The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO HYDRO TRANSMISSION LINES

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the House concerning actions being taken on two applications I have received from the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) for approval to expropriate land on behalf of Ontario Hydro. The land is required for bulk power transmission lines between Claireville transformer station and Cherrywood transformer station, roughly across the north side of Metropolitan Toronto.

The general route of the transmission lines was established by Dr. Solandt during public hearings between 1972 and 1974. West of Highway 48, the route was determined in detail during the parkway belt west planning and public participation process from 1973 to 1978. This route was given legal force by the parkway belt west plan, which was released on July 26, 1978. The Solandt route from Claireville to Cherrywood was incorporated in order in council 1466/78 on May 17, 1978, which authorized the Ministry of Government Services to acquire land on Ontario Hydro’s behalf. Since that time, negotiations have been proceeding with the affected owners and many of the required properties have been purchased.

In September 1978, the Premier (Mr. Davis) and my predecessor as Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) met with representatives of the towns of Vaughan and Richmond Hill to discuss their concerns about the transmission lines which pass through those municipalities. During these meetings it was agreed that: (1) Ontario Hydro would be requested to consider adjusting the route of the transmission lines to move them further away from properties on Longbridge Road; (2) Ontario Hydro would be requested to re-evaluate the feasibility of burying the transmission lines underground between Yonge Street and Bayview Avenue; (3) Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications would review the possibility of design compromises which would minimize the visual impact of the transmission lines, particularly where they intersect with Yonge Street.

These three reviews were completed some time ago and have been discussed with the municipalities, members of the provincial Parliament and other interested groups.

I am very happy to announce today that some of the local concerns have been met by increasing the separation between the transmission line and the homes on Longbridge Road through a new alignment developed by the parkway belt steering committee. This new alignment is not without its disadvantages, including some crowding of the highway and transmission facilities and the reduction of further design flexibility. Nevertheless, in view of the concerns expressed, the government has approved the new alignment as an acceptable compromise. I will be tabling a copy of the steering committee realignment report today.

Unfortunately, a thorough examination has demonstrated that it is simply not feasible to bury the 500-kilovolt cable transmission lines, both for economic and technical reasons. These reasons are set out in detail in Ontario Hydro’s study of undergrounding, which I am tabling today.

It is also unfortunate that the visual impact of the transmission lines at Yonge Street cannot be significantly improved. To date, no one has discovered a way to make a transmission line look more beautiful.

On the basis of all of the extensive public reviews which have already taken place, my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is today tabling in the Legislature an order in council providing that the expropriation west of Highway 48 will proceed without a further public inquiry. With respect to the route of the transmission line east of Highway 48, different considerations apply.

Although there was a general review of this route by Dr. Solandt, the location of the parkway belt has not been determined east of Highway 48 and there have been no hearings under the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act. However, following a review co-ordinated by the parkway belt steering committee, the general route of the transmission line recommended by Dr. Solandt was adopted by the government. As I mentioned earlier, order in council 1466/78 gives the Minister of Government Services authority to acquire land for Ontario Hydro in this general route.

I should also advise members that at the request of the Box Grove Ratepayers Association the parkway belt steering committee has examined three alternative routes near Box Grove. The steering committee’s report, which I am tabling today, supports the route on the north side of the railway tracks. This is the route incorporated in order in council 1466/78. The route south of the railway tracks was not recommended, largely because of the number of homes that would be affected. The third alternative route would add considerably to the length and cost of the transmission line and was considered inferior for this reason. It was also not recommended by Dr. Solandt. The Box Grove Ratepayers Association has asked for clarification of certain matters in the report and this will be undertaken shortly.

As members know, it is the policy of the Ministry of Government Services to negotiate the purchase of land wherever possible and to use expropriation only as a last resort. Most of the land east of Highway 48 required for the transmission lines is already owned by the province as part of the North Pickering community. Rights of way have also been purchased from two private land owners and negotiations are continuing with the remainder. However, notice of the application to expropriate has now been served. Land owners east of Highway 48 whose properties are subject to expropriation may now request an expropriation inquiry.

As the approving authority, I may not make a final decision on the precise alignment of the transmission lines east of Highway 48 until after all land owners subject to expropriation have had an opportunity to be heard in an expropriation inquiry. It is anticipated that should such an inquiry be requested it would be held early next year. Following receipt of the inquiry officer’s report, I will then decide whether to approve the requested expropriation.

Perhaps in keeping with the statement, I should table the following reports relating to the Ontario Hydro Claireville to Cherrywood transmission line: First, the report of the parkway belt steering committee on redesign of the parkway belt west, Bathurst Street to Bayview Avenue, May 1979; and second, the report of the steering committee on Ontario Hydro, 500-KV transmission line, Claireville to Cherrywood Box area, January 4, 1979; and third, the feasibility report on high voltage underground cable installation, parkway belt west, October 1978.

ALGOMA CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement today regarding the ongoing labour dispute at the Algoma Children’s Aid Society.

Further discussions between the parties took place last week with the assistance of the Ministry of Labour. I have now been advised by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) that these discussions have not been productive and that there is very little hope of a settlement in the near future.

At the same time, we have been advised by both the board of directors and by the local director that they are encountering major staffing difficulties in ensuring that high risk protection cases are served, particularly after over five months of withdrawal of services and with the holiday season approaching. Stated simply, some children will be in serious jeopardy if present emergency staffing levels are permitted to fall to the level anticipated over the next few weeks.

Over the past few months I have repeatedly stated to the House my concern that this not occur, and I have stressed the statutory obligation I have under the Child Welfare Act to ensure that essential child welfare services are provided. Given this situation, the government has decided, therefore, to undertake the following courses of action:

First, the ministry will continue to assist the board and local director to secure their own staff to provide emergency assistance. My staff will be discussing with the board and the local director what further actions must be taken to obtain such staff. In addition, we will be reviewing the situation on an ongoing basis in order to determine exactly what number of persons need to be present to deal solely with high risk cases.

Second, as of today, a small number of government staff with child welfare experience will join the agency to resolve the emergency situation which exists as we enter the holiday period.

It is hoped that help from our personnel will be short-term in nature until the board and local director are able, with our help, to secure external staffing to provide essential services. However, I want to be clear about my commitment to do what is necessary to ensure that the obligation I personally have under the Child Welfare Act is met; it is an obligation which I have both in law and in conscience.

I would stress, as I have on all previous occasions, that the assistance we are offering is solely because children, particularly children at risk of physical and emotional injury, should not be left to suffer serious harm as a result of this labour dispute. In my view, this is very different from actions taken to support one side or another in that dispute.

I am personally very unhappy that the strike has continued for the length of time it has. It was my hope that the recent discussions would have been more productive than they apparently were. Having said this, I have no hesitation about adopting the course of action which I feel the Child Welfare Act demands that I follow while this dispute continues.

In the meantime, I would urge the parties to take all possible steps to bring this dispute to an end. The Minister of Labour assures me that his officials will continue to be available to provide all possible assistance to the parties.

PROVINCIAL SPORTS POLICY

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Culture and Recreation, one of my most important responsibilities is to ensure that Ontario has a cogent policy for sport, fitness and physical recreation.

[2:15]

Such a policy must be sensitive to the times; and it must ensure that the greatest possible number of men, women and children have access to provincial government sport, fitness and physical recreation resources. It must ensure that talent can develop fully; that those who have the gifts and desire to excel will have the opportunity to do so. It must also ensure that the people of Ontario who pay the bills get the very best value for every tax dollar that is devoted to the field.

As honourable members know, the Ministry of Culture and Recreation is almost five years old. In that time, my ministry and others have been involved in the development of a number of inventive sport, fitness and physical recreation programs. Today it is my judgement that we have reached the point at which we need to step back for a moment, take a fresh look at what we’re doing overall, assess its effectiveness and chart some directions for the future. It is therefore my great pleasure to announce that I am appointing Mr. Douglas Fisher of Ottawa to review our amateur sport, fitness and physical recreation situation and to advise the government through me.

Mr. Fisher, in my view, is uniquely qualified for this assignment. He is a well-known newspaper columnist and media commentator. Many honourable members will be aware that he is a former member of Parliament, a former chairman of Hockey Canada, and a founding director of the Canadian Coaching Association of Canada. He has had a lifelong interest in sports.

The government does not believe that Mr. Fisher’s review needs to be long, costly and tortuous. Consequently, he will start his review on January 1, at which time he will relinquish some of his present duties, and his appointment will terminate on May 31.

He will be responsible for considering the state of amateur sport, fitness and physical recreation in Ontario generally.

He will be particularly concerned with making recommendations designed to support and extend both participation and excellence. In that broad context, he will make recommendations concerning: The most effective means of utilizing provincial, local and institutional resources that are available now; the most appropriate mechanism for ensuring that the efforts of the federal government, provincial government and local governments, organizations and institutions are complementary and harmonious; and the ways that government can best co-operate with voluntary, corporate and individual efforts.

Mr. Fisher will be assisted in his work by members of my ministry’s staff. Mr. Fisher will be contacting all parties in this House. I hope that all parties will give him the benefit of their experience and counsel.

I know all honourable members will join me in looking forward to the insights that Mr. Fisher will be bringing to the province with his report on sport policy.

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege that arises out of an exchange in the House on December 11, and is found on page 5373 of Hansard as follows:

I asked a question of the Premier: “Would the Premier assure us he would use his good offices as the Premier of Ontario to help persuade the oil companies not to charge an additional 25 cents, if that is the price, excise tax on those supplies of fuels that are presently in the service stations.”

The Premier replied, and I’ll take a brief excerpt out of it:

“Mr. Speaker, I really can’t believe the member for St. Catharines would advise me to counsel the companies to break the law. If a federal tax is imposed, whatever hour it is imposed, people have to pay it. That is a reality, that’s something I hope even the honourable member will understand. I know it’s hard, but that happens to be the fact. I can’t advise anybody not to pay a tax and I would advise the member not to advise anybody not to pay the tax.

“With respect to the second part of the question, which has a little more logic than the first part of the question,” and it goes on, Mr. Speaker.

I merely rise in light of the headlines which appeared in the weekend newspapers in which the federal Minister of Finance, in that case Mr. Crosbie, was quoted to say: Don’t Pay Higher Gas Tax.

What I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that I was not counselling any one to break the law of this province. I was merely asking the Premier to intervene at a time when it would have been very useful and we wouldn’t be in the difficulty we’re in now in terms of rebating that money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ll answer that very briefly, because I understand the member’s point of privilege. When I say I understand it, my recollection was the member had urged me to tell people not to pay the tax. I think that’s really what was suggested at that particular time. As is the tradition here when a budget comes down, the law has always been interpreted that the cost takes effect the day of the budget. If the Treasurer or the Minister of Finance so stated, if Mr. Crosbie in his wisdom has said that the tax will not apply, that is up to him. Being one of those who pays the tax, I am delighted that it doesn’t apply.

With great respect to the honourable member, when I gave him that reply last week that was my impression of the law and the policy of the government of Canada. While he may deem it a point of privilege, I think in fairness he should understand what he is saying today in the context of when it was delivered last week.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the honourable member was given the opportunity to explain his point of privilege. He did it fully, and as he should do.

Mr. Nixon: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: There’s nothing out of order.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I’m afraid that the House may be misinformed as a result of the Premier’s comments.

Mr. Speaker: There’s really nothing out of order. If you have a point of privilege --

ORAL QUESTIONS

FEDERAL ELECTION

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Premier: the Premier is undoubtedly aware of the statement attributed to his Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who is said to have said, according to the Toronto Star: “The time has come for some hard bargaining with Prime Minister Joe Clark.” The quote attributed to the Treasurer is, “Our support should be, let’s say, predicated upon their doing what we believe is right.”

Is the Premier intending to accept the advice of his Treasurer? Is the Treasurer alone among all the ministers in taking that point of view; is the Premier determined to give unquestioning party loyalty type support to Mr. Clark, irrespective of what his policies are for the people of Ontario?

Mr. Riddell: As Hugh Winsor says, “Blood runs thicker than reason.” I thought that was a pretty good quote.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted the member for Huron-Middlesex is so influenced by that distinguished columnist in the Globe and Mail and that he will always accept what he says. I can quote some things he has said that he might not agree with.

Getting back to the -- I don’t know whether it was the leader’s question or opportunity for political statement -- I haven’t seen that particular report in the Star, and I apologize for that because I always read the Star very thoroughly, from cover to cover, but I am not familiar with that particular quote. If the Leader of the Opposition is saying that this government will continue to press this point of view, even though there is an election campaign on in respect to a number of issues, the government, of course, certainly will.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the Premier stated on September 15: “We took the view that to have a price increase which generated the kind of cash for the government of Canada, foreign oil companies and the government of Alberta which they could not possibly reinvest quickly enough to solve energy security problems, would be a mistake and a distortion and a clear raid upon the spending power of the average citizen of this province and of Canada as a whole,” could I ask the Premier whether he feels that the price increase which has been put forward in the budget is in that category or whether he now finds that price increase reasonably acceptable?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are two points I think should be made relative to the question and following our exchange last Friday, when the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I intended to support our federal leader? I said that I intended to. He then seized the occasion to tell me he was going to support their federal leader, who interestingly enough may turn out to be the same gentleman he didn’t support last time, probably voted against, and who he said at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education was doing the country a great service by retiring. I expect the member will remember all of those things over the next couple of months.

That gentleman and that government, incidentally, like the member himself, was committed to world price for oil. Further, in terms of the basic issue about which I have expressed concern, that of distribution, the former government of this country had taken no steps; in fact they had established the regime which has presently led to the concern that this government has expressed over distribution.

If the Leader of the Opposition is asking if I’m content with the $4 that has been suggested -- there has been no agreement concluded for 1980 -- of course I would prefer that be a lower figure. We argued vigorously for the maintenance of the existing agreement, which calls for one dollar on January 1. The government of Canada, and apparently the government of Alberta if they are close to an agreement, have accepted that point of view. They also accepted the $2 on July 1, which we had not argued for, and $1 October 1.

I think it fair to point out that the distribution of that $4 has not yet been determined. Part of the argument contained in that quotation read by the Leader of the Opposition did relate to the question of distribution and the question of security of supply. Security of supply relates to how much of that $4 will in fact be reinvested, what portion used by the province of Alberta in terms of the infrastructure support for any synthetic plants that may come on stream in the tar sands and what portion was to go to the oil companies under what conditions. If the Leader of the Opposition reads that quotation carefully, if he reads what the federal budget has said carefully, he will find out that in fact there has been no determination of three of those points, so it is very difficult to answer that question until that determination is made.

Mr. Cassidy: As someone who supported Ed Broadbent in 1971, supported him in 1975 and supports him unequivocally today, Mr. Speaker, I don’t have the schizophrenia of my psychiatrist friend.

My supplementary to the Premier is this: Since the Prime Minister said on Friday that the federal budget will be the centrepiece of the Conservative Party’s federal election campaign, the budget which both the Premier and the Treasurer so roundly condemned last Wednesday and last Thursday, would the Premier say whether the government has now changed its opinion of that budget or whether he is going to campaign for Joe Clark while continuing to condemn his budget?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to hear the leader of the New Democratic Party is going to support his national leader. I would have been surprised if he had done anything else. At least he has been consistent in that, unlike the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario who, when he senses the weather is a little tough, is right behind them until their nose bleeds, then when it starts to bleed a little bit he sort of fades into the woodwork as he did in the last election. We had difficulty finding him during that confrontation. I am delighted to know that he will be on every platform with Pierre Elliott Trudeau if he is his leader in the next couple of months.

If the leader of the New Democratic Party reads very carefully what the Treasurer of this province said about the budget, he said some very positive things and some negative things. It may come as a bit of a shock to the New Democratic Party, but I can’t recall, even in the years when there was another administration, when the Treasurer of this province unanimously accepted what was contained in the federal budget.

The only budgets I have ever been totally in support of have been those delivered by whoever happened to be geographically on my left as they were presented in this House, and they were all exceptional budgets. I supported every last one of them.

