Minister of Agriculture and Food and by the government and by the advocacy of members of the opposition. It’s a tragedy when we see many of the agricultural lands right across the province of Ontario paved over because of mistakes that might have been made or ill-considered decisions in the past

It seems to me that in the province of Ontario we have what the Middle East countries have under the ground we have on top of the ground and very close to the surface. The agricultural industry in this country and in this province can only increase in importance as the population of the world increases and as the demands for the kind of food we can produce increases. It seems to me we should look upon agriculture as an industry as opposed to just an occupation for gentlemen farmers.

I say this as an urban individual, although some would say it’s always easy for the urbanites to save the agricultural land because they don’t have to put up with the problems that the farmer has. That’s why I don’t exclude the fact that we must be prepared to pay a fair price to the farmer and to give him the kind of tax breaks and other considerations necessary to keep him in business. But I appeal to members of this House not to forget the agricultural lands in our quest of pushing for more and more jobs.

I have made many speeches on regional government in the past. Only in passing, I will say that I was pleased with the announcement of this minister that there would be no more regional governments introduced in the province of Ontario, at least in the foreseeable future. I won’t go into great lengths on this because I have spoken many times in the past, but I hope we will reevaluate the circumstances we have now where I feel regional governments are: very costly and not close enough to the people. I hope we will look at those and we will make the kinds of modifications and changes, or even abolishment if it’s necessary in certain areas. I hope we will look at these changes realistically and freshly and proceed with municipal reform only after we have evaluated carefully that which we have at the present rime.

[12:15]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the other members of this House who wish to speak today -- I could go on about health services, but suffice it so say that I am one of those who believes that we should retain and maintain a very high level of health care in Ontario. Once again, as I read the population of this province, they know it is costly, they know it doesn’t come easily, they know that doctors will receive a high sum of money for their services, they recognize that the technical innovations that we have cost a lot of money, they know that the operation of hospitals within small communities may not be as efficient as they would like, they know that it may be expedient to close down certain wings of hospitals, and they recognize that there must be efficiencies effected.

But I would hope that we would retain across this province a very high level of health care, which I consider to be a priority in this province. I really think the government makes a mistake if it slashes too much in this area. I talk particularly about hospital care. Many of us have not been in a hospital as patients. I haven’t had as much as a broken leg or anything that would bring me to the hospital, other than a few stitches after a hockey game, but those of us who have had friends and relatives within the hospital care system recognize just how important it is to have the very best that we can have in this province available for us, to deal with the major diseases that we have, to deal with accidents and so on.

I would implore the government to evaluate very carefully any of the changes before implementing them, to try to avoid the front line changes that take place, and here I am talking about nursing care. The government goes to the hospitals and says: “You have got to cut,” and okay, I am generalizing again, but how many times is administration cut first and the front line people cut second? Not too often. We have some essential services: we need beds available, we need nurses, we need those who provide the care other than the doctors.

Of course, we need the doctors, but we need many people within the system and many facilities that require funding, and I don’t think that we as legislators should back up an inch from that particular goal of providing and continuing to provide -- and I congratulate the government and all members of the Legislature for supporting it in the past -- a very high level of health care in this province. These are just a few of my thoughts on the budget. I have many other areas I would like to discuss that I will take advantage of in perhaps future budget debate. Overall, I am not overly enthused with the budget, particularly some of the tax increases. I am disappointed that there were certain items that were not included in that budget, but I only express the hope that, having made this one attempt and having had the input of the members of the opposition and government back benchers and others, the government will make a renewed effort to bring about the kind of budgetary policy that we in this House feel is necessary to provide a better life for the people of the province of Ontario.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to follow the member for St. Catharines. I find him to be very much his own man and very independent in the views which he wishes to express. He has made what I believe to be a contribution to the budget debate which mirrors exactly what a budget debate should be about in this assembly; that is, to give members the opportunity to reflect upon some of their concerns that relate to the province as a whole, relate to the particular areas of the province that they represent and reflect upon the nature of this institution and the kind of society that we wish.

