Hansard Transcripts 1980-Jun-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Today, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make an announcement jointly with our Deputy Premier, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch). I am pleased to advise honourable members of the establishment of a joint agricultural energy policy committee with the objective of examining energy problems and opportunities which will be faced by the agricultural community over the next 20 years.

The committee’s findings and recommendations will become the basis for the government’s agricultural energy management program. The committee will be co-chaired by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Kenneth Lantz, and the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mr. Malcolm Rowan.

Other members will include Dr. George Collin, executive director of the rural development division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food; Dr. Roger Higgin, director, renewable energy program, Ministry of Energy; Mr. Charles Munro, Embro, Ontario, a past president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; Mr. Robert Bethune, head, long-range planning, United Cooperatives of Ontario; Professor Peter H. Southwell of the University of Guelph; and Mr. Ron Moyer, past chairman of the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board.

Mr. Donald Oke, senior policy adviser to the cabinet office, will serve as executive secretary to the steering committee. The committee is expected to take about six months to complete its work. My ministry looks forward to working with the farming community and with agribusiness and with the Ministry of Energy in this important undertaking.

The Ministry of Energy, in co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Agriculture Canada and Ontario Hydro, is now involved in many different projects relating to agriculture, including energy conservation, the use of solar energy in grain drying and the production of methane gas from animal manure.

Since 1950 there has been a stronger and stronger trend to mechanization. In that year, the wholesale value of farm machinery sales was about $52 million. By 1978 the wholesale value of sales was more than $272 million. In 1950, the value of farm implements and machinery was estimated at $889 million. By 1978 that figure had risen to more than $2.3 billion. This trend to mechanization has brought with it an estimated 300 per cent increase in energy consumption since 1960.

While mechanization has contributed to increased Ontario agricultural production per acre, the cost of energy to operate modern farm systems has become the largest factor in farm expenses with a corresponding impact on the cost of farm products. In 1976, fuel oil alone used in the agricultural industry cost $152 million, with by far the greatest portion being for the purchase of gasoline and diesel fuel.

Specifically, the task of the joint agricultural energy policy committee will be to examine the future profile of the agricultural industry and to analyse the requirements of the industry in terms of such factors as feed, fertilizer and energy.

At the same time, it will consider Ontario’s future supply of energy, both by fuel and price, as it relates to agriculture. Using this information, the committee will then recommend a long-range strategy for energy in agriculture; identify and recommend appropriate policies and programs to deal with the problems and opportunities that energy represents to the agricultural community; develop an outline of a five-year agricultural energy management program, including budget and resource requirements; and develop an organizational structure for the development and implementation of these programs, which are to be carried out by my ministry’s agricultural management resource centre, as announced in the speech from the throne.

The agricultural energy policy committee will be supported by staff input from agricultural and energy experts. As we move into the 1980s there is the need for even greater efforts to improve the energy efficiency of agriculture in Ontario. We must ensure the continued growth and profitability of the agricultural and related industries; we must also ensure a secure food supply and energy future for the people of this province. It may be necessary to adopt new agricultural practices, new forms of technology and new energy systems if Ontario farmers are to remain competitive.

2:10 p.m.

I am confident the joint committee which has been established will provide many of the answers and recommendations to enable us to establish a comprehensive agricultural energy management program for the benefit of farmers, the food industry and all the people of Ontario.

FLORALIES AWARD

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, as members may be aware, the province of Ontario has won a prize at the international horticultural show, called Floralies, in Montreal. The prize was for the best national exhibit.

Our display, known as Ontario Garden, is sponsored by my ministry and was designed by the staff and students of the Niagara Parks Commission School of Horticulture, under the direction of Mr. Roly Barnsley. Some of the plant material in the garden was made available by the Horticultural Research Institute of Ontario at Vineland. The display will be open to the public until September 1, and I want to take this opportunity to urge anyone planning to visit Montreal this summer to make a trip to Floralies. Aside from Ontario’s exhibit, there are more than 60 others from many foreign countries. The prize awarded to the Ontario exhibit included a cheque for $5,000. I am pleased to announce that the entire proceeds of this cheque will be turned over to the library at Niagara Parks Commission School of Horticulture.

I might add that we in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food are very proud of Ontario’s young horticulturalists. I should like to offer my congratulations and those of the entire government of Ontario to the students and staff whose efforts brought this honour to our province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just wait until we win Le Mans. The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) will be able to announce that in the House.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister will be sitting in the driver’s lap.

Mr. Nixon: How about that? Are you the organ grinder or the monkey?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite don’t appear to want to listen.

Mr. Kerrio: Oh yes, we do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, do they? Okay.

Mr. Speaker: I think they were probably prompted by your opening remarks.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, were they? I can’t understand that.

CONSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a meeting of Canada’s first ministers on constitutional reform was held at the residence of the Prime Minister of Canada. I wish to report briefly to the House that agreement was reached on an intensive schedule of work over the next three months on an agreed set of priority issues.