I really don’t think it should come as any surprise or contradiction to find us objecting to certain aspects of the federal budget. Because the honourable member’s party leader determined, for whatever reason, along with Mr. Trudeau, to force the people of this country into an election at this precise time -- which was totally irresponsible of those two gentlemen in my view, to thrust the people of this province and of this country into an election in mid-February -- I don’t know why you would find it inconsistent for us to be supporting our national leader, even though we object to certain portions of the budget. We do, without any question.

I would also point out to the leader of the New Democratic Party that there are some of his friends in the great province of Saskatchewan, philosophically speaking who quite obviously accept some portions of the budget.

[2:30]

I might ask the leader of the New Democratic Party if Mr. Broadbent is going to go into Saskatchewan and say he doesn’t agree with some aspects of the oil pricing policy? I bet he doesn’t.

Mr. T. P. Reid: How does the Premier intend to reconcile an even deeper division between himself and Joe Clark on the question of what Canada is all about and the need for a strong central government as opposed to balkanizing Canada by giving more powers to the provinces? Again I would remind him of his quotation in his speech about nation building as opposed to province building. How is the Premier going to deal with that most fundamental division between himself and Joe Clark?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I never mind answering a question twice. It gives me an opportunity to remind the honourable member that is exactly what he asked me on Friday, almost word for word. I will try to vary the answer just slightly to add a little bit of interest, because I guess the honourable member is concerned that it wasn’t reported via the television back in his own home constituency.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The Rainy River Review.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It wasn’t in the Rainy River Review?

Mr. T. P. Reid: It wasn’t answered anyway.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Energy tells me it wasn’t in the Rainy River Review over the weekend.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It was headlines.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh it was headlines, was it? Well anything to help a member of his family, I understand that. Blood runs thicker than water, as his colleague says. I expect he will be on the hustings if no one else in his party is.

I have expressed a point of view which does concern me. That point of view is the tendency that has developed, not in the past six months with great respect but over a period of time, where as a country there has been a tendency to emphasize, shall we say the growth or the functioning or the development of provinces, not as opposed to but on occasion perhaps inconsistent with what I think should be national objectives.

If the member would just think back, and people’s memories are very short, the previous government of Canada did very little to bring other parts of this country together. Its economic policy never had any stated objective, any economic goals; it never had an energy policy. I am very tempted to become provocative and almost partisan when I am asked such a question as this, but please think back to the total lack of policy: no commitment to energy self sufficiency, no determination of the difficulty of distribution by the previous government.

I am concerned, and I have expressed that concern. I believe I will continue to express concern; nothing that the present Prime Minister of Canada has done has altered, in terms of the federal posture, what had been going on before.

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Health: In view of the decision which seems to have been reached regarding the increase in the OHIP fee schedule, a nine per cent increase, I believe, plus a certain amount of money in addition to make up for certain deficiencies, can the Premier tell us what commitment the government has received from the Ontario Medical Association that the medical profession will opt back into the OHIP plan, at least in the number that traditionally has been the case, around 90 per cent or so? What commitments has he received that the OMA will advise its members to opt back in and that in fact the members will do so?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In that the honourable Leader of the Opposition is a member of that particular profession himself he will understand that the OMA, as a matter of principle, for many years has not urged its members to opt into the plan. My expectation is that in terms of their official position, as a matter of principle, and I am not familiar with the detailed discussions, I doubt that was ever a part of the negotiation in any strict sense of the word.

The figures the minister has used very recently, I think in response to the Federation of Labour brief that was presented to us last Thursday, indicated, and I am only going from memory, that not only had the figures stabilized but there had been some modest decrease in the number of doctors who had opted out of the plan.

It is our expectation, Mr. Speaker, that because of the settlement that has been reached, because of the adjustment that is being made -- internally as I understand it, within OMA -- and because their fee schedule gives a greater priority to the general practitioners in terms of the fees they receive, these factors will not only stabilize the situation but it is to be hoped will encourage some of those doctors who have opted out to return to the plan. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the indications are that it has already stabilized and there has been a modest decrease.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, may I ask a two-part question of the Premier? Is he, in the first place, satisfied that the fee schedule now agreed upon is comparable to those of the neighbouring provinces, Quebec and Manitoba for example? If he is so satisfied, as the second part of the question may I ask whether he is satisfied with the situation where about 17 or 18 per cent of the doctors are opted out of the plan? Is he going to take some action to get those doctors back into the plan, at least back up to the 90 per cent that used to exist, or is he satisfied if the number is merely stabilized at the present level?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, of course we would prefer that the numbers opted out decrease. I think one of the interesting figures that was used -- and I may be wrong in this, I am only going by memory from last Thursday -- was that since last April, of the some 38 million OHIP claims only nine per cent of the fees charged were in fact over the OHIP schedule. So while we had 17 per cent of the doctors out -- I don’t have the exact figure -- only nine per cent of those claims involved fees above the OHIP schedule, which I think gives a slightly different perspective to it.

If the Leader of the Opposition is asking are we content, no; we would prefer that the figure go down. I can’t guarantee him it will, but the feelings on the part of those who negotiated this agreement were that because of the added incentive or fee increase to the GPs, that the potential for a diminishing of that figure is there. I can’t guarantee, of course, that it will happen.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the president of the OMA, in his immediate reaction to the negotiations, said that there was little chance the fee settlement would lead doctors to come back into the plan, would the Premier explain to us how is it the government could negotiate a deal that took doctors’ salaries to a net of more than $60,000 a year in 1980, an agreement which will cost the taxpayers of this province $140 million additional in 1980, and yet the government could not lift a finger to get an agreement from doctors that they would come back into the plan and would not seek an agreement from the doctors to get on side, to stop extra billings and to take away this singe greatest threat to universal accessibility under medicare?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I say, we are continuing to work with the OMA to achieve a reduction in the numbers. I think it is fair to state that the president of the OMA is himself an opted-out physician. It may be that would account for part of his own personal point of view as he expressed it. I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that unlike him, and he would bludgeon the medical profession of this province to conform to his own particular point of view, we don’t intend to do that. We think there is still some individual freedom in this province and that includes freedom for members of the medical profession. I know he doesn’t agree with that; I know he would put them all on salary, I know that he would have them all as public servants. I understand that he would bludgeon them into the plan by saying, “If you don’t do it we are not going to give you any money.”

I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that attitude or indication of how he would deal with people, really indicates to me very clearly that while he is in total support of Ed Broadbent he should be more concerned about what his party is doing for the people of this province. That attitude would be totally divisive. It would be divisive in this province and we don’t expect we need to do it.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I take it from the Premier’s answer that he is not satisfied with the present level of opting out and hopes that the new arrangement will attract a substantial number of physicians back into the plan. I can understand that policy, but I ask the Premier whether he has set a target in his own mind and whether he has set any time factor in his own mind for judging this? In other words is he giving the doctors, shall we say three or six months to get back up to 85 or 90 per cent in the plan? What are the guidelines he has in mind before some other form of action might be required to draw them into the plan?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I go on the assumption that if people are reasonable you have reasonable time frames. We have set no time frame for the medical profession. I think the Leader of the Opposition above some others, with the exception of two in this House who probably may have even a greater awareness of it than himself, would understand that if we did this we would never achieve what I think is a realistic and reasonable agreement.

I have no set figure. I would like to see a reduction, the Minister of Health would like to see a reduction, and we think the supplement that has been arrived at will create the kind of climate that will encourage members of the profession to opt back into the plan. We have no time table per se. We will evaluate it month by month to see how we are progressing.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: As long as it is not a repetition.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the Premier talks about the freedom of the doctors, can he explain why it is that health-care workers across this province, getting an average increase this year of about $1,000 per annum, do not enjoy free collective bargaining rights; whereas doctors getting an average increase of $5,600 in their net income are still free to charge 42 per cent more than that by charging the Ontario Medical Association tariff?

Can the Premier explain why it is that consumers, who should be free to get medical care under our OHIP scheme in Ontario, are too often intimidated from going to the doctor for fear of running into an opted out doctor who will bill them at a price they cannot afford?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I tried to say to the leader of the New Democratic Party, who himself was there listening to the discussions last Thursday, I may be wrong in my figure but I think it was around nine per cent of doctors who were actually billing above the OHIP fee schedule. That is subject to correction.

I question whether the leader of the New Democratic Party is correct that people are intimidated from going to see doctors. Certainly the figures don’t substantiate that nor do the numbers of people who at this precise moment are either in hospitals or in doctors’ offices.

I take exception to the observation made by the leader of the New Democratic Party that those people who are very important employees in our hospitals are not part of a free collective bargaining process. He can argue because there isn’t a right to strike in some situations that this is not free collective bargaining; in my view it is and they have had free collective bargaining. I guess we will just differ on the interpretation.

FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask another question of the Premier. Since the Premier has now confirmed the overall opposition to the federal budget, which was enacted by himself and also by the Treasurer during the statement he gave in the Legislature on Thursday, would the Premier tell us whether representatives of this government intend to go on the hustings with Joe Clark over the course of the next 60 days to reiterate the fact that the federal budget will cost Ontario 20,000 jobs, to reiterate the fact that the budget will raise inflation by 1.5 per cent, and to reiterate the fact that over the next four years the increases in oil and gas prices and taxes enunciated in the federal budget will take $16 billion from the people of Ontario? That is the equivalent of three Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Funds. Will the Premier be taking that message to the people of Ontario during the course of the federal campaign?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would suggest to the leader of the New Democratic Party that he take what message he wants on the hustings with his leader. I don’t think it will make any difference as a matter of fact but take it, and just watch and see what I or any of my colleagues say during the course of the campaign.

I don’t really want to reiterate what I have said already, not only today but on Friday. Just to restate, though, because the honourable member has asked the question, that there are some parts of the budget to which we object. There are some parts of the budget, and he had better be very careful in his overall condemnation, about which a number of people are quite content. I think it is fair to state that even some people who might philosophically support his party, but not necessarily himself, would have that particular point of view.

[2:45]

I would just urge the member that if he wants to fight the election campaign in this Legislature that’s fine, but I would just suggest I’ll wait to hear what he says on the hustings, if anything, and the member might also wait to hear what I say.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: On Thursday in this Legislature, in talking about this government’s commitment to Ontario consumers, the Treasurer said, and I quote: “Whatever the government in Ottawa, despite our political affiliations, the government of Ontario’s responsibilities and duties remain constant.”

On Friday, Mr. Speaker, the Premier said, and I quote: “I am a Conservative, I remain a Conservative and my support will be for the national leader of our Progressive Conservative Party.”

Would the Premier tell the House and the province which comes first, his duties to his national leader or constancy to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, obviously my duties are to the people of this province, but I also have a duty, not just because of our system, in spite of differences to support that party and those people, I feel can best do the job. I have to say to the member, very frankly, that if he expects me to support the leader of a national party that is committed to nationalization and that is committed to limiting the freedom of individuals, if he expects me to support a policy that would lead to economic chaos for this country, if he expects me in any way to endorse his candidate, then I have to say to him “You are all wet”; and I think the people of Canada will say the same thing.

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to ask a supplementary question on this matter of possible conflict between one’s role as a party leader and as the Premier. I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I say this without being provocative, that the Premier genuinely feels that the appropriate way for leaders to behave is to be loyal at election time to one’s party, and then to fight as hard as possible to influence policy afterwards.

I understand that but I would ask this: Doesn’t the Premier agree that the circumstances are different in this instance? In this instance the fight has already occurred. It occurred on national television and on every possible podium and platform. The policy has already been enunciated and would this moment be the law of land, except for the somewhat unanticipated events of last Thursday night in Ottawa. Therefore doesn’t the Premier agree that on this occasion he has a somewhat unique situation of possible conflict between his party loyalty and his loyalty to the Ontario public? He lost the battle, but now unexpectedly he has a second chance. Why won’t he use the second chance?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable Leader of the Opposition really thinks that a second chance exists -- and one always hopes that while there are times to re-evaluate situations, that people can change their points of view, if not in terms of a total program in terms of some aspects of it, I always live in that sort of expectation -- I would say to him with respect that if he is saying to me as Premier of this province that I should abstain from voting, not be involved, I have to tell him that if I have to make a choice between the present government and what his friends did not do in terms of the economic policy of this country -- and he knew what their energy policy was; it hasn’t changed yet he tells me on Friday, and I know why he’s changed his mind, that he’s going to support his federal leader whoever it may be -- I would only say to him, with the greatest of respect -- which is not really what I mean, I’m just trying to get his attention -- that he should really assess what he has said in the past and what their policy was in the past. My view is that even though he will support his national leader, in conscience he will end up voting for Joe Clark.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has disturbed me greatly. I didn’t expect him to endorse so heartedly every aspect of Ed Broadbent’s campaign, but I have heard him distinctly say in this Legislature that he believes, as Ed Broadbent does, that Petro-Canada should remain in public hands and not be sold off to the private sector the way the Joe Clark government is planning to do.

Is the Premier now reneging on his commitment to keep Petro-Canada in the public sector, or does he intend to campaign for Joe Clark so Joe Clark can take Petro-Canada out of the public sector, despite the Premier’s opposition?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not often, probably, that Mr. Broadbent agrees with me. I think that was really the historical way it happened. I still believe in the retention of Petrocan, and I am delighted to see the member’s national leader has endorsed my point of view.

ALCOMA CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services arising from his very unfortunate announcement today about the decision of the ministry to send strikebreakers into the dispute at the Algoma Children’s Aid Society in Sault Ste. Marie.

Could the minister say how much has been spent by the ministry in relation to this dispute up until now; how much is the ministry planning to spend to send strikebreakers into that dispute with the announcement today? Why won’t the government take all those funds and allocate them to the Algoma Children’s Aid Society so this strike can be settled and the regular work of the society can get back on the track?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I explained the situation, I thought, rather clearly in my statement. I realize the honourable member opposite responds with a knee-jerk reaction every time there is any reference to providing essential service during a period of withdrawal of service by employees of an agency. Nevertheless, this is clearly not a strikebreaking situation.

What we have here are children who are perceived to be or who may be in the next couple of weeks placed in a high-risk situation. I have a mandate as legislated by this Legislature as does my ministry and this government, to ensure that children are not at risk in this province. I fully intend to discharge that responsibility.

If that does require, during a period of withdrawal of service in a labour dispute when the parties seem not to be able at this time to resolve their differences, that my ministry respond in a way that will ensure children are not at risk, then we will do that. I am sure the people of this province would never forgive me if I didn’t take action and one of those children suffered. I feel the people of this province would expect me to discharge the mandate this Legislature has given me, and I fully intend to do that.

I will not be engaged in strikebreaking.

Mr. Cassidy: You are.

Hon. Mr. Norton: However, I would suggest to the member that his proposal is more clearly strikebreaking than what I am doing to ensure the security of these children. The member is suggesting I inject myself into the middle of that dispute and come down squarely on the side of one party or the other. I am not going to do that.

What I will do is what I am doing; and that is to ensure that the children in Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma are not in a risk situation as a result of the protracted dispute. I will continue to do that and will spend whatever is necessary to protect those children. But I will not engage in strikebreaking or come down on one side or the other. Those parties must assume their responsibility in this dispute and come to a resolution of their differences themselves.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Before this House is flooded with the minister’s concern about children in the Sault area and Algoma area, is the minister not aware this dispute could have been settled four months ago with $20,000, but could not be settled then because the Algoma society did not have the funds to do so as a result of the cutbacks by this ministry? Is the minister not aware his ministry injected itself into the dispute from the very beginning? It was the cutbacks imposed by this government which led to that labour dispute, which prolonged that labour dispute and which have kept children in that area at risk over the course of the entire five months.

Why won’t the minister bring this matter to a conclusion by ensuring there is adequate funding so the Algoma society can settle the dispute, rather than continuing the crisis conditions, which are bound to prevail so long as the society is on an emergency basis or so long as strikebreakers sent in by his ministry continue to be used?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the honourable member that once again he is misinformed and misguided. I would like to point out to him that if he attributes this strike or the current situation to an issue of funding from my ministry he is wrong. That particular society has had an average of a 23 per cent increase each year since 1975. I’m loath to get into a discussion of specifics that are under negotiation at this point. I expect in the very near future -- in a matter of a few days -- there will be some statements made, not by me but by the parties.