I am looking forward to the contribution from the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey). I have spoken with him and he assures me that whether he reaches the list today or not, or whether he is partly on today and partly on next time, is a matter of no concern to him, so I do not feel particularly inhibited in the remarks that I want to make because of the pressure of time.

Mr. Gaunt: I am going to be here to listen to both of you; that’s all right.

Mr. Renwick: I just assumed that the member for Huron-Bruce would be here.

Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you and your colleagues, the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) and the member for Humber (Mr. MacBeth), in the way in which you oversee and supervise the procedural affairs of the House? As you are well aware, in the course of the time we have been in the House together there has been a significant improvement in the procedural affairs in the House and in the rules which govern our proceedings.

I want to say that one of the matters that has impressed me immensely is the way in which the offices of the Clerk of the assembly, under the direction of the Clerk, has responded so very well to the increase in the significant demands being made upon the staff of the assembly as it comes under the jurisdiction of the clerk. The members of that staff who are serving the committees in their new and enhanced roles in this assembly are doing a first-class job for the members.

I am particularly impressed, only because I have been sitting on that committee, with the member of that staff who has been the clerk to the standing general government committee, which is dealing with that very important but very tedious and laborious bill known as Bill 163, which may see its light in the committee of the whole House before the turn of the 1980s if by any chance we on the committee can survive that long.

I do, however, wish to say that the role which that staff is playing is an essential ingredient to the way this House functions and, through its various instrumentalities, the way it functions in the committees. It is a matter of the progress of the maturity of this assembly that, from playing a role which was sometimes to look after the personal needs of members rather than to have any significant and important role to play in the work of the House, that branch has developed into a very professional and very necessary part of the institution of parliamentary government as we know it.

Because of a pressing engagement elsewhere, I was not able to be here when the Treasurer presented the budget, but I did have the opportunity to read his statement -- and, to my surprise, to re-read it to find out what the new Treasurer was saying to the province and what he was saying to the members of the assembly. It struck me that the Treasurer was wrong in the emphasis in his budget presentation. He endeavoured to simplify, in a way that is unacceptable to me, the kind of budgetary approach which this province must of necessity have.

The time has passed when we need in the budget of this province the kind of rhetoric that appeared in the Treasurer’s budget. We are all quite aware of his personal philosophy, as we are of the personal philosophies of many of our colleagues in the assembly because of our association. We do not need to have their individual personal philosophies clothed in some form of pseudo-rhetoric for us to be able to understand the economic conundrums facing the government of the province and facing this assembly.

I refer particularly to his reference to jobs and to inflation; there was little if any reference in his budget speech to the question of economic growth and to the question of income distribution or fair shares. Whenever we speak of a budgetary proposal these days, we must touch upon all parts of those four positions, which are essential to the kind of balance we want.

Because of his failure to understand the necessity for economic growth, because of his failure to emphasize the failure over the years of this government to sustain the economic growth of this province, and because of his failure to recognize the need for fair shares for people in the province, we have before us a budget posited upon the proposition that only by and only through the private sector are we going to be able to achieve the society we want.

I say -- and I emphasize again -- that the distortion which the Treasurer conveyed in his budget speech to this House is an imbalance in the way in which the government must play its role in the economic life of the province and in the urgent need to maintain an egalitarian society in the province through real income redistribution.

There is little, if any, recognition by the Treasurer that apart altogether from the transfer payments made to assist people who are in difficult economic circumstances in the province, the lower 20 per cent of the population in income terms, and the lower 40 per cent, have a decreasing -- perhaps marginal, but a decreasing -- share in the overall participation in the wealth of the province; while those in the upper quintile, the top 20 per cent, have an increasing share.

We have made little, if any, progress with respect to income redistribution; the ability to provide people with the kinds of economic security which will lead to them having an enhanced sense of their own dignity in the society in which we live.