We agreed that one week from today our Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs and Attorneys General would meet to organize their work over the summer. They and their staffs will meet during July -- for roughly a three-week period -- to attempt to work out agreed positions on a list of 11 major constitutional areas. These will be reviewed by the provincial Premiers at our meeting in Winnipeg on August 21 and August 22, prior to a renewed federal-provincial first ministers’ meeting, scheduled to begin on or about September 8.

We have agreed to consider -- at least I have, from my concept -- two basic packages of constitutional topics during this period. One package deals with a statement of principles, a charter of rights, including language rights, an entrenched commitment to the reduction of regional disparities and the patriation of the constitution.

The other package deals with government powers and institutions and includes the questions of resource ownership, international trade, offshore resources, fisheries, economic powers, communications, family law, the Supreme Court and a new upper house involving the provinces.

I was pleased to agree with this approach to constitutional reform, because I happen to believe it is urgent and essential that our governments devote themselves to showing the Canadian people that substantial constitutional reform is possible and practical. From the debate in the House from May 5 to May 9, I know that members of this House from all parties share this objective. The list of issues with which we have agreed to deal over the summer coincides well with the principles for constitutional reform which I outlined on May 9 as our government’s position.

The schedule of meetings ahead of us places some urgency on the work of the select committee on constitutional reform. I would hope to have the benefit of advice from that committee, at least on some aspects, in time for our meeting on September 8. Obviously there are other issues involving the constitution beyond those contained in the two areas I have just outlined. I would expect that the select committee, using such reports as that of the Task Force on Canadian Unity, the Quebec Liberal beige paper and those of the Ontario Advisory Committee on Confederation, will be making recommendations to this House on the entire scope of a new constitution. But these priorities have been identified and are the ones that will be dealt with on September 8.

There will be some difficult hurdles to overcome if we are to avoid the impasse that has characterized our previous efforts at constitutional reform. Nevertheless, much work has already been done and early agreement seems possible on some of the issues that I have outlined. I give my commitment to this House, and to the people of this province, that I and my ministers will do our utmost to make this effort a success.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we might ask of the Premier that he share with this House any report which he feels able to give us over and above the comments he has made with regard to the meeting.

In particular, can the Premier tell us whether he feels there are any particular obstacles that he thinks will be major, and which will have to be tackled this summer, and to which the select committee, for instance, might wish to give particular attention? Does he find among his colleagues, the other first ministers of this land, any attitudes or suggestions which will cause Ontario difficulties at the forthcoming meetings?

In general, could we ask the Premier if he could report in a little more detail on what he thinks the obstacles or problems might be, and to which areas the select committee might profitably devote its attention and concentration during the early weeks of its meetings?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the areas of difficulty are pretty well known to all of us. I sensed that one of the understandings at these private meetings of first ministers is that we do not go around quoting what other first ministers have said. We say what we said, we can give impressions, but I would not want to quote any of the other first ministers. I think I am right in this: I sensed a very genuine desire on the part of the first ministers to move ahead with constitutional change or renewed federalism, whatever term we may use for this process, over the next several months.

I sensed from some provinces that they had particular concerns. I think it is fair to state that they broke down into two areas: the question of the principles, patriation, et cetera, on the one hand, and the question of entrenchment or nonentrenchment of, say, a Bill of Rights, within the constitution, on the other. This is not new.

My own position on this question, and that of the government, is this: We can make some of the legal arguments that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), and perhaps others would have made over the years -- and I look to the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) -- that we do have a different system, and, as a result, we do not need entrenchment of a Bill of Rights per se in a legal sense. But I accepted the concept and philosophy of entrenching a Bill of Rights some time ago because, while I can make the same legal arguments, I think there is something of a symbolic nature, something that has relevance or is important, whatever term one may wish to use.

When it comes down to the question of patriation, quite frankly, the amending formula per se was not discussed yesterday. We did not discuss the various items that are now on the agenda. Our time was spent in terms of the process, and how we get to this in a way that will give some finality, at least to a number of these issues.

One can envisage, though, that the question of amending formulae will still be a matter of some discussion, and at any constitutional conference of this nature, I think there will have to be some give and take. Over the years, Ontario has accepted two or three different routes. As we go through these discussions a consensus may or may not emerge. A consensus on that will depend on what progress we make in the area of distribution of powers.

I think it is fair to state, without betraying any confidence, that when you get into distribution of powers, one of the primary concerns will obviously be the resource sector, the question of offshore resources.

Another concern, which is probably less relevant for this province in terms of its practical implications, relates to fisheries and where it would fit in any redistribution.

2:20 p.m.

I think it is fair to state, as I perceive the conversations, they were not dissimilar in some respects to those held in February 1979, in the nation’s capital. By and large, this list of items was on that agenda and the various provincial positions were known.