At this point in those negotiations perhaps it is sufficient for me to say the offer on the table is the highest offer that has been made in that area of service anywhere in this province this year. The member should not accuse us of underfunding an agency which is in a position to make the highest offer anywhere across this province and put it on the table for negotiations. It seems to me there is room there for further discussion among the parties. I will not accept the allegation the member makes in terms of our responsibility in that situation. Those parties must assume the responsibilities they have as parties to that dispute and get down to business to resolve their differences.

Mr. Bradley: Could the minister assure the House he is not contemplating an action in the Niagara region, in the strike in existence with family and children’s services, similar to the action the minister has undertaken in Algoma? Indeed the need is not there.

Second, would he also assure the House that his ministry will take whatever action necessary there to bring the parties together and bring about a resolution of that strike, which has been on now for a month and a half, rather than imposing a settlement himself?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as we have been doing in Algoma, we have been monitoring very closely the situation in Niagara. I would assure the honourable member that the circumstances appear to be substantially different.

I am assured that the levels of emergency service are being maintained very well in Niagara. From the inception, there has been a degree of understanding on the part of the striking employees and their bargaining agent with respect to the provision of services to children at risk. I am being kept briefed on a daily basis on the situation there. I do not believe there is any reason for my intervention in that situation at the present time.

If the member is suggesting that the services of the Ministry of Labour might be appropriately made available, I think that question might better be directed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie). At this point, I personally know of no specific requests that have been made to him, but if the member wants to redirect that question, the Minister of Labour could indicate the situation.

Mr. McClellan: I have a supplementary which I would like to redirect to the Minister of Labour. I would like to ask the minister, when his colleague says that as of today a small number of government staff with child welfare experience will join the Algoma Children’s Aid Society, if the Minister of Labour will tell this House whether or not in his opinion the use of government employees in a legitimate, legal strike constitutes strikebreaking?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Community and Social Services has made it clear that this is not a decision that was easily taken. He has a legislative and a legal responsibility to look after the care of children in the Sault Ste. Marie-Algoma region. He is living up to those obligations, with the assistance of the children’s aid board and its executive director, to the best that he can. I don’t consider that in this particular situation there is any strikebreaking activity.

CANADA METAL COMPANY LIMITED

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of the Environment, if I might have his attention.

Could the minister advise this House as to whether Canada Metal Company Limited has in fact now complied with the interim control order, which deadline was December 15.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t have that information today, but obviously it’s easy to get. I’ll give it to the member tomorrow, in response to that question.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: If the minister is going to try to find out whether they’ve complied, would he at the same time advise the House, if they have not complied, if he has instructed the staff to proceed legally in this matter?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, I’ll confirm both; but I can assure the member that in this particular case there is not much doubt in the minds of staff whether or not I intend to proceed if the order is not complied with. The answer to that would be almost an automatic “yes.” If we’re talking about a matter of two or three days, or a very short period of time -- and I do mean a very short period of time -- then we might not proceed to court; but if we’re talking about months then the answer is “yes.”

AID TO CHRYSLER

Mr. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. I’m sure the minister is aware, and if he isn’t I’ll inform him, that Chrysler has announced that as of January 15 they will have no money to pay their employees their weekly salaries. I’m wondering now whether this minister will show some leadership and some guts and indicate to the Congress and to the President of the United States that they must act quickly and get involved in negotiations with Chrysler so that 13,000 workers are not put out of work?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think I will contact the President of the United States and let him know that he ought to be acting quickly so that in the event they do bail out Chrysler I can rise in this House and take credit for the action of the United States of America.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I’m surprised that the minister and the Premier take this matter so lightly. We’re talking about 13,000 jobs. Instead of trying to score political points perhaps the minister will show some leadership.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. Cooke: Is the minister aware that as of January 15 there will be no money in order to pay the employees of Chrysler Canada? What is he prepared to do, especially in view of the fact that the federal government of this country no longer exists and the federal minister seems to indicate that he cannot and will not take any action until the federal election is over? Will this minister contact the federal government and suggest that they go ahead and approve Canadian aid in principle, subject to American aid? Will he further contact the American officials and indicate his concern at their lack of action, since as of today the Congress apparently is not going to deal with this item until January?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I have indicated in this House before, we have indicated our intense interest to the federal government at all stages. We’ve indicated to the federal government that both they and this province ought to be poised to act immediately upon the United States ensuring that Chrysler Corporation will survive. That seems to me to encompass every single responsible move that a government in Canada, or in a province of Canada, ought to be taking at this time, and that is to put ourselves in a position to respond immediately upon understanding that there will indeed be a corporation in business with assets in Canada which need updating and improving.

The federal minister has been in as close contact with his American counterpart as he has been with me, and with Chrysler Corporation. All the facts are on the table and everyone is prepared to move. Everything awaits, however, action in the United States of America, in Congress.

Both Mr. de Cotret and ourselves have indicated to the appropriate officials in Washington that we think it’s important that Chrysler Corporation be saved. I believe Mr. de Cotret, although the member would have to ask him, has indicated the willingness of the federal government of this country to do their part to assist in saving Chrysler Corporation.

I would say finally to the member, that the day I begin to take this lightly or play it for political purposes as he suggests, would be the day I send all of my mail with copies to the press gallery, as he does every day he writes expressing concern over the situation.

In the meantime, until I decide to play partisan politics I will do what I can privately with Mr. de Cotret and the federal government of the United States to try and emphasize the seriousness of the situation.

Finally I want to say one other thing.

Mr. Speaker: The minister said “finally” before.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That was semi-finally last time, this is final. The least constructive thing is to have the leader of the member’s party stand up and use figures for layoffs which include those workers who have been laid off twice for one-week periods, as he did last week in the debate, where he took two sets of lay-offs, involving 2,400 who were laid off for one or two weeks at a time at different times and called that 4,800 layoffs in the auto industry in Canada.

That, with respect, totally distorts the picture and does the Canadian automotive industry a very great disservice while we’re trying to bargain the best deal we can for Canadian workers.

Mr. Ruston: A brief question: Can the minister assure us that he and the federal minister will take action immediately if something comes about in the United States within the next three or four days? Is he prepared to take action immediately when they approve it over there?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Absolutely.

DURHAM REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING

Mr. Ashe: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. As the minister is aware, the Environmental Assessment Board commenced hearings this morning in the town of Ajax, in the region of Durham in the riding of Durham West, to consider a proposal by the region to convert an existing sewage treatment plant to a plant that would service and treat liquid industrial waste, which is a problem we’re all aware of throughout the province. The hearings are being carried on under the Environmental Protection Act and I’ve had some questions put to me --

Mr. Speaker: You said you had some questions put to you. Will you put one to the minister?

Mr. Ashe: That’s what I’m doing, Mr. Speaker, putting a question put to me to the minister. The question is the appropriateness of the Environmental Protection Act versus the Environmental Assessment Act. Does the minister think it is necessary to be involved, in this case, with the Environmental Assessment Act? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think in this case that the Environmental Protection Act will serve the purposes of this hearing quite well and in complete detail. As the member knows, the plant is being modified. I don’t think there’s any doubt that a hearing will give all of the details and will fulfil the requirements absolutely completely. There’s no need to have a hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act. The Environmental Protection Act will do that quite nicely.

Mr. Ashe: Supplementary: Will the Environmental Protection Act allow the residents to voice all of their questions and concerns in the way of cross-examination of expert witnesses and members of the board?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: When these hearings, which may well turn out to raise more questions than they answer, have finished, would the minister then be prepared to hold further hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, and I’d like to amplify that a bit. The member says they may raise more questions than they’ll answer. I must say to him that it’s a disappointment that he didn’t come to the open house, at least when I was there. I thought that week was a time when a great number of questions were answered. He may have been there, I’m not sure of that; certainly at the opening he wasn’t. The report that I have is that that open house was very informative to the area residents, and certainly the hearing will supply any additional information. I hope the member will accept that this hearing is a very complete, full and open process.

FOOD PRICES

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on November 6 the member for Welland-Thorold asked if I could explain why Canadians are forced to pay $1.05 at Dominion Stores for a 17.6 ounce jar of Kraft Miracle Whip salad dressing while in the United States at a supermarket this is sold at 32 ounces for $1.07, or only two cents more than the smaller jar.

The honourable member compares a 17.6-ounce jar in Ontario to a 32-ounce jar in the United States, and there are some problems with this comparison. It hasn’t to do with the obvious difference, it has to do with the difference in American and imperial ounces. I would hope that some people across the floor recognize there is a difference. Therefore a comparison is made between a 32-ounce US fluid ounce jar sold in the United States and a one-litre jar sold in Canada.

To proceed with the comparison, we have to convert the US 32-ounce jar into one litre. In doing so, we multiply 32 by 1.040843 times 28.41225. Believe me, I am not doing this for comic effect. I think the member will understand where we are going. This brings the price in the particular supermarket in Buffalo of a comparable one-litre product to $1.31 as compared to $1.56 in Canada.

The wholesale price in Ontario of a comparative size jar is 19.08 per cent higher than in the store in the United States. According to the figures we have, the production costs in Canada for the product are 17.3 per cent higher than in the United States, for four reasons. The ingredients cost more, especially the oils; the packaging costs more, because of double labelling; cardboard is presently in short supply, requiring long-term orders; and the production runs are shorter here. Therefore, the unit price at the factory is higher than in the United States. Also, there are transportation tax levels and so forth.

There is a 1.7 per cent gap between the 19.08 per cent higher price and the 17.3 per cent current higher production cost. This gap fluctuates, being affected by market conditions, which may move in opposite directions or at different time frames.

The product in the United States at that particular store was priced underneath the wholesale price. To prove that, the two products beside it were the 16-ounce jars of this product. The 16-ounce jars of the product were selling at that store for 79 cents each, whereas the 32-ounce was selling for $1.07.

I draw the attention of the honourable member to the Sunday Sun, where there is a coupon enclosed to buy Miracle Whip for a lower price than has been given to us in terms of the current wholesale price.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Welland-Thorold have a supplementary? I thought the answer was very complete.

Mr. Swart: I thought the answers were very complex. Although the imperial measurement of the one quart in Ontario and Canada differs to what it is in the United States, surely the minister must realize that one ounce in the United States is exactly the same as one ounce here. The jar in the comparison which I made had 90 per cent more in the United States, weighed on the scales in Canada.

I will send the minister the actual Canadian weight and perhaps he can then report back further in the House, after he has found out he is wrong in his weights.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am magnanimous today. I went to great lengths to compare them by going to a litre so that there could be a comparison between products of exactly the same size in the United States and here to determine a unit cost.

Mr. Swart: You made four mistakes before in your office.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I say to the honourable member that he sent me a note which said the $1.07 was the wholesale price throughout the United States, not a special.

Mr. Swart: It wasn’t the wholesale price.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, he indicated it was. On the very day he bought that it was so obviously a special that if one bought the two 16-ounce jars to get 32 ounces in that store one paid proportionately very much more.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Walker: On November 29 the honourable member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) asked me about the increased number of problem inmates granted terminal releases or temporary absences in anticipation of the impending illegal strike by correctional officers. I assured him that problem inmates were not being released and I undertook to provide some figures for him of the people who were released by the temporary absence committee.

Half of the sentenced inmates, it should be kept in mind, serve sentences of less than 30 days and 85 per cent of them serve less than three months.

[3:15]

There are about 5,000 inmates in Ontario jails, and with 60,000 admissions a year we have 1,100 inmate turnovers a week. It would appear that approximately 400 persons, the majority of them serving sentences for relatively minor traffic and alcohol related offences, were granted temporary absences or terminal releases during the week ending December 1 and 2. All temporary absences were for periods of one to five days or one to 15 days. On the other hand, the terminal releases were granted only to persons who had fewer than 15 days to serve.

The figure, which amounts to an average of about eight inmates per institution in the 52 institutions, was understandably higher than the average 140 to 160 inmates per week, and that was because of the impending strike. In view of the impending strike and the likelihood that reduced numbers of managerial staff would be available to man the institutions, superintendents used their discretion to speed up the consideration of candidates for temporary absences and their transfers to community resource centres. This would allow the reduced staff at institutions during the strike to concentrate on the higher security inmates who needed their full attention.

I would remind honourable members that the temporary absence program has enjoyed a 98 per cent success rate over the past 10 years, there being some 82,000 temporary absences granted in that period of time.

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

Mr. O’Neil: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. In view of the imminent closing of the Royal Ontario Museum and the subsequent loss of its contribution to the cultural aspects of life in Ontario, most notably to our children, would the minister not agree with me that the period of time during which the ROM is closed presents us with an unique opportunity to decentralize the cultural component of the ROM by distributing some of its exhibits to the hundreds of small museums and communities where the population may have never had the opportunity to see what the ROM has to offer?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, that plan has been considered. I am pleased to report that a good number of the exhibits will be distributed, although obviously many of the major exhibitions cannot simply be dismantled and sent over the province like a Fuller brush. The major exhibitions cannot be disassembled, but certainly those that can be sent out and placed in the museum mobile will be sent out and will be displayed.

Certainly as the minister I have already had several meetings with the ROM board and with the director to encourage them to do as much as they possibly can during the period when unfortunately, but for good reasons, some of the ROM in Toronto will have to be closed.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: I am not speaking about a Fuller-brush approach and I am not talking about the mobile unit. I think there are many other displays within the ROM itself that could be shipped out, either by truck or by train or by other means. I would ask the minister to consider that. I would also ask if he wouldn’t be more explicit in what he is going to send out. When the minister is considering that, would he be open to the suggestion of providing Wintario funding to sponsoring groups in both smaller and larger communities who might apply to the ROM for displays of this type during the time the ROM is closed?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I have indicated, certainly the concept and the plan is a good one. It is one that we have already looked into. We will try to implement it as much as we possibly can. As far as the other proposals are concerned, I will certainly take them under advisement.

TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR WASTES

Mr. Foulds: I have a question, if I can get his attention, of the Minister of Energy, with regard to the transportation of nuclear wastes in Ontario. Can the Minister of Energy give a full report to the Legislature today, or at least before Friday when the House adjourns, on the transportation of high level radioactive wastes through northwestern Ontario from the Bruce nuclear complex to the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited research facility at Whiteshell?

In particular, can he respond to the reports in last Friday’s press and media in Thunder Bay that indicated Ontario Hydro was transporting spent fuel bundles from Bruce to Pinawa in a truck that was: (a) reported to be exceeding the speed limit; (b) did not have a police escort; and (c) that Ontario Hydro had not notified the Ontario Provincial Police, or I believe Emergency Measures Organization officials or municipal officials along the route that that shipment was taking place?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

Mr. Foulds: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: While the minister is taking that question as notice, can he indicate how many shipments Ontario Hydro has engaged in since the Ontario-federal waste management agreement was signed a year ago last June; and can he assure us that he will give us a full report before the House rises?

ALLEGATIONS RE BRANT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr. Nixon: I have a question for the Minister of Education which also involves the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). Is the minister going to make any response by way of either announcing an investigation or refutation of the charges made by the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) of the fiscal irregularities of the Brant County Board of Education --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Alleged.

Mr. Nixon: Alleged -- which he indicated were brought to his attention by the crown attorney for the county?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware there was some communication between the member for Brantford and the Brant County Board of Education regarding an alleged fiscal irregularity which the honourable member suggested was being investigated by the RCMP. The RCMP have written a letter to the Brant board stating specifically they are not investigating the board and there has been no investigation of that board to this time. Apparently there was one made by Revenue Canada from September to November, 1978, related to the administration of the Income Tax Act.

We have no factual information at this time upon which to base any investigation. If the member for Brantford has any information then it would seem to me it’s his duty to present that information to the Ministry of Education so that an investigation could be instituted if it’s necessary. Mr. Speaker, we have no such information at this point.

REPORTS

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

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

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr20, An Act respecting Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary, be not reported, it having been withdrawn by the applicant; and further, that the fees less the cost of printing be remitted with respect thereto.

Motion agreed to.

[Later (4:00):]

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR’S REPORT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that the report of the Provincial Auditor for the fiscal year 1978-79 is being tabled today and in accordance with standing order 91 stands referred to the standing public accounts committee.