Why is that so? Because of a misconceived notion about the role of government expenditure in maintaining the kind of balance we all believe is necessary for the continuing growth and development, in all its aspects, of this society.

Everyone recognizes -- and it is no particular sinecure or area where one party can claim any more right to its possession than any other party -- that there has been an expectation on the part of the public for services provided, which is beyond the willingness of the public to pay by way of taxes. That’s the problem, not that government expenditure is wrong. Not that government expenditure in some way is profligate. Not that government expenditure is in some way ill-advised, or that it is luxurious, or that it is a waste of taxpayers’ money. But a simple recognition that there has been a failure of government to explain that the level of services and the quality of services which the electorate of this province expects, has to be paid substantially and significantly through the tax system and not by way of budgetary response through a deficit.

Of course, there’s a reasonable deficit that can and must be carried by a province such as this on an ongoing basis. But the difficulty arose because people do expect a high quality of government performance in the area of provision of those services, which can only be performed by government, and which eat up the large part of the government’s expenditures.

The government has failed because it hasn’t had the determination to face up to the problem that it must raise those funds by way of taxes and it must take the political hazard and assume the risk of increasing taxes without adequate explanation of the reasons for it. But to suggest, in reverse, that there is something wrong with government expenditures, that in some way one can reduce government expenditures without affecting the quality of the services which government and government alone can provide, is to produce a situation we are facing day-in and day-out throughout this province in every field in which government service is provided.

[12:30]

When the government reduces the amount of expenditure available for those areas, it has to spend what remains on the general level of the supply of those services and has little if anything left for those very sensitive, quality areas in which expenditure must be made in order to provide for people in various walks of life and from various economic strata their opportunity to participate in an equal way in this society. So we get special programs cut back. We get special needs of the society affected. We get special health concerns affected. We get special environmental problems affected. We get the educational system affected in the quality areas.

The problem is that it is only a small portion of the population in any one of these areas which is able to articulate to the public its needs and they seem always to be speaking for some limited special purpose. When one adds them all together the sum of it means that there is a significant disenchantment in the province with the restraint programs which are now cutting into the quality of the performance of government services throughout the province.

I want to leave the budget for a moment and go on to some matters which are of interest to me specifically as the member sifting in the assembly for Riverdale. I’m sure I share with every member of the assembly the immense difficulty about the role of the representative in this assembly of a riding in the province. We all have this problem of exercising our judgement. On occasion, we have the problem of exercising our conscience in relation to the judgements we bring to bear on topics. We all pay our respects that we represent a particular riding and that we are here to reflect the views of our constituents.

We all take refuge in Edmund Burke’s letter to the electors of Bristol as to our role, so that we cannot be seen merely to be a sort of mouthpiece or an advocate solely of those views of one’s constituents, but we have an obligation to exercise our judgement. All of us meet together in our caucuses in order to find a common basis on which to promote the policies, the principles and the actions of the particular political party to which we owe allegiance. In a funny way, bringing our own particular skills to bear, we all try to resolve that kind of problem.

I can say frankly to the assembly -- and I don’t believe for one moment I’m different from any other member of the assembly -- that I do not know I have no means of finding out as I have no resources, and even if I had the resources I wouldn’t know how to use them, what the people of Riverdale feel about the quality of education in the schools located in Riverdale.

I have no general way of knowing though I can sense things. We all pretend as politician that we have some instant mechanism which provides us with the intuitions to assess what the people in the area wish their representative to db. I think that if our democracy as such is going to work, then at that very fundamental constituency basis I would welcome an opportunity in some kind of adequate forum, perhaps during the course of a summer -- maybe not this summer but some summer -- to sit down with some of my colleagues to find out how does one really represent the area which elects one to come to this assembly?

Is it because we simply call on people and talk to them? Do we come here and participate in discussions and debates about matters on which we rely entirely upon this so-called instinct, or in some arrogant way superarrogate to ourselves the right to say how we will deal with this particular issue or that particular issue? Do we then simply, whenever there is a general election, trust that somehow or other what we have done, mostly unknown, will be approved by the electorate and we will be returned?