One that is now on the list was on the list in September 1979 only as an idea -- and I am suggesting to the members of the select committee that it perhaps now needs a little more substance to it -- and that is the question of a second House. A number of ideas have been suggested. There are those who feel that the existing Senate should be maintained. The member to the left of the Leader of the Opposition may still wish to get to the Senate some day; I do not know.

Mr. Nixon: I want it abolished.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, the member wants it abolished. Anyway, if he is on the select committee --

Mr. Martel: That’s a new position.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The one on his right might like it.

But maybe this is an area for consideration, and I am just offering a little advice. I do not think there is any point in the select committee getting into a number of permutations and combinations over the question of the resource sector. I think the debate there will not be on ownership of resources, because that is at present part of the constitution. Rather, it could be on the extent to which a national government would have the right, because of compelling national interest -- whatever term one may wish to use -- to make them part of the federal power.

I would like to see the committee move into those areas where positions have not been already well established. We know what the arguments are going to be on those. But as a suggestion, the committee might perhaps tackle some of those areas where some new and creative thinking can be done.

In terms of the activities of the select committee, the list for September 8 is not all-inclusive. There was a general feeling at the meeting yesterday that this was all we could effectively tackle at this stage and there is a great deal yet to be done. I think this could be the subject matter for the select committee as well.

That is a fairly lengthy answer with my impressions of where we are and some of the areas where I expect there will be some rather energetic discussion on September 8. I do not think anything new has emerged. It is a question of the extent to which we can be creative enough to find solutions to the problems on that list that we know are there.

Mr. S. Smith: I thank the Premier for his extensive answer. I recognize that there are certain confidences which he must maintain. May I ask the Premier whether the conversation did get around at all to some of the dollars-and-cents aspects as opposed to the constitutional phrases?

In other words, certain constitutional solutions might be acceptable, provided there were a different system of redistribution of revenues. As an example, Alberta might accept certain constitutional positions if there were certain guarantees of its ability to industrialize and things of that kind. Was there a movement from the constitutional positions themselves to some of these other dollars-and-cents or broader areas at the meeting? If not, does the Premier expect that will eventually occur? Should the select committee be concerning itself with things like distribution of resource revenues and Alberta’s industrial future?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is hard to divorce the economics from some of the basic principles that could find their way into a new constitution. I would not want to venture an opinion as to what other provinces may think or feel on this issue.

I would like to think that we will be dealing with it from a standpoint of a principle and what will work 50 years from now, and not just related to specific economic situations of the day. In my view, the constitution has to include something of a general nature that relates to regional disparities or equalization. The traditional view of British Columbia is that the term “equalization” is not as acceptable to them as say the term “sharing” or “equity.” But I think we should agree on some principle whereby we recognize in an economic sense the more fortunate areas of Canada have a responsibility to share -- which word is not acceptable to some other -- that there is an obligation to make this country work to share in this. I think one accommodates the fact that not just in terms of distribution but, shall we say, in the general principles of the constitution we will have to refer to the question of regional disparities or some form of equalization, whatever term one may wish to use.

Quite frankly, yesterday we didn’t get down to, for example, the debate on the pricing of energy. I mean the pricing of energy per se; the amount that people pay for the price of energy I don’t think will ever find its way, in a constitutional sense, into the constitution. I think it is fair to state that one of our maritime provinces made quite clear that its perception of a new constitution had to take into account its desire to have greater participation in some of the resource sectors to bolster its economy. No argument about that; that will be the point of view of that province and Ontario is not unsympathetic to some aspects of that. But once again it is something that will sort of move out of the discussions that I think will take place.

However, trying to answer as helpfully as I can, we didn’t really get around to what we could call the strict dollars and cents or economic implications. We really dealt more with the process, the areas where we thought we could come to grips with the issues and hope to make some progress.

My hope is that in September it won’t be a case of sitting around the table saying, “We have made progress,” and then adjourning four days later indicating we will get together again in six months’ time. I think the process will go on for a period of time, but I am one of those who hopes that in September there will be, out of those 12 or so issues on the list, eight or 10 where we could reach agreement, where something could take place. That may be too high an expectation, but I would like to see it happen.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I want to welcome the Premier’s statement but also would express some concern about the process by which the opposition parties will be involved in this process in view of the commitment that all three parties made to negotiate a renewed federalism and the desire, certainly of our party, to play a full role.

Could the Premier first assure the House that the statement he made today is not to indicate that the select committee will be put off in a corner studying documents from Quebec and from other parts of the country? Will he undertake that the select committee will have the benefit of full briefing on the process of reform and that it will be enabled to consult with the senior advisers to the government in order that all three parties will have the benefit of that advice?

Would the Premier also undertake to follow the lead of the Prime Minister of Canada? Would he fully brief both me and the leader of the official opposition on the status of yesterday’s talks and on the process of reform as it unfolds over the course of the summer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what process the Prime Minister of Canada has pursued since yesterday. I can only say that I have given the honourable member about as thorough a briefing in the last 10 or 15 minutes as I could if we had been sitting in his office, in the office of the member for Hamilton West or in my own. I really can’t add much more.