[Reverting (3:23):]

RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Before the orders of the day, I would like to table the response to a petition presented to the Legislature, sessional paper n274.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Before the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 308, 371, 373, 382, 383, 384, 389 and 394; and the interim answers to questions 385, 388 and 390 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of the adjourned consideration of Bill 173, An Act to amend the Municipal Act, 1979.

On section 8:

Mr. Chairman: I believe the committee was discussing an amendment to section 8.

Mr. Isaacs: On a point of order, the amendment we were discussing was moved by myself, and with the consent of the committee I wish to withdraw that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Is there agreement?

Agreed.

Any further comments on section 8?

Mr. Isaacs: Just before we leave section 8, it might be appropriate for me to indicate that after further review of the matters we were discussing last week, it came to our attention that the matter we are attempting to deal with by means of an amendment might be more appropriately left to the municipal level of government to determine according to their normal procedures. Given that we have trust and have confidence in officials at the municipal level of government not to abuse the powers conferred on them by this particular section, we determined that we would withdraw the amendment; but we want to put it on the record that we will be monitoring this particular section very carefully and we will certainly be back with appropriate reference to the minister if municipalities attempt to abuse the powers which this section confers upon them.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 9 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 173, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. McMurtry, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendments.

COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 174, An Act respecting the Composition of the Council of the Town of Midland.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, in 1937 this Legislature enacted an act which sets the composition of the council of the town of Midland, that is it could not be changed without changing this act.

As the minister mentioned on first reading, there seems to be no longer a need for this. The town of Midland has requested that this act be repealed and that the composition of their council now be under the Municipal Act, as those of most municipalities in the province are.

This amendment will not affect the present council of the town of Midland, but they are anxious that this take effect for their election of 1980 if they should want to make some changes. To go along with the request of Midland I would ask this bill be approved.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it will come as any surprise to members of this Legislature that we will be supporting this bill. It is an important bill, particularly as far as the municipality of Midland is concerned, because it does reduce the number of elected representatives in that municipality. In fact it was a little surprising to me when I was going over this bill that there was a municipality, and I guess there are still some municipalities in this province, which have a mayor, a reeve and a deputy reeve and one councillor per ward. I understand Midland has four wards and there are four councillors.

The surprise was not the fact that they might have four councillors or that they might have a reeve and a deputy reeve, but the fact that they have a mayor, a reeve and a deputy reeve. Most municipalities in this province either have a mayor, deputy mayor and X number of councillors; or they may have a reeve, deputy reeve and X number of councillors; but the fact that they have a mayor, reeve, and then a deputy reeve almost seems a little top heavy.

[3:30]

They may have found this particularly advantageous in 1937 when they came under the Statute Law Amendment Act, but I guess that it’s inclined to be somewhat similar to many other municipalities in this province. My particular experience is with southwestern Ontario where they have mayors and deputy mayors, or reeves and deputy reeves.

It’s a good move. The fact they come under the Ontario Municipal Act is noteworthy, because it makes certain most municipalities in the province come under the act. The parliamentary assistant to the minister may want to indicate how many municipalities in this province actually still come under a Statute Law Amendment Act.

Obviously we will support this amendment. I presume that the member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith) will have some very important comments about this particular piece of legislation because it is in his constituency. He probably has closer experience with it, and I look forward in particular to his comments on it because of his close association with that municipality and other municipalities in his riding.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I’m greatly disappointed that neither the parliamentary assistant nor the previous speaker have given us any of the rationale as to why this section of the Statute Law Amendment Act was implemented in the first instance.

The bill was passed some 42 years ago, I believe by a Liberal government in this province, and it has survived with us for 42 years. I think it’s important that when we’re looking at repealing legislation of this kind we determine why the legislation was put in place in the first instance.

Going back through our records, I find to my dismay that Hansard was not kept in 1937. That’s one of the few improvements that were made by the Tory government when it was elected, subsequent to that year we have a record of the debates in this House and it’s therefore possible to go back and find out why things were done and what has been going on.

However we do not have that record in this case, but I am sure that somewhere in the archives there must have been some indication as to why this particular section was included in an act that is so comprehensive that it also dealt with what to do when a council neglects or refuses to pay the jailer. It also dealt with matters under the Cheese and Butter Exchanges Act. There were all kinds of references to railroads and to the problems that railroads were facing in 1937.

Buried in the midst of all this was one tiny section to establish the composition of the council of the town of Midland. There must have been an incredibly good reason for that section to be included in that bill, Mr. Speaker. It seems presumably that in Midland in those days there was some kind of crisis, because we did have a Municipal Act in 1937. There was possibly some kind of crisis whereby the provisions of the Municipal Act could not apply and this Legislature had to take it upon itself to structure that council.

I very much hope that in his response the parliamentary assistant will enlighten us as to how that matter was put in place by this Legislature, and further why it has taken so long to come to this Legislature to be dealt with in what seems to me to be a very appropriate manner.

It concerns me though that it was on the request of the council of Midland, going back at least to 1976, that this apparently appropriate amendment has come to the floor of this Legislature. That seems to me to be an incredibly long time to deal with something that would appear to be very routine; I wonder why the delay? Why has it taken so long? There has been a change of ministers since 1976, but that seems hardly sufficient excuse for delaying a matter of this kind through one more municipal election when the town of Midland may have wanted to take the matter of the composition of council to the electors in a preliminary way, rather than having to delay it until it finally reached this Legislature at the end of 1979.

The other point I think this bill raises, which I see as being very important, is the approach to law reform. We have heard from the parliamentary assistant his standard line when presenting municipal bills, the municipality asked for it. It seems to me the time has come when the government should be showing some leadership by reviewing the statute book, going back in history and dealing with many of these archaic provisions on its own initiative. In that way we can put all municipal governments on an equal footing and not run into these kinds of problems. Then municipalities won’t find themselves caught by something contained in a statute that is not printed in the revised statutes and therefore is not very obvious to the lay person who would be seeking reference to the statutes through the public library. This is a petty annoyance which can with time become very serious.

I hope the parliamentary assistant can also advise us that his government intends to undertake a review of the legislation from the years around 1937, before and after, to ensure all these archaic provisions are dealt with before a crisis develops and before people become impatient, rather than having to wait for requests from municipalities and then taking three years to bring in an amendment.

We will be supporting this bill, we see it as something that brings Midland into line with all other municipalities; but I would certainly seek assurance on the two matters I have raised.

Mr. G. E. Smith: The member for Waterloo North has pointed out that I am the provincial representative for the town of Midland. As such I take this opportunity to speak in support of the bill.

Several of the questions asked by the member for Wentworth are historical and I would like to respond. It may be because of the lack of recorded copies of Hansard that the parliamentary assistant or the ministry itself are not familiar with the circumstances which prompted the Statute Law Amendment Act, 1937, to have been introduced and passed.

In 1936-37 the town of Midland, like a number of other Ontario towns and cities during the depression years, became bankrupt and went into receivership. Prior to that the municipal elections were conducted under the guidelines set out by the Municipal Act. In order to reduce the expenses of the elected members, which may not have been very high at that time but were still expenses, the receiver and those responsible for the operation of municipal affairs in the town of Midland decided to request the provincial government to pass the Statute Law Amendment Act, 1937, to reduce the number of elected representatives in that municipality. This is according to the information I have received from the mayor of Midland, His Worship Morland Lynn.

The act was passed as an interim measure. Now, as has been indicated, some 42 years later, the town is requesting that it be allowed to go back to operating its municipal representation under the guidelines set out by the Municipal Act. So much for the historical background.

I think the member for Waterloo raised a couple of other questions to which, perhaps I could respond. He asked if it was necessary to have a reeve and deputy reeve, as well as the mayor and so on. The population of the town of Midland is approximately 12,000. It is still not a city. As such it is part of the county system, in the county of Simcoe.

Under the guidelines of the county towns of this type, for example the former town of Orillia before it became a city and the former town of Barrie, at the time they were part of the county system did have a reeve and deputy reeve who were the representatives at the county council.

I suppose it would take some amendments, or perhaps a private bill from the county, to make the change where a mayor or a deputy mayor might be the representatives rather than the reeve or deputy reeve.

I am aware that the county planning committee has already come to this Legislature with a private bill requesting some changes. It may be that in the future they will make an additional request to change the structuring of the county even further.

I would ask honourable members to support Bill 174. As has been indicated, it was requested by the town of Midland. I understand it would give them the authority to carry on their regular elections in the future under the guidelines of the Ontario Municipal Act rather than the Statute Law Amendment Act of 1937.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, very briefly: obviously I support this bill, as my colleague the member for Wentworth has done. There are really only two comments I want to make.

The first is that as the member for Simcoe East has stated this is normalizing the council in the town of Midland. Back 30 or 40 years ago there were a great many private bills passed to vary the councils in a great many municipalities to meet a situation that existed at those times. Now many of them are reverting to the standard system; that is desirable and certainly I support that.

On the second reason, the point I want to make is for the benefit of the member for Waterloo North who remarked that not many places have a deputy reeve, a reeve and a mayor. In fact all the towns of this size do when they are situated in a county. The mayor never sits on the county council. A township has a reeve and a deputy reeve, and the reeve acts as the head of that municipality.

In every town there is a mayor, as required under the Municipal Act, and if they have sufficient population there is a reeve and a deputy reeve who perform functions at the county council. It is not unusual to have this sort of thing throughout the province of Ontario; except where you have regional government you have this in force; or where there are private bills or there have been changes made within certain counties. What we’re really reverting to here is a standard municipal policy for towns, which we fully support.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members for their support. I would like to point out to the member for Wentworth that the ministry does have an ongoing review of the various acts and statutes under the ministry’s control to remove archaic provisions. We did some earlier this year, as members may recall.

Certainly the town of Midland was not suffering. They have known all along what their act involved. They’ve now made this request and we are allowing this request. If other municipalities feel they are under archaic provisions and ask, and it seems reasonable to us, we will implement it before the ongoing review catches up with them.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

House in committee of the whole.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Consideration of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 1 of the bill he struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“1. For the purposes of a bylaw of the corporation passed under section 386(a) of the Municipal Act, group home as defined in subsection 1 of the said section 386(a) shall be deemed to include a crisis care facility and a residential care facility as defined in a bylaw passed by the council of the corporation under section 35 of the Planning Act.”

Mr. Renwick: The bill is a procedural matter. Bill Pr5 of the corporation of the city of Toronto stands in my name. I simply want to read into the record a letter which I received from His Worship Mayor John Sewell a few days ago re Bill Pr5.

“Yesterday, at the meeting of city council, the following motions were passed:

“1. Council indicated support of section 8 of Bill 173, contingent upon the following amendment being made to section 1 of Pr5 receiving consent at this session.”

I may say that’s the bill which was just in committee of the whole House a few minutes ago.

Then the substance of the amendment which I have just read.

“2. Council indicated its willingness to have the remainder of the section on group homes in Pr5 deleted in favour of section 8 of Bill 173.

“I would be pleased if you would inform the House of city council’s action and ensure the appropriate amendment is made to Bill Pr5.”

That is why I moved the motion, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rotenberg: As indicated when we discussed Bill 173 last week, I would support this amendment, and I would like to publicly go on record as thanking Mayor Sewell and his council for the co-operation in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we also would support the amendment. We think it’s a reasonable amendment. It’s one that the city of Toronto has requested. I think it will be incorporated in the bill since it has the support of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to. Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moved that section 6 of the bill be struck out and sections 7 to 11, inclusive, be renumbered as sections 6 to 10, inclusive.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, this is not a battleground for the purpose of this amendment. I just want to simply advise the House that this amendment by the parliamentary assistant was a matter of surprise to us. It was brought forward just today. No previous notice was given of the intention of the government to deal with the matter.

As members will recall, Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, was introduced into the House in May of this year, May 17 I believe. It was considered in the standing administration of justice committee on June 18 of this year, at which time an extensive discussion of the bill and of its various provisions took place. The bill has stood on the Order Paper while lengthy negotiations have gone on between the ministry and the city of Toronto with respect to the question of group homes, which we’ve just dealt with. At no point during that period of time until today did the parliamentary assistant have the courtesy to raise with me, as the person in whose name the bill stands, so that I could get instructions from the city with respect to it, the question of this proposed amendment at the last minute.

I don’t mind too much having to put up with inexperience in a parliamentary assistant, but when it’s coupled with a degree of hostility to the city of Toronto for reasons unknown to me, I find it unacceptable. I would expect and anticipate that between now and the next session of the assembly either the parliamentary assistant will change his attitude towards city of Toronto legislation or he would give up his position as parliamentary assistant with respect to that kind of legislation.

In addition to that, for the time that I’ve been in this assembly the whole procedure of the standing committee on the administration of justice dealing with Bill Pr5 has been totally overturned on this bill. Whatever the reasons may be -- whether it’s inexperience I don’t know -- whatever it is I trust there will be no recurrence of the kind of attitude and the kind of obstacles placed in the way of legislation requested by the city council of the city of Toronto, and I trust that the work of this assembly will not longer be impeded in this manner.

I anticipate that this is not the kind of matter that one stands forever and fights about with an obstinate government. It is a very reasonable request. We are going to oppose the motion, but we don’t intend to divide the House on the matter.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I didn’t object when the honourable member stood up. I had moved the amendment and usually the person who is allowed to move the amendment is allowed to speak to it. But I’m quite content to have had the member for Riverdale speak ahead of me.

First of all, I would like to indicate there is no hostility between me and the council of the city of Toronto. There’s quite a difference between having a disagreement on policy and having hostility. When we dealt with the matter of group homes it was indicated, both at the meeting of the standing administration of justice committee and thereafter, that the bill as brought forward by the city of Toronto was totally contrary to the policy of this government.

I thank the member for Riverdale for the compliment where he sort of puts it all on my shoulders, that I’m doing this all by myself; of course I’m not. This is not a matter of my policy but of government policy on both of these situations. I’m simply the person who has been designated by the government to carry this. I thank him for seeming to indicate to the House that I have all this power that I can do this all on my own. But, Mr. Chairman, I have not.

Dealing with the matter before us, which is section 6 of this bill, I think it’s only fair to indicate to the House, especially after the remarks of the member for Riverdale, that I have discussed this matter with the mayor of the city of Toronto. The mayor of the city of Toronto has indicated to me he is not in favour of the amendment which I am bringing forward. I think I should draw this to the attention of the House. He has also indicated to me this is not one of the more critical sections of the bill, because he says he and the council are not intending to act on this section in the near future in any case.

The purport of this section of the bill is simple. The hydro commission of the city of Toronto is now made up of three people, the mayor of the city of Toronto, one provincial appointee and one municipal appointee. The section of the bill simply wants to change the municipal appointee from being a citizen to allow the appointee also to be a member of the city council. If this section of the bill carries, there can, in effect, be two members of city council, the majority of the city council, as elected members on the hydro commission.

I would point out to the House the reason I am bringing this forward is we had a report in 1974 entitled, The Restructuring of Public Utilities, from a committee called the Hogg committee. It recommended as follows: “Commissions be composed of five members, with options for the minimum number being three and the maximum seven, including the head of the council, or his delegate, and other members of council” -- and this is the key phrase -- “provided that in no case shall members of council form a majority of the commission.”

The then Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) issued a statement in 1975 supporting the Hogg committee recommendation to be used as a guideline for the restructuring of public utilities throughout the province.

Very simply, this private bill of the city of Toronto does go contrary to that stated policy of the then minister, which I believe was accepted by this House, in that in hydro commissions, where they are commissions and not elected public utility commissions or appointed committees of council, then the commissions should not have a majority of elected representatives. It is for that reason, with no hostility to the city of Toronto, because we do get along reasonably well with the city of Toronto council whoever its members may be, that I bring this amendment and ask that it be approved by the House.

Mr. Isaacs: I appreciate the remarks made by the parliamentary assistant concerning the amendment he has moved, but I really have to ask him whether he can hinge this amendment that denies the right of the city of Toronto to appoint whoever it wishes to its hydro commission, therefore including members of city council, on a report related to hydro restructuring, which is a very different kind of issue to what we have in the city of Toronto where no one is suggesting restructuring.

He is assuming for some reason that there would be some actions taken that might not be in the best interests of the people of the city of Toronto if there were a second member of city council on the hydro commission. I really don’t understand why that assumption should be allowed to go forward and be allowed to be enshrined in legislation.