I think that is a very essential part of any system of government which says that we govern by the consent of the people and that the ultimate sovereignty resides with the people. I just don’t know the answer to that.

I suppose I participate on an average the same as other members do in activities in one’s riding, in associations in one’s riding. One receives correspondence and telephone calls and we circulate in our ridings from time to time and we give out reports with questions and hope we will get a response. I do not know the answer, and I believe it to be a very significant problem, in an urban society particularly. In the kind of society that is an industrialized urban society we have to, in some way, decide how we represent the areas which traditionally have been represented by members in this assembly.

I want to turn, if I may, to three matters of immense concern to me in my riding. I have to say that Ontario Housing Corporation, reflected in the OHC development in my riding, is a disaster. It’s a disaster for the community surrounding it, it’s a disaster for the people who live in it, and it’s a disaster for what started out years ago to be a positive involvement of government in the provision of low-income housing for persons on low incomes in the province. What was a significant initiative by government in a field which has been neglected and is now being neglected, the development of housing for people, has turned out to be a disaster.

If any member of the assembly would come with me to the Blake Street development and inspect those buildings without knowing it was OHC that owned them, he would say that absentee landlord -- and OHC is an absentee landlord in my riding -- should not be allowed to carry on its business in Ontario. It is just that bad. I’m not given to gross exaggeration or, indeed, in this instance, to any exaggeration.

The management of that operation has been delegated by OHC to Greenwin Property Management. There is no connection of any real significance to that development as a community of its own with special needs and special requirements. OHC built that development in my riding in the period just prior to the 1967 election. I remember it well, because at the time Mr. Stanley Randall was the Minister of Housing. I was the member for Riverdale.

It was opened during the course of the election campaign. My then opponent is now an alderman sitting for the city of Toronto, Mr. Ying Hope. In those days, politics was played rough in Riverdale, because Mr. Ying Hope was invited to participate in the opening ceremonies but the sitting member for Riverdale was not invited to attend on that occasion.

I would certainly welcome Mr. Stanley Randall and Mr. Ying Hope to come back and inspect the buildings they opened with such fanfare on that day. Since that time Ontario Housing, having built a facility with absolutely no community facilities of any kind within the development -- none whatsoever -- has consistently opposed every attempt, by denial of resources and supportive services, to form a tenants’ association in that complex. There have been a number of attempts to do that. I have tried to participate in a small way in providing support to them. I have met with Ontario Housing about it, and they have attended meeting after meeting. I can only say in my judgement, their role was so passive as to have been subversive of any opportunity for the tenants in that community to have participated in a meaningful way in the maintenance of that community in the way in which it was necessary for it to be maintained.

The property to the north of the Blake Street development was a wasteland. There was a derelict Dominion store. It was one of those stores which Dominion Stores vacated early, as it often does. It left the area with this derelict shell, which at some point in history will be rediscovered as the archaeological ruins of Riverdale. Further to the north, there was a wasteland of mud leading on to Strathcona Avenue and to Earl Haig School.

The people in the area, some of them from the Ontario Housing Corporation development, particularly a person by the name of Nellie Williams, persistently and consistently worked with the city over a period of time. Fortunately, the council of the city was empathetic so before the 1975 election we were able to see developed a community centre. Her Honour came and opened it. It was an accident of course, it opened during the course of the 1977 election campaign in Riverdale. I was able to be there that day to welcome her to the opening of that centre.

Ontario Housing Corporation did not contribute one cent to that community centre. Having defaulted in providing any community facilities for their development, they did not contribute services or support facilities of any kind to that community centre, although asked to do so. They say there is a community room in the development. Well, I would take you to it, Mr. Speaker. It is so sparsely and inadequately furnished and so inadequate for all purposes, there is no way anyone would meet there.