In terms of the select committee, I don’t envisage that committee will be studying reports that don’t relate to the agenda items of September 8. There is one agenda item -- I do not have the specific wording, I am not sure what wording the Prime Minister used yesterday because we were working from notes; there was no one else in the meeting at all. I have in my notes here: “a new upper House involving the provinces.” Some will say that is the House of the Provinces; there have been other terms used.

That is not something I think we would study for the next six months or a year. It is on the agenda for September 8. I think that is an area the select committee could very beneficially discuss. I have no fixed views on the subject; I will be very frank about it. Ontario has put the advice from our advisory committee; we have discussed the British Columbia proposal.

Really, the House of the Provinces as envisaged by some is a vehicle whereby the new House, if there is to be a new House, would have greater provincial input in terms of the decision-making process. I think in the minds of some of us, though, it would not be a House that in the long run would be able to say “no” to the House of Commons with regard to some particular policy or piece of legislation it would like to see approved. That is only a point of view, but certainly that is an area where I think the select committee could usefully spend some time and offer some guidance. There are things already there. In the public, there are other examples.

2:30 p.m.

In terms of the ongoing process, our positions on most of these issues are a matter of public knowledge in any event. I would have no reluctance in having the materials that were used at the February 1979 conference brought forward. I think nearly all these items were on the agenda. We discussed them in public, certainly. The select committee should have some discussions with our own officials relative to some aspects of those agenda items.

All I am saying to the leader of the New Democratic Party is that this process will be ongoing. We have a lengthy list for the time involved, but in the whole context it is an incomplete list. I would hope the select committee would not just deal with those items, but would be looking into some of the broader issues that are going to emerge as this process goes on.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Premier spoke about the agenda. Did he and his colleagues talk about a timetable yesterday? Have they set out any time limits within which these negotiations are going to take place? Did they come to any resolution as to when the negotiations will be resolved and there will be something concrete? Or are we going to continue as we have for the last 15 years with first ministers’ conferences and nothing being resolved?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, once again I will not reflect the point of view of others. Perhaps I am safe in not quoting but paraphrasing the Prime Minister in his public observations. I have no reluctance in making my own point of view known, and I thought I had done so earlier. Of the issues on the agenda for September 8, there is none on that list that has not been worked on by the committee of ministers and by first ministers.

As I tried to say to the Leader of the Opposition, on September 8 my hope is we can bring some finality; not finality in terms of the whole process because there are -- I cannot enumerate them for the member -- another 15, 20 or 25 items that will have to go through a process, but finality to a goodly number of those on the list for September 8.

My personal view is that there has to be a sense of urgency. The Premier of Quebec was there and he participated. He said publicly, so I have no hesitation in quoting him, that he will be a part of the process. But I think it is also fair to state that he is sitting back and saying, “We will wait and see what is produced.”

I want to make this point -- and I apologize for taking a little longer, but I think it is very relevant -- I said to the Premier of Quebec, and I happen to believe this, that it is not sufficient to say to the rest of Canada, “I am going to sit back and see what you people produce.” I said to him that I thought it was incumbent upon him, if he is going to participate in the process, to enumerate what he sees from his perspective as being a necessary part of a new constitution with the people of Quebec content within it. I do not think it is fair, logical or sensible for the Premier of Quebec to say,

“Fellows, let’s see what you produce.” I do not mind saying it because I said it to him and I am saying it now publicly: there is an onus on him to share. He has to say what he would like to see in a new constitution, recognizing all of us are committed to the federal concept.

To answer briefly, I do not think there is any sort of guillotine or anything of that nature. My own view is that --

Mr. T. P. Reid: There is a feeling of urgency.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, there is. I would go as far as to say that my sense is if we do not move on some of these things at the September meeting, some first ministers or a first minister may pursue other options.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I want to return to the point I raised before. Because of the accelerated pressure put on the select committee -- that sense of urgency the Premier has spoken of -- I would like the Premier to be a bit more clear about whether it is the government’s intention to have the select committee involved actively in the process of considering the position Ontario will be taking, or whether it is his intention, as seems to be coming from his statement today, that the committee will work purely at arm’s length.

Is it the government’s intention that the committee will simply consider the public documents and statements the government has put forward on behalf of Ontario, perhaps with the benefit of occasional brief encounters with the senior advisers, or is it the government’s intention that the select committee will have the benefit of the advice of the senior advisers to the government as and when it requires it, in order to be able to come up with the best possible kind of position on the issues that the Premier has outlined, which will reflect the views of all three parties in Ontario?

Hen. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member may disagree with my point. If he has, he hasn’t said so. I don’t say this critically, but Ontario’s position on most of the items that are on the agenda for September 8 has been a matter of public record, discussed in public for more than a year and a half. For the purposes of the meeting in September, the member already has them in his possession or in his knowledge. If he hasn’t, it is only because he has had other priorities, because it has all been on the table. I don’t say that critically. There is nothing secret. He has seen it. I am sure he was glued to his TV set whenever it was in 1979.