He is also assuming that the city council within Toronto does not have some grasp of what is best for the citizens of the city in terms of the accountability of their hydro commission, given that it does not allow the citizens to exercise the right to elect members directly to that hydro commission, but instead has appointments from city council. He is assuming that city council might not use its judgement in that matter in the best possible way.

It confuses me that while we generally have an argument that city councils and municipal councils in general best understand the circumstances in their municipalities and know how best to deal with the problems their municipalities face, in this one example, for reasons which do not appear to me relevant to the situation in Toronto because they are taken from a report that deals with restructuring, the city of Toronto is being told no, it can’t have this because it runs contrary to government policy.

I want to suggest further that while my colleague, the member for Riverdale, was suggesting the responsibility for this amendment rests with the parliamentary assistant, I would suggest to the parliamentary assistant that if it doesn’t rest on his shoulders, then it rests on his minister’s shoulders, because I cannot accept that this amendment has been discussed by cabinet. I can’t believe it is a matter of government policy at that level.

In presenting the amendment here to us today the parliamentary assistant is saying to us that somewhere in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs there is someone who has decided that this is a right that should not be given to a local council. The argument that is being presented is one that has general application right across this province.

[4:00]

I want to suggest to the parliamentary assistant that in the cases of restructuring bills we have dealt with earlier this session for Niagara, for York, for Halton and for Durham, we allowed the municipal council to have more than one of its representatives on the hydro commission. Every one of those bills set up hydro commissions that are larger than three. I do not dispute that. But there are many, many circumstances when mayors of municipalities are sufficiently overloaded with work that they are not able to attend all the meetings of a board or commission of which they happen to be a member. They therefore find it very useful and the council finds it very useful in the interests of accountability to have another member of council present at that board or commission and acting as a member of that board or commission in order to present the report back to council.

I do not understand the basis for the government policy in this respect. If the parliamentary assistant is insisting that the government policy must be upheld, for whatever reason, then I want to suggest to him that the problem can be dealt with by a proposal to enlarge the hydro commission. Now that may not meet with his approval because it increases in some very minor way the expenses associated with the hydro commission.

I want to suggest to him that the interests of the public within Toronto may not be best served if the city’s representative on the hydro commission is being prevented from attending meetings by pressure of work. The proposal that there be another member of city council there and voting as a member of the commission in order to express the city’s concerns and to take back a report on commission business to city council makes a great deal of sense. That is what the city was seeking. If we can’t go about it this way then rather than deleting it entirely let’s find a more appropriate way of dealing with the problem that the city has in the area of accountability.

Mr. Rotenberg: I would like to clarify what the member said. First, this was done in consultation with the minister.

But the last point which the member makes is I think important. It isn’t the problem of the mayor not having the time. If the mayor wishes to delegate another member of council instead of the mayor as is done on some other commissions, that could be done. If they expanded to more than three members that could also be done. The point of the situation is that where there is a commission as distinguished from a committee of council, the commission should not have a majority of members who are elected persons or it really ceases to function as a commission.

As an example, as of December 31, 1979, the transit commission of Hamilton-Wentworth will cease to become a commission and will become a committee of council. Where they are all council members, that’s what it should be. The borough of York has a committee of council which runs hydro affairs.

If they want council running it, then they should say it is council and have all council members running it. If they are going to have a commission which is a step independent of council, which is the purpose of a commission, then there should not be a majority of council members in effect running the commission and who are not totally accountable to the total council as a committee of council is accountable.

I would say to the honourable member that if the mayor of Toronto is too busy to attend the meetings and wishes to delegate someone, that can be arranged. If they want to expand the commission, that can be discussed. If they want to go to a committee of council, that can be discussed. But we feel there should not be a majority of elected members on a three-man commission.

There are other alternatives, I agree with the member for Wentworth. As I indicated, Mayor Sewell would like this passed and says it’s not critical at this time that they have other alternatives. Mayor Sewell will be more than pleased to discuss it with the honourable member.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I can see that we aren’t about to change our mind at this stage. I would like to agree with my colleagues that this seems to me an eminently sensible thing to develop.

The city of Toronto has been leading in a number of ways in involving council in making committees and commissions more responsible and more forward looking. The hydro commission itself has been curtailed in a number of ways by Ontario Hydro in trying to develop some very progressive steps in terms of conservation and other areas. I know the council thought it was quite important to try to bring in this particular change in being able to have council members as members of the commission.

I would like to state, as the parliamentary assistant knows, the Robarts commission report on Metropolitan Toronto -- and he is very careful in talking about commissions and that sort of thing -- says in most cases the membership of such a commission should be up to Metropolitan Toronto. I think the same argument bears fruit here in terms of local autonomy.

If the city of Toronto chooses to have the power to have as permanent members of that commission members of its council, it seems to me that the provincial government should be willing to allow them to do so, notwithstanding any definition of the term commission that the parliamentary assistant wishes to make. As you know, the mayor at this point is not willing to see this bill rise or fall on this particular matter and is therefore stepping back from it.

Mr. Rotenberg: He is not stepping back. He still wants to close. He is not stepping back.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Well, he has not asked us to bruise our knuckles hitting the wall trying to get you to change your mind on it. I would say that I just see it as a retrograde step. It seems to me to be a very logical suggestion and a good approach to accountability and I would have hoped you would have changed your mind.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments? The question before the committee is Mr. Rotenberg’s amendment to section 6.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on any section of the bill?

Sections 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill Pr5, as amended, reported.

On motion by Mr. Brunelle, the committee of the whole House reported lone bill, with amendments.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 154, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, 1973.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this amendment will provide the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth with authority to determine store hours in the regional area. The bill gives the region the exclusive power to enact bylaws related to store closings under section 355 of the Municipal Act, except for bylaws regarding hours of service stations.

I realize this matter has been somewhat controversial in the region and that some members of the regional council are for this -- the majority are for it, but several municipalities are against it. Some, particularly Stoney Creek, are not in favour of this amendment. I am also very much aware that there have been several petitions filed with the government contrary to the purpose and the principle of this bill. However, Mr. Speaker, we believe that this should be a local matter, a municipal matter, and that the majority of Hamilton-Wentworth, which really is one social and one retail area, has asked for this legislation. The majority of the regional council has asked for it. We believe this should be implemented and therefore we are recommending this bill.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can say from the outset that we will be supporting this bill although we have a number of concerns with respect to it. One of the concerns we have is that of a transference of some local autonomy to that of the regional level or regional council. I don’t think anyone could argue that the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth does not, through this bill, gain some additional autonomy which it didn’t have until this bill was introduced and until -- if it does become law -- it becomes law. There is no doubt it could be interpreted as a little whittling away of local autonomy. However, I suppose we have to recognize the fact that 18 people out of a total of 24 local representatives on the regional council voted in favour of the bylaw, the resolution of the regional municipality, as opposed to six people who voted against it.

I am unhappy that although the government had an opportunity to bring this bill forward weeks ago, it has constantly delayed it. Had it been brought forth earlier we may very well have taken the opportunity to refer it to a committee to be able to hear some delegations. They have waited until what is certainly the last week and may be the last three or four days of this session to bring it forth and I think the government can easily be faulted in that.

If we were to hold it up now the government would say we’re obstructionists, yet they have delayed and delayed in bringing it forth, recognizing of course that there could be more discussion on it if it had been brought forward earlier. Although they pretend they are in favour of a lot of discussion on it, they often take steps which certainly reduce those opportunities for discussion.

It has been argued by people that this legislation will save money for a number of stores, that they won’t have to hire as many people. This may help that situation. It may help as far as the profits are concerned in the regional municipality. But, it may adversely affect a number of people who have been counting on jobs and, as a result of this bill, won’t receive those jobs. That is very hard to determine and I wouldn’t want to make an unqualified judgement on that matter.

In a sense, it does limit a certain amount of freedom that stores have. I know in my own municipality, the regional municipality of Waterloo, back in the 1950s there were store hours in the city of Kitchener that were very limited. I remember a gentleman who organized a very small store at that time, a highway market, which has grown to one of the largest stores in Ontario. He decided to move from the city limits to outside the limits and to open his store at hours which were not incorporated within the city of Kitchener. For instance, he was open to hours that may seem very normal now, to 10 o’clock, but that seemed very radical at that time. As a result, he was able to attract a lot of people and build up a very thriving business which is going very well today and employs hundreds of people.

This is the kind of thing that competition sometimes achieves and I don’t think you could argue that this bill does not limit competition in some respects. However, we have to agree that there has been a fairly decisive vote by regional council in favour of this and although we may not always agree with every decision that council may make from time to time -- either the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth or any other council -- we find ourselves in agreement with this piece of legislation.

Mr. Isaacs: I have to say that I regard this particular bill as probably the most disgraceful piece of legislation that has come before this House in the eight months I have been here. It is the kind of thing that would make the former Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, Darcy McKeough, turn in his chairman’s chair if he knew what we were doing here with regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth.

[4:15]

If there was one person who had an understanding of the goal of regional government it was the former minister. We may not have agreed with him in many aspects of that goal, but he certainly had a feel for the direction in which he was going and he understood what he believed regional government could do for the people of this province. We now have a situation where those original intentions are being eroded, where regional government is being destroyed and, indeed, with this bill, is being encouraged to destroy itself in Hamilton-Wentworth.

We don’t even have the minister here to hear the debate. That’s the kind of interest the present minister has in the affairs of municipalities. It’s the reason why municipalities are so upset with what this government is doing with regard to their situation and their role in the life of the people of this province.

If we carry on with this kind of thing we end up in a revolt of taxpayers in all the regions of this province. This bill deals with an item which is the tip of an iceberg that is so large it has the power to destroy local government in Hamilton-Wentworth, to tear apart the entire structure of that region. Instead of attempting to deal with the problem we are being asked to support a bill that, in fact, encourages the warring parties to continue their battles and to ensure that regional government will never be anything other than a battleground until this Legislature comes to grips with the problem in a serious and important way.

This is the kind of thing that competition Waterloo North, referred to this bill being requested by a majority of regional council in Hamilton-Wentworth. I want to suggest that when regional government was set up, it was set up in such a way that it could do for the people of the region, on a regional basis, those things which are best done regionally and leave to the lower tier those things which are best done locally. There was a division of every responsibility of municipal government into regional, i.e. upper tier, or local, i.e. lower tier.

Looked at that way, this was requested by three out of six municipalities in Hamilton-Wentworth. It concerns me very greatly that when you have three municipalities pitted against the other three, then this government comes down simply on the side of one group because of its size and not because of its importance within the region.

I want to suggest that was not what was intended by the previous minister when regional government was set up. It was not an approach that will help regional government to work. It is an approach that will destroy the structure that is in place, not put in place something better and will lead to acrimony that will continue for years and years to come until the government comes to grips with the very serious problem facing regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth.

There was no doubt that when regional government was set up in Hamilton-Wentworth there was an intention that certain lower-tier municipalities, particularly the five suburban municipalities, would be able to handle certain things on their own better than they can be handled by the region. Regional government was put in place, not to override their rights, not to give one municipality the power of veto, but to help them carry out their functions.

If this is the approach being taken by the present government and by the present minister -- and many in the Association of Municipalities of Ontario believe it may well herald the start of a new approach -- then there will be concern in every one of the 10 regions across this province. It is saying that the desires and wishes of the lower-tier municipalities can be overridden by a vote of regional council and that this government will allow that to be done simply on the basis of population and not on the basis of other considerations.

Turning to the matter of store hours, the problem that led to this bill arose because one municipality in the region decided, for whatever reason, that it wished to amend its local store-hours bylaw to permit stores to be open longer. Others within the Hamilton-Wentworth area felt that would cause unfair and unreasonable competition, forcing them into opening their stores against the wishes of those councils.

I understand and appreciate what regional council was attempting to do when it requested this bill, but I want to ask the parliamentary assistant what will happen when the city of Burlington or the town of Grimsby decides to open its stores for extended hours as they may very well do within the next year or two -- particularly Burlington. If the town of Burlington at some time in the future decides its stores are going to be open until 10 o’clock, six nights a week, then Hamilton-Wentworth will be powerless to come forward requesting this kind of legislation.

Instead, we will have a battle among the municipalities which will cause great unrest and concern and will probably end up forcing Hamilton into a situation even more undesirable than the present situation. The government will then be asked to legislate store hours in Burlington or Grimsby, as the case may be. So it goes on and we will have this problem spreading. We are not part of a tiny urban centre; everywhere in the golden horseshoe we are part of a great conurbation that spreads from Oshawa to Fort Erie within which the things going on in one municipality cannot help but have an impact on neighbouring municipalities.

I want to suggest to the parliamentary assistant that the method of handling the matter as proposed in this bill is completely and utterly inappropriate. The way to deal with it is to come forward with legislation that puts in place appropriate restricted store hours province-wide. It makes no sense at all to allow restrictions in one area and none in a neighbouring area, thus causing feuds to arise. The issues relating to store hours are the same right across the province, with the possible exception of the northern municipalities and with the possible exception of those municipalities that are very close to the border, such as Windsor, Sarnia and Fort Erie.

Forgetting those for a moment, because they may be in peculiar circumstances, the arguments are the same everywhere else in the province. They relate to competition, to the costs of doing business and to the abuse of the rights of employees who are going to be working in the stores. The approach being taken in this bill is so short-sighted and is going to cause such great problems that I am incredulous that the minister, last September, even saw fit to announce his intention to bring in the bill. It surprises me, given the approach the government normally takes on matters such as this. It surprises me that we have this bill before us at all. In some senses I am grateful that the bill is before us because at least it gives us an opportunity to discuss what this government should be doing and that is legislating province-wide store hours.

The solution is not to be found in the bill that is before us. It is not to play around with regional government and to cause municipalities great heartache and to prolong the battles that are presently going on. The solution is a very clear one. It is to deal with store hours as a provincial issue -- which it is -- and to deal with the problems that regional government is facing right across this province, especially in Hamilton-Wentworth.

We cannot continue with the kind of battles that have led to this bill. We cannot continue with the fact that there is no reasonable communication between neighbouring municipalities within the same region. The members of council never talk to each other. The amount of communication between the heads of council is very limited indeed and carried out primarily through formal letters rather than the informal get-together that should mark harmonious relations within a region.

It is difficult to know how to deal with the kind of bill that is before us. It’s going to create even greater problems than it solves. It’s going to cause people within one part of the region to become even more dissatisfied with regional government than they are now, if that’s possible. It is going to be difficult because the people of the suburban municipalities are pretty upset with regional government right now.

But given the problem and given the solution we believe should be followed, we have to think that as it is going to restrict store hours in Hamilton-Wentworth -- and we have that assurance from the regional chairman and from the majority of members of regional council -- given that that restriction will be the result of the passage of this bill, we think that on balance it is better to support it than to oppose it.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Waterloo North when he said it would have been appropriate to send this matter to committee and to have input from the local people who are aware of the circumstances behind this bill. It is very clear that when the minister announced back in September that he would be bringing in this bill he had absolutely no idea at all as to how it arose and how important it is to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth, both in terms of the store hours issue and in terms of the autonomy issue.

Even the bylaw that is coming forward as a result of this bill has great inadequacies. Many of the arguments for restrictions on store hours are based on costs, they are based on the problems the employees face and they are based on the fact that need simply does not exist in our society today. But the regional bylaw exempts such a wide range of stores that it is a minority of stores within Hamilton-Wentworth that will be affected by the proposed regional bylaw.

All food stores are exempted and all drug stores are exempted. Shoe repair shops, tobacco shops, newsdealers, confectionery shops -- the list goes on and on. None of those stores is included in the bylaw that the region intends to pass if this bill is passed here today. I want to suggest that is particularly unfortunate because the effect of the cost of store operations on items like food is particularly hurtful to the lower-income people within our society who spend the majority of their income on food. It’s the food stores that are abusing their employees to a greater extent -- if that’s possible -- than almost any other category of store. The food stores and drug stores are expanding their function to the extent you will soon be able to go into a store labelled “food store” but which carries almost as great a range of goods as a traditional department store such as Eaton’s or Simpsons. If the parliamentary assistant will look at some of the stores opening now in Hamilton-Wentworth he will find a range of items for sale not in the least related to food but which covers the whole spectrum of goods on the retail market.