The city of Toronto has a very fine way of taking buildings and renovating them and taking property and fixing it up. The property to the north is now a picture to see and a very valuable and important addition to the area surrounding that building, but in the centre stands this ruin.

I say the sooner Ontario Housing Corporation gets out of the housing business and transfers it to the city of Toronto non-profit housing with proper support so they can take over the running of it the better. I am sure they won’t thank me for asking them to do that. If not to them, they should turn it over to some co-operative organization that knows how, in co-operation with people, to make a community where the great bulk of the tenants, of necessity, through economic hardships and other disabilities, have to live in that kind of situation.

[12:45]

Perhaps the members who happen to be sitting in the House at this time, who sit with me under the chairmanship of the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey) on the standing general government committee, will get some idea of why I am terribly concerned about the provisions of that bill relating to something called subsidized public housing; the kind of subversive tyranny which is exercised by Ontario Housing with respect to the demands for details of income which are an insult to the people who have to supply them; and at the harassment which Ontario Housing Corporation permits because the people live in fear in that housing development about whether or not they are going to be allowed to stay there under difficult circumstances so the landlord doesn’t have to perform its obligations to maintain those buildings properly and in good repair.

I haven’t had the time -- and I’m not an expert -- to be able to look into it, but the riding of Riverdale sits in 55 division of the Metropolitan Toronto police. In the particular area that comprises four or five other divisions, mainly in the central part of the city, if one looks at the record of juvenile arrests -- I’m not talking about convictions -- and plots them on a chart, it just goes like that in 55 division. I don’t know the reason for it. Some day I’m going to have the time to I find out in co-operation with the police and in co-operation with some of the men and women in Riverdale who are spending their time trying to assist people in their adolescent years in that area.

I would hazard a guess that there is something which I could call police harassment in that area. I’m not saying that in an invidious way about the police, but the situation is such that it attracts that kind of problem. It attracts that kind of response. I would guess that a significant part of that immense jump in 55 division as compared with other areas under the control of that division of the police force relates to the disaster which is Blake Street, which is owned by Ontario Housing and which is a disgrace to this government and to this Legislature.

Enough of that. I feel very deeply about that matter and I am so concerned about it that I would welcome an initiative by the government to open up negotiations immediately with the city of Toronto non-profit housing organization for the speedy and immediate transfer, with proper financial support, of that development to the non-profit organization of the city of Toronto, which with restricted resources is undertaking an empathetic, understanding role with respect to the needs of proper housing for people in the area.

Let me speak briefly about Canada Metal and the lead problem. This goes back to the restraint program. After what we had gone through in the Riverdale area about Canada Metal for at least two years, I could not believe that the problem is now back with us. It is back with us in dimensions which are as yet unknown because the information is not public and when we do get the information it is of historic value only because it is so old.

I can’t conceive that a corporation can be allowed to so harass the Ministry of the Environment over the period of time when the cleanup was taking place that somehow or other the ministry is unable to maintain even the standards which it has put out as the kinds of standards which will not affect people in the area.

If one will notice, the only thing which has saved the ministry on this occasion is that the prevailing winds are east and west. It’s the only thing. How does the ministry seize upon that in my riding? They refer to the high levels as being in the industrial park and not in the community where people live. The community where people live is one street width, Eastern Avenue, north of the plant. They purport to say that the community is not affected because it is to the east or to the west and the winds were blowing in that direction. I do not think one has to be a genius in Toronto to know that the prevailing wind is either the east wind or the west wind. That’s the kind of disguise which the ministry, in trying to justify its position, unconsciously falls into in putting forward to the people in my area what is not there.

Then by inadvertence -- fortunately because of the vigilance of the Globe and Mail, with whom, by the way, I do not always necessarily agree; nor they with me -- we find that some of the soil is contaminated. Just before the 1977 election, I got from the then Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) a list of the various houses where the soil was changed. Now I am told, but not in specific terms, that there is either a recontamination or that there are new areas of contamination where the soil will have to be replaced.