I am not in any way limiting the activities of the select committee, but I have to make this point: Part of these discussions and activities over the summer will not be in terms of advice to this government, it will be a question of the officials from this government and the ministers dealing on some of the phraseology, some of the give and take as it relates to what they are going to recommend to us as ministers from all across Canada at our meeting in August.

I can’t give the honourable member a commitment that if officials are required in Halifax or somewhere they can be there at the same time as they are sharing their views with the members of the select committee. There are a number of very able people working for this government, but they can only spread themselves so thinly. Is that grammatically correct?

I am not trying to limit it, but I don’t want to lead the member astray either and say we can do all of these things. We have the short time frame for a selected list of items that quite frankly have been in the public domain where members of this House have had great opportunity to express a point of view to me. I haven’t had many. My assumption is that by and large, and I think I am right in this, the honourable member has been supportive of the general position we have taken on most of the items on the agenda.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier with regard to the latest unemployment statistics which have just been released and are somewhat alarming: Is the Premier aware that in the year-over-year statistic from May 1979 to May 1980, there are 68,000 more unemployed people in Canada, but of that total 61,000 are right here in Ontario? Is the Premier not alarmed by the fact that Ontario seems to be by far the hardest hit and the province that is now contributing most to the increase in Canada’s unemployment? Would the Premier be prepared to admit that when things were in pretty good shape in the 1960s and early 1970s, the strategy adopted then was simply insufficient to carry us through the problems that might have been anticipated for the late 1970s and early 1980s?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t had a chance to discuss the figures with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) or the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), but as I read the figures, which I have seen only in the last few moments because I was elsewhere at noon, I sense they do reflect what is happening primarily in the manufacturing sector and in the automotive sector.

With great respect, it is not a question of the policies of this government as they relate to the automotive manufacturing field. If members look at the figures, they will find the big increases were in Windsor, Kitchener--Waterloo, St. Catharines and Niagara, which would be the automotive industry there, and to a certain extent in Hamilton, which would relate as well to some aspects of the automotive industry.

If we look back historically to when we had the last downturn, in 1974 or 1975, which was perhaps not as great -- it is hard to measure yet; we will know better at the end of the month -- when the downturn was taking place in the automotive industry, some of these figures would not be too dissimilar. The figures for Toronto and London -- I guess Talbotville might be included in the London area, I am not sure what the rate of production is in Talbotville -- show that a lot of it does relate to the automotive sector.

2:40 p.m.

That is an issue that gives this government concern, and we are making every effort to assist in it. I think it is also abundantly clear that it relates to a great extent to the economic situation in the United States and the depressed car market there. Our market is still marginally better than theirs.

We are going to go through a depressed period in the automotive field but I am one of those who is quite optimistic that this will turn around. It will turn around with the introduction, I think, of types of vehicles that are more acceptable to consumers and with the reduction, as is happening, of other pressures related to the automotive industry. I do not say it is all automotive, but a lot of it does relate to that industry.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary:

It would appear that the increase over last year is approximately 20 per cent in the young age group and 25 per cent in the so-called prime age group, 25 to 54 years old. It is hard to attribute all of the 61,000 additional unemployed to the automotive industry itself, so could the Premier tell us whether he finally recognizes that the branch plant manufacturing economy, which prospered so well here in the early 1970s, was simply inadequate to the opportunities that the world provided in the latter part of the 1970s and in the early part of the 1980s?

Is he prepared to change that strategy now? Is he prepared to admit that the problems of Ontario go well beyond those of the auto industry? Also, while he is on his feet, will he undertake a massive program of retraining of our young people? It is my understanding that Canada is going to seek to import close to 2,000 skilled workers this year while our own people are unemployed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess we could spend quite a bit of time debating the “branch plant” situation. I only have to look at the figures in the United States -- one can hardly consider that to be a branch plant economy. If the Leader of the Opposition says our automotive industry, on a percentage basis, is suffering more than that of our partner in the industry, I would like to see his figures. The fact is they are not.

I think really there are two separate issues. If he wants to debate philosophically the degree of foreign ownership, that is fair. But I think to single out the automotive industry and say that this is where the basic problem is, it spills over into so many others. From personal knowledge, if car dealers during these months are not selling many automobiles, the young people -- at least in our community, I am not sure about Hamilton -- who are normally taken on during the summer months for odd jobs are not being hired in the same numbers this year. It goes through the whole system and it has an impact.