[4:30]

The bylaw that arises from this bill is terribly deficient. The bill itself is terribly deficient in its approach to the problem -- it’s disgraceful in its approach to the problem. We end up with a circumstance that can only be temporary because a future challenge to this whole matter of store closing in the Hamilton-Wentworth area is inevitable.

The parliamentary assistant might feel it appropriate to get out and talk to some people aware of this situation and who traditionally have supported the things he and his colleagues have tried to do because the bill we proposed to bring in store hours on a uniform province-wide basis has been discussed widely in Hamilton-Wentworth and is seen by many people on that regional council as being a great improvement over the bill we have before us today. But we can’t amend this bill to give it province-wide applicability. I wish we could, because that debate would be an appropriate one. But we cannot do that and we are stuck with the mess created, the hostility that will remain as a result of the disposition of the bill today. Either way, pass or defeat, that hostility and mess will be there. It’s a close balance but the balance comes down on saying we will support the bill but we urge the government to bring in province-wide legislation, or similar bills for every other municipality so there is an aura of uniformity across the province instead of a situation that can only get worse and worse.

Mr. Mackenzie: I rise to support Bill 154. I do so with a number of reservations.

My colleague has spoken good sense and I wish sometimes the sense he’s articulated would carry some weight with government members.

We have an extension, in a minor way, of the old open and extended store hours debate. I fear we may win a small battle in a case like this and risk losing the proverbial war.

What has happened is not an old story. It’s an all-too-often-told story today. We have the actions of one regional council deciding to grant the authority to a developer and a new shopping mall to stay open the extended hours. As is usually the case, that initially is a reasonably successful operation. In this case it was the Fiesta Mall in Stoney Creek. There is the large Eastgate Mall, where there is a fairly heavy investment and where probably most of the small shopkeepers would rather have the restricted hours but where the developers themselves would love to see the thing open for the extra rents they could charge if it was on the extended hours. They start complaining and putting pressure on council and saying: “Hey, we’re not getting a fair shake here. If you’re going to allow this one new smaller shopping mall to remain open then in all fairness you’ve got to give us the same opportunity.”

Of course, the minute that starts being talked around the area you get the people who own the other malls in the region raising the same arguments; you also get those who are thinking of putting in malls questioning whether or not they should have the right to stay open or to shut.

You usually get a delayed but very strong reaction from many of the smaller merchants on many of the secondary streets, or even in the downtown core of the city, who know very well they’re having the fight of their lives to compete with the shopping centres as it is. I remind the honourable members of this House that it can be expensive if we destroy the cores and some of the secondary shopping streets in our cities. Certainly the whole question is raised.

In this particular case -- more in desperation than anything else -- we had the regional municipality, where there was a strong majority who wanted to maintain the restricted store hours, saying, “Either we’re going to be able to deal with the smaller municipalities within the region, or we might as well be out of business.” That is part of the threat to the whole system of regional government.

What happens is that you get the Hamilton-Wentworth region asking for a bill to give them authority over the entire region and to restrict the shopping hours. They will probably do it. There’s no question in my mind that’s the route they’ll take. I’m really wondering, when the next major mall is opened up in the area, what kind of pressure we will have on all of the regional councillors to allow them to open up region-wide. I can see that battle coming down the road as well.

It seems to me we’ve been fighting this battle in Ontario for a good number of years. I think some measure of common sense has ruled the day to date. I’m not sure how long that will continue.

I do know that I’m a little surprised at the copout of this government in not bringing in province-wide legislation. As in many things today -- human rights come to mind -- they seem to be afraid to face some of the tough issues. We are either going to say that we’ve got some uniformity in shopping hours that covers everybody across the province or we’re not. If we’re going to go the other route -- and I personally hope we don’t -- we had better take a look at whether or not all our talk, or all the talk that seems to come from this Tory government about being interested in small businesses, means anything.

Many of the small businessmen in our communities are not going to be able to survive if they’re up against the unrestricted hours of the major developers. There’s no question in my mind about that. We’ve had difficulties already with them staying in business.

In addition to that, the employees are always the losers in the extended hours debate. As it is, even without the extended hours we have a move in many of the large developments to employ more and more part-time employees. In many of the major shopping centres they try to keep them to 20 hours or less a week. They cannot only get away with a minimum wage but with absolutely no employee benefits to them as well. That certainly doesn’t make for steady 40-hours-a-week employment for people so they can maintain their homes and put food on the table and take care of their families.

We risk the worker’s right to a decent job and the worker’s right to decent benefits. We risk an escalation in the use of part-time employees rather than full-time employees. We certainly risk the livelihood of hundred’s and probably thousands of small businessmen in our communities if we don’t seriously take a look at restricting the hours.

Much as I dislike them, I’d much rather go the route of looking at exceptions where you can make an excellent case for them than I would just doing away with the restrictions we’ve had on store hours to date.

The government certainly should have moved on a province-wide basis. I see this particular bill as one that I can support: a necessary, small, interim battle in the fight that’s been going on for a good many years in our particular community, but one which leaves the pressure on, doesn’t deal with the other communities and really is a copout on the part of this government in terms of not bringing in the one answer to it, which is province-wide legislation. If they’re not willing to do that, then they should take the flak -- open the whole thing up and let people know where they stand, rather than try to ride both sides of the fence as in this particular issue.

For the time being, there’s no question on this particular bill. I have to support it, but with the reservations I’ve raised.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I’m glad the parliamentary assistant came back in so he could hear my comments. Perhaps I could explain to him calmly and coolly what sort of an error he and his government have made by taking the position they have put before the assembly on the question of early store-closing hours.

The minister may not be aware of it but a long time ago when I was a kid they didn’t have early store-closing legislation in the Hamilton-Wentworth area. The reason they didn’t have it, Mr. Speaker, was they didn’t need it. Most of the businesses closed at a reasonable hour. The small businessmen were able to operate under reasonable conditions and the employees didn’t face the kind of exploitation that comes from these long hours day after day.

What happened, unfortunately, was that some chains moved into the outskirts of my city and decided they were going to stay open six days a week, 10 hours a day. There were no laws against it, so that kind of thing started. Consequently, it put incredible pressure on the small businesses in the Hamilton economic region. Also it put a number of employees in a very difficult spot because when those small businesses had to close down in the core and in the community shopping areas, that meant not only did the small businessman lose his livelihood, but so did those who were working for him.

On the other hand, what kind of hours were workers working? These large, sometimes foreign chains didn’t give one whit about the welfare of their employees. They put them on split shifts. They put them in positions where they had to try and support their families on maybe a 30-hour work week at pay for much less than they could get in other areas. They put them in positions where they didn’t have proper protection.

The municipalities in the Hamilton area got together and said this was a problem. The reason they got together was that two diverse groups approached them to outline the difficulty. One was the Hamilton and District Labour Council on behalf of workers in the area which went in to explain the unfairness of the exploitation of workers that was currently taking place in these chains and the difficulty caused by the loss of jobs for workers in the core and community shopping areas. Also the local municipalities were approached by small businessmen who explained the difficulties they were facing in trying to compete with these stores in the outskirts which were able to keep open during these long hours and how they were having to close down and consequently that was affecting consumers in the area. The municipalities in the area then created a gentlemen’s agreement by which they brought in local early store-closing hours legislation.

I want to come back to something the parliamentary assistant said because it shows either his foolishness or silliness when he makes statements in the House, or it shows a kind of masquerade attitude on behalf of the government and the ministry. He said that in effect Hamilton-Wentworth is one economic area. If the parliamentary assistant would listen to this explanation it would be appreciated.

He claimed the Hamilton-Wentworth region was an economic area in which it made sense to have legislation that would affect store-closing hours for all of the component municipalities. This goes back to the old phoney analysis this government has put before the assembly on every single question like this since they brought in regional government in the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

They went against all advice at the time and created a Hamilton-Wentworth regional municipality that excluded Burlington, which was clearly a part of the economic community at the lakehead. They went against all that advice. They brought in this fractured form of regional government. Now you get a parliamentary assistant who stands up in the assembly and tries to say Hamilton-Wentworth is somehow an economic region separate from everything that surrounds it and therefore should have its own legislation.

[4:45]

I would like the parliamentary assistant to drive down there or take a bus. I will send him a bus ticket to Hamilton so he can come down and see what that area is like. The minister will understand that in Hamilton-Wentworth we don’t live in an economic area that is separate from our neighbours in other regional communities. The parliamentary assistant would find that Burlington at least is a part of that economic region.

To go back to the gentlemen’s agreement, Burlington was involved in that agreement. They brought in early store-closing hours. I think the question put by the member for Wentworth is a very important one. What is the government going to do if we pass this legislation and if Hamilton-Wentworth brings in this municipal bylaw? What is the government going to do when and if Burlington changes its policy so it can bring in some new mall, and if it doesn’t have early store-closing hours any more? I don’t know how the government or the parliamentary assistant intends to deal with that. That is the basic foolishness and silliness of the bill before us.

I could characterize the Tories as being on both sides of the issue, but that would be overly kind. I have no intention of being overly kind. They remind me of people who are straddling the fence with both feet firmly in the air and both ears to the ground. It’s an awkward position. I expect it is difficult to get good legislation from people who are in such contorted and uncomfortable positions. Maybe that is one of the explanations for the kind of approach they have taken on this issue. On an issue of the fundamental rights of workers and the protection of small businessmen, they can’t say, “on the one hand, on the other hand, on the third hand.” There has to be some definition to their position.

The one point that really bothers me is that the parliamentary assistant, on behalf of the absent minister who doesn’t really seem to be too concerned about this issue, judging from the delays he went through in bringing it before the House, says the reason why the government is doing this is the regional municipality asked it to do it. That is in- credible. I can count on the fingers of one hand the times this government has done anything because the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth advised it to do it.

It seems if a good idea is coming forward from the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, the government is automatically opposed to it. Yet the minister or the parliamentary assistant chooses to put this forward as his one rationale for going ahead with it. I would suggest that when he gets good proposals from that municipality he should adopt them more often and use as his rationale that the municipality asked him to. Instead, we get the incredibly silly solution of dumping it back into the hands of the regional government.

If early store-closing hours are a good idea, which I believe they are for the reasons I have outlined, in that they protect workers’ rights and also they protect what is still a viable small business community, then it’s a good idea not only for Hamilton-Wentworth but for the entire province. If we are going to protect community shopping areas like Barton Street or Ottawa Street in my riding, then we should protect community shopping areas in the parliamentary assistant’s riding and in every other riding across Ontario. If we are going to protect the rights of workers working in shopping malls in Stoney Creek then we should protect the rights of workers working in shopping malls across the province.

I think the solution put forward by my colleague from Wentworth is a perfectly workable solution. It is a good idea. It would be advantageous if the government would consider withdrawing this bill and, before we break for Christmas, introducing province-wide legislation so that we can protect small business and protect workers across the entire province, rather than ignoring that difficulty. I would advise the parliamentary assistant that he consider doing that. If not, if he intends to go ahead with this, when might we expect the government to realize that province-wide legislation is needed and when might we expect the government to go ahead and bring in province-wide legislation, next spring? I look forward to the parliamentary assistant’s comments on that particular question.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise just to make two or three comments on this bill before us. The first one I want to make is that for the reason given by my colleagues we consider this a rather important bill. This is a matter which has been debated in municipal circles and elsewhere across this province for many, many years, for decades, as the parliamentary assistant well knows. Now we have a bill, a wholly inadequate bill, that deals with the problem in Ontario but at least gives us an opportunity to state the position of this party. I am surprised, quite frankly, that the other member from the Hamilton area, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) is not here also, and doesn’t think this bill is important enough to take part in this debate. It would seem to me that on a matter of such great concern to his area he should be in the House and taking part in this debate.

I think most objective people would agree my three colleagues from the Hamilton area have put forward reasonable arguments for a province-wide policy. They have put forward a similar argument and I must point out, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, that these three members represent contrasting constituencies. One is from a rural area where they want to keep the stores open -- a partly rural area or a suburb, if you will, of Hamilton. The others are from the areas where they have bylaws which provide that the stores must close earlier, yet they can get up and put forward the same argument here.

I think this demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, how easy it would be, if we had an NDP government, to come to a reasonable solution for this sort of thing. Our colleagues here aren’t simply passing the buck, as the government is doing. The government is saying, in effect: “We don’t want to make a decision on this. We will pass it over to the regional council in Hamilton and let it pass the bylaws and pass the buck.” The people on this side of the House are prepared to make a decision provincially on this. We are willing to stand up and be counted and we say there should be uniform closing hours across this province. We are willing to have the parliamentary assistant bring in that bill, take our stand on it and vote in favour of a bill that does just that.

It’s apparent it is nonsense to have a system whereby each local municipality can set the store-closing hours. I am not going to go into the argument put forward by my colleagues in any depth again, but such a system distorts the whole shopping system. You can have shopping centres or other shopping areas, the downtown areas, set up all to close at six o’clock then the council in one area comes in and suddenly decides it is going to open them up. Then the others have to open them up in competition and pretty soon you have far too much floor space. You have, in fact, far greater costs involved with regard to retailing -- and in the end it is the consumers who are going to have to pay those additional costs.

It also distorts the whole process of deciding where shopping centres are going to be established, because it was well known, and the parliamentary assistant knows this, that for decades in this province shopping centres were established just outside of the urban areas in rural areas that were anxious to get assessment in those days when it meant so much to them -- it doesn’t mean quite so much now. These centres were established on the promise that they could stay open and there would be no laws within that municipality to make that shopping centre close at six o’clock. So it has distorted even the growth pattern in major areas.

As my colleagues have pointed out, we are supporting this bill because it’s a bit better than the system which exists in that region and in most other areas of this province, but in no way is it the kind of bill we really should be debating and discussing here, one that has uniform application.

I just want to point out, once the government had the nerve to actually take some action on a couple of other items, how well that worked. I remember when it was left to the local municipality to determine whether it would have fireworks sold within its boundaries. There would be one little town, or perhaps big city, that would prohibit the sale of fireworks, or perhaps prohibit them to anybody under 16 years of age, and the next municipality would be wide open to sell the fireworks.

The municipalities and their associations fought for years and years to have the government give some leadership on this matter and the government finally gave it. You hardly hear a whisper about it now, Mr. Speaker. It is working. Of course, the legislation which was passed in this House three or four years ago with regard to Sunday closing is working and working well.

Surely the government can apply the same sort of policy to store hours during the week. It is just that once again it hasn’t the courage to do so. There is perhaps no unanimous request from municipalities because, as the parliamentary assistant knows from his experience in municipal government, when you talk to municipal associations on this kind of an issue, where you have rural municipalities and the urban municipalities -- some of them have early closing bylaws and some don’t -- it is impossible to really come to a determination. They are saying, in effect, to the provincial government, “You should take the responsibility to do that.”

That is what the New Democratic Party is saying. We think this is an apt expression of the general attitude of the government, but in no ways meets the needs of this province.

Mr. Rotenberg: I wish to thank the members opposite for the support of the bill, despite the fact that the New Democratic Party did some strange contortions in order to support it. And speaking of trying to be on both sides of an issue at the same time, they are masters at it.

We are not legislating store hours; we are not legislating store hours in Hamilton-Wentworth. We are giving --

Mr. Martel: What happens to local autonomy?

Mr. Rotenberg: He’s on my side. I am glad to hear it. We are giving the region of Hamilton-Wentworth the right to legislate store hours.

There was some discussion that maybe this matter should have gone to a committee of the House for discussion. Members will recall this bill was originally part of the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, the omnibus regional act, which we introduced much earlier in the session and it was at the request of the New Democratic Party, which indicated maybe they wanted to send it to committee, that we took it out of the regional act and put it into a separate act. We did it simply because, although we didn’t want to, if another party wished to send it to committee, we would be able to do so without interrupting the omnibus bill for all the regional municipality amendments.

We believe in local option, as the member for Sudbury East has indicated -- he is sitting maybe where he belongs, in the other caucus -- he believes in local autonomy and so do we and we believe this is a local matter. There are different problems in different municipalities and different municipalities require different solutions to these problems.