In any event, when I say “we”, I mean the South Riverdale Community Health Centre-have invited the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) to a public meeting towards the end of May, a date which can be adjusted to meet the minister’s convenience, along with the president of Canada Metal, the chairman of the Toronto board of health and, I would hope, the Minister of Health, to come to that meeting to try to tell us, and to level with us, what is the situation.

I want to maintain that plant as a place where people work in conditions that are acceptable and nonhazardous both within the plant and outside the plant. I believe that can be done with proper and adequate resources which I think have been denied to that ministry. The restraint program has inhibited the Ministry of the Environment from maintaining the quality of air and soil around that plant and the quality of conditions within that plant which place in jeopardy jobs that we cannot afford to place in jeopardy at this time.

There is no movement in Riverdale to turn it into some kind of residential lakeshore appendage of the city of Toronto. We, in Riverdale, enjoy the mixture of industry, the stores, the retail merchants, the society, the residential communities and the other communities; it is a good mix. It’s a very vital area.

I must pay tribute to the government, because in one way or another -- through the Neighbourhood Improvements Program, through the clinic funding committee for legal services, through the Ministry of Health for the South Riverdale Community Health Centre -- we at least have a network of interrelated organizations that are very self-supportive, and very few people in Riverdale now fall through the safety net and are not without access to services of one kind or another. In all fairness, I think I should make that point.

It’s because of the vitality of the area, and because of funds in support that have been available, that we do have things such as the Riverdale Socio-Legal Services. We have a new centre called the South Riverdale Community Centre. We have a renovation going on at WoodGreen Community Centre. We have a ward eight newspaper and a ward seven newspaper. We do have an intercultural, interracial committee. We do have a South Riverdale Community Health Centre. We do have an Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre. I have a constituency office. My colleague the federal member for Broadview, soon to be the member for Broadview-Greenwood, has a constituency office.

One way or another, with the various facilities of the government, we have a mutually supportive set of institutions in the riding which are a far cry from just a few years ago when there were few, if any, services available of a community nature.

Mr. Speaker, I had thought I would be finished by one o’clock, but I haven’t got to some other remarks I want to make, so at the appropriate time I will move the adjournment of the debate and I am almost at the point where it would be convenient for me to do so, Mr. Speaker.

There is one other matter I don’t know the answer to -- I have been in communication with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) about it -- and that is the whole question of the waterfront. The waterfront is a most important area of access and enjoyment for the people in my riding and in the ridings which abut the lake across the city, as well as for those who don’t live right in those areas but who want to come to it. In a funny way we have created barriers to access so that, while there are more and more people who recognize that we have the facility of a lakeshore and the enjoyment which comes from that, there are many barriers to reaching that waterfront, particularly in the area of Riverdale.

We do have, of course, the spit which, by natural development, I believe, is going to become a most important beauty adjunct for the city and a recreational spot. But I am talking about the shoreline itself. There are five governmental authorities involved in that property and when one considers how difficult it is for two or three governmental authorities to find any resolution or understand what their respective jurisdictions are, let alone give the elected representatives a clearer view as to what they can do to be of assistance, one may comprehend the difficulties involved here.

That waterfront is not being planned in a way of which I have any comprehension, so that it can be an area which is available, with ready access, to people. I’m not speaking about barring other activity in that area; I am talking about the kind of imaginative planning of the waterfront from the islands through to the riding of my colleague, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. B. F. Johnston) and perhaps further on through the outskirts of Metropolitan Toronto, but principally in that area which abuts my riding, the riding of St. David, the riding of Beaches-Woodbine and the riding of Scarborough West.

I am hopeful that somehow or other that maze of overlapping jurisdictions will permit an intelligent appreciation by the elected members -- municipally, provincially and federally -- of what we can do to provide some kind of cohesion to the development of the waterfront for the use and enjoyment of our immediate constituents and naturally, of course, for those living elsewhere in the city of Toronto and in the metropolitan area.

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

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.