I would say, not to be at all facetious, that I wouldn’t mind -- and I may live to regret this -- ‘if we had a branch plant, say, of Toyota or Volkswagen, at the moment because they might be selling. I guess it all depends on how the market conditions are. Some of the imported vehicles are still selling relatively well. I answered a member from one of the Windsor ridings about their campaign. I think it is something we should all support -- to remind people that it is in our interest to buy automobiles produced in North America. But I really think it is a mistake to try to relate the problems in the manufacturing sector here, primarily the automotive sector, with respect to branch plants. If we were suffering far more than our American neighbours, that I think would be a more telling argument -- but the reality is we are not.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: now that the Premier has delivered that ringing defence of branch plants, there are those in this party who would like to see the industry of the province owned and operated by Canadians serving Canadian needs instead of having them sold to the rest of the world.

Is the Premier not aware that the 333,000 people out of work in Ontario this past month and the unemployment rate of 7.6 per cent is not just the worst since the recession of 1974 or 1971 or 1958 but is the highest level of unemployment we have had in Ontario since the great Depression of the 1930s? Will the government say when we will start to get a job creation program that puts Ontarians back to work and a strategy to create industry in the province rather than a strategy of watching as industry shuts down?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the leader of the New Democratic Party’s traditional philosophical statement of objectives. That is fine. There will be occasions when we can debate it. But I have to tell the member it was the head of the United Auto Workers who made very strong representations to the government of Canada and the government of Ontario to assist Chrysler Canada Limited. It was not the head of the Canadian Manufacturers Association nor the head of the Ontario Medical Association nor the legal profession. It was the head of the UAW of Canada who called me.

Mr. Laughren: What has that got to do with it?

Mr. Makarchuk: What is so unusual about that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just telling members that he was not raising the branch plant issue. He wanted some assistance because he is a realist and recognized we needed to do something. Please recognize that our reaction is an attempt to help the people. I am not going to get into a philosophical debate; that is not going to solve the problem.

Mr. Foulds: We want to see some concrete action.

Hon. Ms. Davis: Of course you do, but then do not raise the red herring of a branch plant problem.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the Premier not recognize when an increase of 61,000 in unemployment in this year over last year has occurred in this province alone, compared to a total of 68,000 for the whole country, this cannot all be attributed to the automobile industry? Does he have any plans for revitalizing Ontario’s manufacturing industry for the 1980s, which will have to include a change from his branch plant mentality; or is he just going to sit back and allow these 337,000 Ontarians to continue to be unemployed while he waits for an upturn in the auto industry in the United States? Is that what we elect a Premier of Ontario to do, to sit back and wait for an upturn in the US auto industry?

Hon Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have to be very careful not to say anything that could be regarded as an insult because the member for Hamilton. West is very sensitive. I know the figures do not relate totally to the automotive industry. What I am saying is that it has a very significant impact and has a spinoff from the actual production of automobiles to the sale of automobiles, to the servicing of automobiles, to the parts manufacturers and to many others. I think it is fair to state that, unlike him, I do not have a branch plant mentality. I hope I have a fairly stable mentality that does not relate to branch plants.

There is a great contradiction in all of this. I have a letter here to my very distinguished colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman): “Dear Larry: I am writing to you in regard to an interest” -- and I won’t name the plant because that perhaps would be unfair. This gentleman -- actually it is a lady -- is interested “in setting up a branch plant in the Sarnia area. I do hope that we will be able to do as much as we can to encourage the establishment of this branch plant in Ontario.”

That did not come from the member for St. Andrew--St. Patrick; it did not come from the member for Brampton; it did not come from any member on this side of the House. It came from a person I think very highly of, a very nice fellow who does not agree with the member on environmental issues and, quite obviously, does not agree with him on branch plants. It was from the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy).

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary to the first question by the Leader of the Opposition. While the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition solve the problem of who is against or for the branch plant economy and while they solve the problem of how to deal with investments in this province, is the Premier knowledgeable of the fact that de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited will need 3,000 skilled workers when it builds the new DASH-8 plant? In view of the fact that in Ontario right now there is not the available skilled manpower, has the Premier undertaken any communication with the de Havilland people? Does he know whether we are going to have skilled people in Ontario, or are we going to import skilled people when they are needed?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry, I really was trying to listen very carefully. Because of the interjections from others, I must ask, was the member referring to de Havilland, to the DASH-8? It is a great machine. We have ordered two already, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) tells me. We will order a third for the New Democratic Party caucus -- at their expense, out of the caucus budget. My understanding is that when the new plant moves ahead at whatever point in time I am sure we can find sufficient personnel to look after those needs. I think we have, basically, for de Havilland; with great respect, we have for McDonnell Douglas of Canada Limited. I happen to know a lot of them; they reside in my particular constituency.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier about the level of unemployment, about the fact that it is the worst unemployment in 40 years, and about what is happening within the automobile industry.