So, in answer to the question which has really come from the three members opposite, the provincial government at this time is not prepared to bring in province-wide store hours and that is why we are bringing in this legislation.

If there is some dissatisfaction with the form of the bylaw which the Hamilton-Wentworth council is bringing forward, and I gather from the members opposite and from the people in the region there is some dissatisfaction, then really the people in that community should be going to the regional council, hear deputations, have meetings and ask the Hamilton-Wentworth regional council either not to adopt their bill, or to amend their bill, or to deal with the bill. We are giving permissive legislation, transferring it from the municipalities in the regions to the regional council. This is, in effect, province-wide legislation because it is permissive legislation to enable the various municipalities throughout the province to bring in store-closing bylaws, if they so desire.

As I have indicated, for the present we feel that is the proper way to do it and therefore I ask for the support of this bill.

[5:00]

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 154, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act, 1973.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I have a comment to make on whichever section you choose, Mr. Chairman. Section 1 would be fine.

On section 1:

Mr. M. N. Davison: In regard to the parliamentary assistant’s response to the suggestion put forward by the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs), would the parliamentary assistant care to explain to us why the government is not prepared to move with province-wide legislation at this time?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I think the member opposite has asked to go into committee of the whole House simply to get another chance to speak on second reading, which is really not the situation. I have indicated that the provincial government at this time feels this is a matter of local autonomy and local option and we are leaving it that way.

Mr. M. N. Davison: On section 1, I have a question on the definition of the word “local.” By the word “local,” does the parliamentary assistant mean local government or does he mean regional government? I’m not exactly sure of his definition of the word “local” because he seems to be using it whenever he talks about this section or the other sections of the bill.

Mr. Rotenberg: I think it’s quite obvious that for the purposes of this bill “local” means the regional government.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Would the parliamentary assistant be so kind as to tell us at what point the government might be prepared to go ahead with provincial-wide legislation?

Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, there are no plans at the present time to bring that forward. I don’t know when in the future there may be discussion; at the present time there are no plans.

Mr. M. N. Davison: One final question: Would the parliamentary assistant, on behalf of the minister and the government, undertake to start discussion and to study the possibility of bringing in province-wide legislation so the position put forward by my colleague from Wentworth can be fully aired and explored?

Mr. Rotenberg: I don’t want to mislead the member or his party by indicating that this will happen at a specific time in the future. Certainly, all matters which are raised in this Legislature are under review by this ministry. Whether that will be an earlier or later review or priority, I cannot say at this time.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill 154 reported.

On motion by Hon. Miss Stephenson, the committee reported one bill without amendments.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I believe there has been a modification of the order and that concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Colleges and Universities is to occur at this time.

It was also my understanding that we were doing them as a package.

Mr. Speaker: They are separate questions. They can’t be considered as one entity.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Mr. Sweeney: As the minister well knows, we have recently concluded 22 hours of estimates debate on this area; therefore, a lot of topics were gone into at some length and depth. I don’t intend to go over all those again, but there are a couple of topics which I think need a little more attention than they got in the estimates and there is one in particular which came up today.

I have just sent over to the minister a copy of a press release and a couple of affidavits that were presented to the media today on behalf of a group of parents known as Parents Interested in Education, PIE. I understand the minister has met members of this group before and is familiar with some of their concerns.

I want to use this opportunity to draw to the minister’s attention the fact that I share the concerns of some of the parents’ groups around this province. As a matter of fact, if we are looking at the funding of education -- and in this particular debate the concurrence of that funding -- I think it is quite appropriate for us to look at some of the concerns being expressed by various parents’ groups. I suggest to the minister as evidence we have some credibility gaps and financial backlash with respect to education in Ontario is that there are a number of parents and a number of groups of parents expressing concerns.

This is a phenomenon which is growing in this province. More and more parents are grouping together because they realize the futility of trying to operate individually. They are grouping together to bring to the attention of individual schools or school boards and of this ministry and this government their concern over what is happening to their children in the schools of this province.

This is not to suggest for one moment that there aren’t many groups of parents in the province who are quite satisfied with what is happening. However, there is a sufficient number of parents’ groups -- and I repeat, the number is growing -- to cause concern to anyone in this Legislature and to surely give concern to the Minister of Education as to why we are getting this negative feeling.

The particular group to which I have just referred, PIE, is now a national group; it has only recently begun forming in Ontario.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Do you know where it started? Would you read the note I just sent to you?

Mr. Sweeney: With reference to the note the minister just sent over to me, I think the point still stands. There is a group of parents in the province who are concerned about what is happening to their children. The only reason I am bringing this to the minister’s attention today is because it seems appropriate to me that we consider them as one of several groups.

I would draw to the minister’s attention a most recent event, right here in the city of Toronto. A group of parents representing French-speaking children have had a long and running discussion with the Toronto Board of Education over the formation of a French-language school and have gone so far as to be concerned about the formation of a French-language school board in this province.

I would draw to the minister’s attention the groups of parents that have formed in several of the municipalities around Metro very concerned about the closing of their local schools. The minister is as aware as I am about what has been happening in North York. The minister indicated in her recent statement that she wants the school boards of this province to have more appropriate guidelines with respect to the closing of schools.

The minister is also aware of a very large group of parents in the Simcoe area concerned about a program put into the public schools of that jurisdiction, a program with which they disagree.

The minister is also aware of a very significant growth in enrolment in the independent schools of this province, a growth from approximately 40,000 five or six years ago to something in the neighbourhood of 64,000 today. That’s a 50 per cent growth over a relatively short period of time. It is my understanding that the parents who choose this route do so overwhelmingly because they feel they do not have the kind of voice they think they should have with respect to what’s happening to their children in the public school they formerly attended.

Finally, it is very obvious there are groups of parents who have not taken these kinds of actions who are expressing in many different ways the fact that they want to get back to some sense of a real community school. They want to get back to some sense of really playing a part, along with the teachers, in the nature and the quality and the type of education their sons and daughters are going to get in the schools.

The entire issue I am trying to draw to the minister’s attention -- and perhaps it isn’t necessary for me to do so, but I think it’s appropriate at this time -- is that there is outside of this Legislature, in the educational system of this province, a growing and a significant phenomenon of groups of parents who want to have a great deal more say about how their sons and daughters are educated in the schools of this province. They also want to be assured that things will not happen to their sons and daughters in the schools that they don’t want to happen.

Very recently a question was raised about those boys and girls in our schools about whom the parents don’t seem to be as interested as they should, where in fact we might actually have neglect involved, where we might have a form of mental abuse or emotional abuse involved. I would remind the minister, as I did the questioner, that we do have within the recent Child Welfare Act a provision to take care of that.

I don’t think the issue is those children for whom teachers must truly take the place of parents, for whom they must be deeply concerned because their parents are neglecting them in one way or another. That’s not the issue. We have provisions in the law of this province to take care of that. The issue is those students whose parents are genuinely and deeply concerned about what happens to their sons and daughters in schools and who have a sense that they are not being allowed to play the kind of role they should have.

Tied along with that particular issue is this whole question of bigness. In this province we’ve been through a period of big schools, big school districts, big school administrations. I have to wonder whether or not the kind of parental backlash we’re getting is not a reflection of this bigness. I have to wonder whether or not the time hasn’t come -- and we touched on this very briefly in the estimates, too briefly in my judgement -- where a serious look needs to be taken at the effects.

[5:15]

We’re talking about 10 years after the setting up of the large consolidated school boards: whether we shouldn’t take time, 10 years later, and seriously examine what the impact has been; seriously ask whether the quality of education we believed at that time would be improved has been improved; whether the relationship between parents and teachers is better today than it was then; whether the scarce dollars we have available to spend on the education of the boys and girls in Ontario is being spent as wisely as it could be; whether the involvement of the community in true community education in the various jurisdictions around this province is better today because of these larger consolidated school boards than what it was before, or as it could be if there was some modification. Within that same framework, ask about the size of schools that have evolved from it, the very large district high schools and the very large consolidated elementary schools. What do we know about the quality of education in those? What do we know about the degree of community involvement in those schools before and after, or what might be?

I suggest that we’ve spent a great deal of time talking about a lot of the other details of education, this very central, significant issue needs to be one that more attention be given to. It seems appropriate to me we take the time to look at that.

I want to end up with one comment with respect to my original remarks.

There is a program that is in use in many of the schools of this province called “values clarification.” It was a program developed by Sidney Simon from the United States. I’m not going to go into any detail because I’m sure the minister has access to that as well as I do. But I want to ask the minister or her officials to some time relatively soon examine that program and examine some of the exercises the students are asked to participate in.

I have just one I’d like to share at this time. There are, I understand, many like this.

This is a situation where relatively young children, in grades six, seven and eight, are asked to put themselves into the position of being a selection committee, a situation where there is, after a nuclear war, space in a shelter for only six people and there are 10 people standing at the door supposedly waiting to get in. These 10 people are described in various ways in terms of their age, in terms of their racial background, personality traits, contributions they might make to a future society. These young children are asked to eliminate four human beings.

I know at some point in their lives they might be faced with that but not when they’re 11, 12 or 13 years of age. That’s just one example among many with which the Minister of Education and her officials should acquaint themselves and ask whether this might not be one of those situations where we could be doing more harm than good.

Mr. Warner: It is evident to each of us, as the estimates for the Ministry of Education concluded, there was a message of which the government and each one of us is painfully aware. The declining enrolment has been a delightful opportunity for the government to cut back in its funding and it has deliberately chosen to shift the burden of property taxation to the municipalities and to the tenants and home owners. As the minister is well aware, that process of erosion has been going on for several years now in Metropolitan Toronto and, of course, elsewhere, but I speak in terms of Metro Toronto since it’s the area I know best.

Our own area of Metro Toronto has seen a decline in the education commitment from this government over the last few years. I expect that as long as this party is in power we’ll see a further decline and a shift, of course, to the property tax. That’s the wrong way to go. The government may feel that at this time they are able to do that and hide it under the guise of the declining enrolment. Sooner or later it will come to an end of the road, because the taxpayers will no longer tolerate this shift.

I suppose the government would like to reach the stage where 100 per cent of the education dollars come from the property tax instead of the present 80 per cent in Metropolitan Toronto. They’ve reached that unhappy state in the city of Toronto; the city of Toronto, in fact, is in a negative position, as the minister well knows; they collect more in property tax. Through the distribution mechanism for Metro Toronto, of course, some of the other boroughs and the city of North York were able to obtain some of those dollars.

The shift has occurred to the extent where I believe -- I stand to be corrected perhaps within a percentage point -- approximately 21 per cent of the education dollars for Metro Toronto come from the provincial government. Yet it was just a couple of years ago when it was around 34 per cent.

That’s an absolutely wrong policy, Mr. Speaker. Property tax, to begin with, is basically a regressive tax. It is not linked to income levels in other than a very crude form. It’s not sophisticated. I firmly believe, as this party has said on many occasions, that the funding for education should not be based on the property tax and that it should be based on progressive forms of taxation. That, of course, is in complete opposition to the government’s policy. I certainly look forward to the day when that policy can be reversed.

I just wanted to take this opportunity on the finalizing of the estimates to lend my voice of complete frustration with the government. I’ve said it on many occasions and I’ll continue to say it every opportunity I get: their funding policy for education is wrong, totally wrong. Instead of using the declining enrolment as an opportunity to improve the quality of education they use it as an opportunity to get out of their obligation to supply the dollars needed. That is a very sad thing indeed.

Mr. Cooke: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. I found it interesting that during the estimates the Minister of Education agreed that property taxes should not be covering as much of the expenses for school boards as they are presently covering. She indicated that eventually at some time in the future the government would be reversing the present trend and eventually get it back to 60 per cent. That’s on the record and it was an exchange between the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) and the minister.

The minister, as I said, indicated very clearly that she believed that too much of the education funding was coming from property taxes. I suggested to her that if she believed that she should go to the corporations and the individual taxpayers of this province and collect the necessary money to put into education and properly finance it through a progressive tax system rather than the regressive property taxes. School board trustees are very reluctant to increase the mill rate these days because the mill rates have gone up so dramatically in the last few years because of this government’s policies.

Because there’s a vacuum on the part of this minister and this ministry, all across this province we’re seeing schools closing and teachers being fired because of declining enrolment and no policy from this provincial government. In fact, the Jackson report has been out for a very long period of time now. I believe it is approaching a year, or is it over a year now? Ten months; we are close to a year.

Originally the minister indicated there was going to be a response in June or July. Then we were told it was coming in September or October. Here it is December 17 and we still have no response from the Jackson report. That report gave a series of very, very positive recommendations, both on funding and how to cope with declining enrolment.

Mr. Speaker, I think this minister, since taking over as Minister of Education and Minister of Colleges and Universities, has presented the people of Ontario with absolutely nothing in new initiatives of how school boards can cope with declining enrolment. By the time they come out with a response to Jackson, the major decisions by school boards will have been completed and implemented, schools will have been closed, teachers will have been fired and decisions will have been made that will be impossible to reverse.

I just want to state, on behalf of my party, that we are not satisfied with what this minister is doing and with the lack of initiative she has taken as apparently, or supposedly, the person in charge of education for this province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member for Kitchener-Wilmot that I was interested to read these documents he provided. As I have confessed to him, I have no idea what the diagnosis sub mucus palate is. I have never heard it before in my life and I doubt that anybody else has either.

Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) knows what it is and he’s not even opted out.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will consult with him. This is interesting material that has been provided by PIE, with whom I have had at least two meetings in the past, or who have had representatives present at meetings I have attended.

I share the honourable member’s concern that parents are now wishing to participate more fully in the educational process. I think that is entirely true and I think there are very good reasons for it.

For a number of generations the teacher in the community was probably an individual of greater educational standing than many other members of the population of the community and enjoyed a degree of status which was not widely enjoyed by other members. Indeed, there was a little apprehension about questioning the teacher. Although one did discuss or talk with the teacher, one tended to take the teacher’s advice without too much question.

The educational system in the province has produced a population of generally higher level of educational achievement than has ever been achieved in any jurisdiction before. Parents are now asking questions -- and quite rightly; they should do so. They should ask questions about the educational program. They should tend to participate more vigorously in education than perhaps they have done traditionally. I hope we are coming out of the phase where we have been mesmerized by the expertise of one group or another within our society.

It had been my sincere hope over the past 13 months that I would be able to persuade parents to become more actively involved in consideration of educational concerns -- to become very much more involved in the election of those representatives who are going to, on their behalf, deliver the educational programs within the community where they have jurisdiction and be responsible for the very large amounts of money they have to expend on behalf of education.

I have been asking parents, as well, to participate through such organizations as parent-teacher associations. I think it is an appropriate channel to ensure that the concerns of parents in groups are directed specifically to the educational system at the local level and at the central level. I think that is a reasonable thing to do.

The member for Kitchener-Wilmot has again reminded me of the growth of independent schools. There isn’t any doubt that has happened because we have had an influx in immigration into our province of a number of people with a specific group of religious beliefs which they think must be fostered within their own religious schools. That, of course, is something which Ontario has always understood. That understanding continues and we do attempt to participate by ensuring that the standards in those schools are reasonable and do approach the standards which are required in the public school system.

[5:30]

I should like to assure the member for Kitchener-Wilmot that we really have begun a very careful examination of the quality of the educational program in Ontario through a number of examinations -- reviews of a number of aspects of the educational system. We will be moving, as he very well knows, through a further assessment and evaluation process in the assessment instrument pool which will be put into effect, at least in a field-testing mechanism, some time during the next 12 months and which will provide us with the kind of careful look at what the educational system is doing in the elementary-secondary system which I think can provide us all with guidance -- not just the Ministry of Education but teachers, school boards, students and parents alike. I am very hopeful that the kinds of initiatives which we are taking and will be taking will give us some direction.

The concern about values clarification is one which I share. I am not really sure how easy it is to integrate a value system that doesn’t have some very clear definitions into an educational system. I think all of us within this Legislature realize there really isn’t any relative state of what is right and what is wrong in many instances. There are many situations which have to be either black or white, right or wrong. It is difficult to provide in an unstructured way that kind of examination of moral issues which must be undertaken by young children, even those who are just beginning in the educational system. Therefore, we have been looking very carefully at the way in which that can be integrated into the system most appropriately.