Is the Premier aware of the fact that in the automobile bumper production sector here in Ontario, Gulf and Western (Canada) Limited has gone from 400 jobs two years ago to only 20 today; that Houdaille Industries of Canada Limited in Oshawa has gone from 650 jobs to 234 today; and that effective October 1, this last remaining major producer of automobile bumpers is going to shut clown in Oshawa and will not have any jobs left at all? Does the government intend to continue this policy of global mandating, which sees the systematic elimination of industries such as these two companies, which were major producers of automobile bumpers in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not. In fact, as a matter of policy we have been encouraging the parts manufacturers to increase their activities here, and up until the very substantial downturn in the market we were having some significant success. I am not going to go through the litany or the debate we have had in this House as to whether the honourable member agrees or disagrees with the development fund providing assistance to the parts manufacturers to increase the amount of production. That is our policy. It would be very helpful if the members opposite were to support it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Would the Premier be prepared to put the number of jobs created against the number of jobs that are now being eliminated because of shut downs in Ontario? There were 200 at Beach Appliances International Limited, the stove plant in Ottawa, and 200 were announced at Canadian General Electric Company Limited in Peterborough, in its wire and cable division, just this week; 650 jobs are being eliminated at Firestone at a time when the federal government is encouraging a competing plant to open up in Nova Scotia; 1,500 jobs are being eliminated in the iron ore industry in Capreol and in Atikokan, and 650 jobs at Houdaille Industries of Canada Limited; there were another 200 jobs at Pedlar Beatty Farm Equipment in Whitby, and 300 jobs in --

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question there someplace?

Mr. Cassidy: My question is this: How long is this government going to stand aside with no job creation programs as plant after plant, factory after factory, is shut down in Ontario? When is the Premier going to call a stop to it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Instead of using all of those particular statistics, I will just give the member one, which he likes to forget. No one is denying the fact that there is an economic problem at the moment, and I say with respect it is primarily related to the automotive industry, but not totally.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am saying primarily, not totally. Brantford is not related to the automotive industry but to another type of vehicle, if I can phrase it that way.

Please go back in history just five months. Taking the total figures in 1979 as to job creation in Ontario, the member can read off all the figures he likes, but the reality is we created 166,000 new job opportunities in the province, a figure the member doesn’t like to understand and never gives any credit for, and I don’t expect it. But the people of this province do understand it.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the Premier’s high profile in Ottawa in the constitutional talks, and the fact that the Gardiner Expressway looks like Tokyo with all the Mitsubishi signs, foreign appliances and cars, whatever there is down there, and in view of his branch plant economy and the federal government’s approach to unemployment, why doesn’t the Premier carry a strong message to Ottawa and say that its foreign policy stinks and so does the Premier’s branch plant economy? Why doesn’t he get it across at those talks that unemployment -- who is the Premier going to listen to, Grossman or me?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In answer to that question, if I had a choice I would much prefer to listen to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Mr. Sargent: That guy talks from both sides of his mouth, and the Premier wants to listen to him.

Why doesn’t the Premier get it across to Ottawa that we are concerned about unemployment in Ontario and that we have to have a better foreign policy than we have today?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m looking to see if I got a letter from the member for Grey-Bruce asking me to support a branch plant of one of the glass companies in Owen Sound, but I don’t happen to have my hands on that yet. It may just come to me at some time.

Mr. Sargent: The Premier refused to give them one cent. He wouldn’t give one penny to the glass plant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ve just proved my point. Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the Premier can throw out all the statistics he wants about the new jobs he’s created, but the fact of the matter is that today there are 337,000 people in Ontario unemployed.

The supplementary question I want to ask the Premier is, while we do have problems in the automobile industry, does he not realise that the jobs will not turn around in that sector of the economy until the plants in this province are retooled? Layoffs have taken place at Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited in Oakville and in Windsor, and the other major automobile makers are not retooling their plants in Ontario. We’re not getting our fair share of investment. We’re getting the traditional five per cent, which is half of what our market represents.

When is the Premier going to do something about getting our fair share of new retooling?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the industry is. I’m not as familiar with Windsor as I am with Brampton, but American Motors at this moment is retooling --

Mr. Cooke: We are not getting our fair share, so don’t give us that garbage.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member want to listen to my answer or does he just want to shout?

Mr. Cooke: That is garbage.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does he want to listen to my answer, or does he just want to be rude and shout across the House?

Mr. Cooke: It is not rude at all.

Mr. McClellan: Did he hurt your feelings?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just asked. Does the member want me to answer?

lnterjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Tell them when they are at the next cabinet meeting.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton West is talking about cabinet meetings. I was going to observe to him that he will never know what it’s like to be at a cabinet meeting, but I won’t.

Mr. S. Smith: The member for Ottawa Centre knows.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Ottawa Centre? The only cabinet meeting -- well, I won’t say what I was going to say.

Mr. Nixon: He knows. He knew about your labour bill before the Tory caucus did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And you’re going to vote for it? The member for Rainy River has to vote for it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I see. You may all vote for it. Your relatives would turn in their graves.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a response to the supplementary from the member for Windsor-Riverside?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the auto industry is in fact retooling. As I say, I happen to know about American Motors. Their decision was to retool. I forget the exact vehicles, but I think it is the four-wheel-drive Eagle station wagon, which is the finest station wagon that will be made in Brampton.