I am not at all sure of the route at this point, but I can promise the honourable member I believe this is a problem which we must have solved by the end of this school year. I do not believe we can remain in this state of suspended animation, appearing to some people to be moving in the direction of moral relativism and, in the eyes of others, there appearing to be an absence of anything. I believe we have to make some very positive moves in this direction.

As far as the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is concerned, I can only suggest to him that, if he had taken the time to participate even briefly in the estimates discussion he probably would have heard a great deal about the increase in the funding of education, a great deal which might have been useful to him.

I would also remind the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) that he, again in his usual fashion, is attempting to misinterpret what I said in the committee. What I said in the committee was that it was indeed the provincial objective to reach the level of sharing of educational funding which was suggested by Dr. Jackson and which was set out as a goal by the province several years ago; that undoubtedly we are going to continue to strive in that direction; but that I couldn’t possibly tell him when we were going to meet it, because I don’t know at this stage of the game. I am not saying that he is entirely wrong; it is simply that he distorted my words for his own purposes, devious though they may be at this point.

The honourable member also suggested we were closing schools right, left and centre and losing teachers all over the place. I would have to tell the honourable member that there was an increase in the total number of teachers in the elementary and secondary school systems in Ontario in 1979. There has not been a decrease. I would anticipate there may be a slight decrease for the year 1980, but I will get those figures for him.

Mr. Nixon: What was the decrease in student population?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have a decreasing student population, rapidly decreasing.

Mr. Nixon: By how much?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Between 1976 and 1984, the school population in our secondary schools, on average, will decrease 20 per cent. In urban areas it will be 30 per cent unless there is a massive change in immigration policy.

Mr. Nixon: And there is not going to be any change in teacher numbers?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Apparently there is not going to be any change in teacher numbers, according to the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

According to that honourable member, it would be inappropriate to even decrease the increase in the number of teachers within the educational system in Ontario, in spite of declining enrolment. I understand his concerns and I understand totally the motivation behind his concerns, but I believe the Ministry of Education, the taxpayers of this province and the boards of education of this province recognize that they should be taking the opportunity available to them at this time, with the very marked decline in enrolment which is now occurring and which will continue to occur for at least the next five years, to enhance and improve the educational system in this province.

That is precisely the goal of the Ministry of Education. I know it’s shared by a very large number of boards and I am aware there are many taxpayers, many parents, out there who agree with this completely. I am also aware that much of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation membership agrees completely with that goal and that principle. I can only assure the honourable members, in spite of the continued malevolent statements made by certain members of the opposition, that indeed that’s the goal we have and the one we are striving to reach.

I would move concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Education.

Resolution concurred in.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, once again, we very recently completed consideration of the minister’s budget estimates and I don’t intend to go over the same ground again. There were a couple of issues here as well, however, that we didn’t spend very much time on. Perhaps we could spend a few minutes on them right now.

The first one I want to touch on is the advisory bodies that report to the ministry. The one reporting on university affairs, the Ontario Council on University Affairs, very recently presented a report entitled System on the Brink. This advisory body is trying to bring to the attention of the minister and the government the fact that if the funding procedures, the funding mechanisms, the funding levels which have been given to the universities of this province continue over the next two or three years -- up until 1983, I believe they said -- then the universities in this province will have reached such a point of deterioration it will take a very long time, if it is even possible, to recover.

That’s a rather stinging indictment, I would suggest, and it is a rather sad one too. It is well known across Canada that Ontario spent a great deal of energy and a great deal of money building up its university system to be one of the best in the country and yet we hear from all sources -- not just this advisory body, from the students, from the faculty and from the university administrators -- that the funding that’s been given to these universities in Ontario over the last six or seven years, I guess it is, they keep referring to has been such that we are, to use their expression, “on the brink.”

Now I guess it is really in the minister’s front yard, in the government’s front yard -- and I use the term “front yard” before we get to the “back yard” -- right now to pull the system back from the brink rather than to let it topple over. The analogy, quite obviously, is it’s going to be easier and less expensive to pull it back from that brink now than to wait for it to topple over and to have to climb down and pick up the pieces and try to put them all back together again. I am only hoping the minister is truly listening to that message.

We did mention during the estimates that the chairmen of the boards of governors of the universities across this province had come to the minister and had come to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and made a very strong petition to the government on behalf of the same principle, that as time went on they would be able to be less and less responsible for what was happening. They felt a great sense of responsibility. In most cases, as near as I know, these are all volunteers. They are businessmen, they are academics of one type or another, they represent labouring professions, they represent student bodies and they are deeply concerned about the institutions they represent. They are not saying it on their own behalf. In many cases it is not just for themselves, it is for the wider society, the wider group of which they are a part. That is the one group.

The other advisory body is that with respect to the community colleges. One of the questions I would have to ask the minister at this time is why it is that the advisory body, the council of regents, reporting to the minister with respect to the community colleges, the colleges of applied arts and technology, don’t report with the same kind of openness that the universities do.

I think the minister realizes it is important for the public and for members of this Legislature to be as aware as possible about what those concerns are and I don’t mean it from a critical or a negative point of view. I think there have been some very good debates in this Legislature and in the committees, the education committee or the Bill 19 committee and in the budget estimate committee. There have been some good debates as to what the issues are and what the concerns are and what might be done about it. The minister realizes that that is only possible if the kinds of reports that come to her attention from the council of regents are distributed with the same openness as those reports that come from the council on university affairs.

I realize that the relationship between the community colleges and the ministry is somewhat different than the relationship between the ministry and the universities. I recognize the greater autonomy and the greater independence of the universities. That is recognized, but surely that is not enough to deprive the public generally and the members of this Legislature of the kind of information the council of regents is giving to her. I would be very pleased to have the minister indicate the kinds of information she gets and the degree to which it might be available to us, if not in its present form, in some other form.

The second issue I would like to bring up at this time is one that has been brought up over and over again. I only want to bring it up once more because I still think it is so important and that is the role of polytechnics in this province. I am not saying it just because of Ryerson. I happen to have a particular affection for Ryerson, as do many members of this Legislature and as do many people outside this Legislature. But it is the whole concept of the polytechnics I want to address myself to once again.

I know the minister has brought to our attention that there are other institutions in this province that share some of the role of a polytechnic, that share some of the same kinds of programs that are available in a polytechnic like Ryerson. I know that in the University of Waterloo, in Lakehead University, in some of our community colleges there are elements of that kind of composition. That’s fine; that’s good; that is to be applauded. But surely the key to Ryerson is in its having that duality -- that duality of top-notch technological training, that top-notch technical training, that top-notch business training and, at the same time, having the humanities aspect of it.

It seems to me -- and this is something I am sure the minister has heard Walter Pitman, of Ryerson, say over and over again -- this is almost the time for the type of institution like Ryerson to be enhanced and to be enlarged. The minister may recall, from previous discussions with her predecessor, that I among others had suggested that maybe a serious look should be made about having other Ryerson-type polytechnics, at least one in northern Ontario and at least one in eastern Ontario. There is a quality and a nature about those parts of the province which in my judgement would lead themselves to be well served by a polytechnical institute in conjunction with the kind of service they are getting at the present time. How the balance would be made, I don’t know. I don’t have the minister’s staff.

I would just like to raise these two issues at the present time and hope that we could get some response from the minister.

Mr. Martel: I want to make a few remarks on Laurentian University. Particularly since I overheard in the halls of this building I would appear before the ministry to discuss Laurentian University with trepidation. I must take this occasion to indicate that I am still here, standing without shaking.

I continue to be amazed by the minister’s response to Laurentian University’s dire needs. In her latest correspondence with me she says Laurentian University is adequately financed. I find it terribly distressing for a minister to suggest that Laurentian is adequately financed when this year it might have to cut out the geology course, which is somewhat important to the mining engineering course. It might have to cut the modern languages program, there’s a possibility of the university having to reduce the philosophy department to nothing and it is having a problem with anthropology. And, as important, it is having trouble providing the number of courses required for the francophone community in northeastern Ontario.

This latter comment isn’t my own. It comes from the budget committee at Laurentian University where the number of students who take the bilingual course is decreasing annually because most of them go to Ottawa where the options are more numerous. Something like 70 per cent of francophone students go to Ottawa rather than Laurentian because they can’t get the variety of courses they need in order to meet their requirements -- the number of options necessary.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They don’t have a medical school at Laurentian.

Mr. Martel: No one is suggesting a medical school. Seventy per cent of the students go there. I’ve spoken to the students and I have the comments of the budget committee before me. They can’t meet the number of options that allow students to stay at the university. They just aren’t there.

This is one of the reasons I and a number of other people over the years have argued that Laurentian has a special status in Ontario whether we like it or not. Not only is it an emerging university -- it’s 15 years old -- but it has two official languages. Surely we both agree that it takes more funding for that type of situation.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They get more funding.

Mr. Martel: I understand they get more funding. But if the funding isn’t there to meet the needs of the area then you have to provide even more funding. You don’t start to cut back because what’s going to happen is the domino effect; the more you cut back the fewer students are going to be there. So it needs additional funding.

I don’t care what the Ontario Council on University Affairs recommends with it. In Sudbury we know that students aren’t coming. They’re going to Ottawa instead and we know the reasons. That’s been documented. Regardless of what they say, we have to have some type of formula so we can attract students -- offer the options necessary to entice students to come to Laurentian as opposed to Ottawa. That will not occur under the present arrangement. It’s as simple as that.

The minister knows that in addition to the francophone options, we are in danger of phasing out philosophy. In her recent letter to me, the minister says, let me quote: “Consequently, Laurentian must adapt its course options to the needs of the region and the wishes of the students of northern Ontario. If it is their decision not to enrol in philosophy at Laurentian, then I for one do not propose to direct tax dollars to finance something for which there is no demand.”

Yet the budget committee said to me, “Philosophy is one of the departments that has successfully responded to the needs of off-campus students.”

There is only one university in northeastern Ontario and it has to serve more than Sudbury. The university goes to Timmins, Iron Bridge and a variety of places. Among the courses being taken are the philosophy courses, but they might have to eliminate their philosophy department. They tell me philosophy is one of the departments that has successfully responded to the needs of off-campus students.

The department has also developed a program in law and justice that is receiving good student response from across the province. Isn’t it strange that because of a lack of funding they are going to have to cut somewhere? It has reached that point. It doesn’t matter whether it is philosophy -- they took that as one of the options. They can cut out that course in its entirety almost, simply because there isn’t enough money to go around.

It isn’t like the University of Toronto. When 26 staff members are cut at Laurentian University, that is 15 per cent of the staff. When 26 faculty at U of T are cut, I guess no one would notice it. The University of Toronto doesn’t have to serve all of Metro Toronto, because there is York University. But Laurentian has to serve Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie and North Bay.

The minister can’t make those arguments stick, but she tries. She says, “They have enough money.” Obviously, they don’t have enough money because they are wiping out four courses.

One of the courses being cut out that’s of tremendous significance to northern Ontario is geology. We finally established a four-year mining engineering course several years ago, now geology is going to be cut. Does that make sense?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No. But that’s not my decision, it’s theirs.

Mr. Martel: But it is the minister who holds the purse strings. That is the game she doesn’t want to talk about. The minister controls the purse strings.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Come on, they get more BIU than anybody.

Mr. Martel: The minister still controls the purse strings. When she has a university that is not only bilingual but a new university, she can’t play that game. Laurentian, unlike the University of Toronto, has not been able to build up its funds. Only 15 years ago we took roughly $8 million out of the Sudbury area to get that university going. The minister can’t say it is their choice. If they don’t cut there, they will have to cut in another department. So they are taking the one which is less painful.

What could they do? Could they cut their translation courses? What are they going to cut? That is the problem. When one starts the surgery it has to be pretty drastic. It is drastic to cut out a whole course, geology, or it’s drastic to cut out the modern-languages course, or philosophy. It is just intolerable.

For the minister to suggest to me that Laurentian is getting adequate funding is obviously not the case, because the needs are different. It isn’t a nice, compact university like the U of T. It is widespread. More than half of its students are part-time students, so that’s where most of the revenue comes from.

Then we hear from Dr. Ed Monahan, the former president of Laurentian. What does dear old Ed say? “Go out and borrow some money.” Isn’t that wonderful? If you want to finance the institution, go out Laurentian and borrow some money. That’s a real solution to the problem of a small university. And I remind you that this is a small university that serves a region bigger than southern Ontario itself in square mileage.

Ed tells us to borrow some money. Those solutions simply aren’t adequate. We have to get from the minister some sort of funding which will not allow this to happen. We met with the Minister of Education and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) to try to find a way of getting $500,000 for Laurentian, which I guess would resolve the problem. To my knowledge, that has not as yet been accepted by the government. In fact, I guess it has been rejected.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.

Mr. Martel: All I have is the most recent letter from Dr. H. B. M. Best, president of Laurentian University, to the minister, indicating what Laurentian is trying to do, how it is trying to get a committee going. The minister has to understand that in Sudbury we had major layoffs two years ago and a major strike this year. How do we raise funds in that type of environment, if we’re going to go to many of the people in the Sudbury basin to put out the cash? It just doesn’t work. Conditions are bad.

It’s coming, though. But, until that takes effect, can we allow those cutbacks to occur and then go out and try and raise the money? It’s just impossible.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If you hadn’t got any students to teach --

Mr. Martel: We haven’t got students because we are cutting back. Why are the students going off?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You tell me. Why are they voting to go off elsewhere?

Mr. Martel: They’re going off to Ottawa because they can get the number of options they need.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Toronto, Queen’s, Western, McMaster, Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier, Windsor.

Mr. Martel: Going down.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why are they going south?

Mr. Martel: Right. We have nothing in that university that’s a drawing card to the university. Even Lakehead University at least has the forestry course which serves as its cornerstone. Laurentian hasn’t any real drawing card. Some universities have medicine; some have dentistry.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They have geology, mining engineering.

Mr. Martel: They’re just moving into mining engineering, and we’re already forced into the bind where we’re going to have to cut the geology course.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Cutting geology at Laurentian is an asinine suggestion.

Mr. Martel: But that’s what they’re suggesting.

Mr. Warner: You’re forcing them to.

Mr. Martel: They haven’t got the money, what other course can they cut? What else can they cut?

I hope before this little discussion is over the minister will tell me where they can cut so I can go back to Dr. Best and say: “Look Henry, this is wrong. You should cut here and here and here and things will be better.”

In Dr. Best’s letter of just a couple of days ago, he does take strong exception with the minister on a number of points. For example, on her point on philosophy, he says: “Where a region is served by more than one university, it is possible to eliminate duplication or to have one university drop low-enrolment programs. In the case of single regional universities, elimination of basic or fundamental university programs can be the beginning of a loss of university status, with the corresponding subsequent decrease in enrolment in related programs and ultimate disintegration. We firmly believe that offerings must be kept up to the base minimum, unless enrolment justifies expansion beyond that.”

Philosophy is a good example. The minister, in her letter just previous to this, tells me, “We can’t force them into philosophy.” No one is suggesting that. But if you don’t have the funding to keep a core there at least, it’s going to die. It’s the domino effect in reverse. And it’s going to occur; and the minister knows it.

Dr. Best indicates we are serving a large area with unique situations. My concern has been -- and I’ve expressed it to the minister many times, in correspondence -- that if we start to cut, and the cuts continue, we’re dead. They might as well close the door, and we don’t want that. We can’t afford it.

Regardless of the formulae that are used, because of circumstances we simply have to have an opportunity to get over the hurdles we’ve had in the last two or three years, from 1976. We’ve got to maintain the courses that are there to ensure we can attract students. Somehow we’ve got to devise a drawing card. I’ve been arguing with Laurentian for seven years it should be mining and metallurgical engineering. It would be a natural in view of the research and development that could go on. But what’s going on there now will be a disaster, if those four courses are cut.

I’ve talked to two of the best university people who have just left. They handed in their resignations and will not be back next fall. They’re going because they feel the end is in sight for Laurentian.

Surely, there has to be additional funding to get us over this hurdle.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich has the floor but I would ask him to hold his remarks until eight o’clock this evening.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.