3 p.m.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is right. It is the only one; that is why it can be the finest. But they are retooling. I just use them as one example, for models that have been best sellers in the American market. That has been their response to it.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Premier is aware that retooling will require new, advanced skills. To develop these skills we will either have to go through our educational system or use immigration. In the light of the fact that the Ministry of Education or Colleges and Universities has approved a $2-million grant for the development of a resource centre in the city of Windsor that will not be in operation for approximately 18 months, in the meantime, why does the Premier not consider using the programs we had during the war years? We used our school system for the development of new skills, using the schools between four o’clock in the afternoon and midnight, and midnight and eight o’clock in the morning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, can I tell you once again the experience I have in a more limited area? That is, when the local community councils have been established, as they have in our own area, there is nothing to preclude them -- and I am sure they are prepared to, if it makes sense -- from sitting down with Peel County Board of Education and saying, “We need Brampton Centennial High School for useful purposes from four o’clock Monday to Friday on any given day of the week, or from six o’clock until nine o’clock or midnight.”

The local school authorities, in my view, have been very responsive. If the community group can put together the kinds of training programs that are relevant, primarily in those schools with shop facilities, the school boards of this province will respond.

The member has some influence with these people. If he thinks that something useful can be done at Walkerville Collegiate secondary school -- I am not sure that they have shops there; the last time I was there they did not. But there are schools in Windsor that have this ability. Some of the post-secondary institutions do. There is no limitation on the physical plant that can be made available for any retraining program.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education about the mandatory special education bill being debated this afternoon, and about the need for adequate funding for special education now it is being made an obligation for all school boards across the province.

Could the minister explain why last fall her ministry was looking for $17 million in funding to implement the commitment to mandatory special education in its first year, but the government is only providing $7.5 million, that is, less than half the amount the ministry said it needed just a few months ago? How does the minister account for the disparity? What assurance can we have from the minister that there will be adequate provincial funding for the new special education obligations the school boards are undertaking?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the leader of the third party is aware that in addition to the amounts provided on a per pupil basis to the school system for students with special education problems, the province provides an additional $120 million at this time.

The additional $7.5 million funding being provided this year is to remove the time lag in order to encourage boards that in the past may have been somewhat reluctant to introduce new special education activities to do that, so they may be funded concurrently with the introduction of the program.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister not aware that the removal of the time lag, which was seen as a possible obstacle to school boards starting on special education, was only one of the priorities identified by the ministry just a few short months ago? Is the minister not aware that at that time she or her ministry recommended there be an additional $4 million to remove the maximum on the weighting factor and $8 million for program enrichment, both of which were also deemed essential as means of ensuring that special education was provided to every child who needed it in the province? What happened to those particular priorities? Why are the Ministry of Education and the government shortchanging the children of Ontario who should be entitled to special education now it is being made mandatory?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member would kindly read the legislation he would understand that we have responded very directly to the concerns that were expressed by boards of education, by the teachers, by the administrative officials of the education community and by a number of parental groups about the need to ensure we have the appropriate number of people trained, the appropriate mechanisms established to introduce further expansion of the program and the appropriate examination of community resources to ensure the right kind of co-ordination of those resources. In that response, we have modified the way in which the legislation was to be introduced.

It was specifically in response to the concerns they had expressed that the program was modified, the legislation was modified and, as a result of that modification, the amount that is necessary this year has in fact been provided.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that according to the estimates we have had from the educational administrators, the $75 million that the minister has promised the program will get at maturity is anywhere between about $20 million and $40 million short of what will be required as the province’s share in order to ensure that special education will be provided for the children in the province who need it? Will the minister give an unqualified assurance to the Legislature that adequate funds will be available if the needs happen to exceed the $75 million, which is all that she has been prepared to commit up until now?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that $75 million is, of course, in addition to the funds that would be provided through the ordinary weighting factor mechanism, which the honourable member chooses to ignore at this time. I am not aware of the specific statement the honourable member has quoted but I shall certainly examine it. Since I do not have any great mathematical capacity myself, I will turn it over to those within the ministry who do have that capacity to ensure that the prediction is either accurate or inaccurate.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, one does not need an official to make a commitment. If I could ask a final supplementary: Can we have an unqualified assurance from the minister that the province will not cut back on the funds required in order to fulfil the commitment of special education for every child who needs it in the province? That is the commitment we need, not from an official or some functionary in the Ministry of Education but from this minister speaking on behalf of the government of Ontario.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the government in this province has made a greater commitment to special education for every child in this province who requires it than any other government on this continent. We made that commitment earlier and more effectively than any other jurisdiction. That commitment will continue.

TOWNSEND SITE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that the information centre for the Townsend town site was financed by the province and the taxpayers, and that the hydro bills are being paid for the beautiful signs erected to designate the town-site area, would the minister consider using that information centre to provide assistance to the home builders in the area to sell their homes, taking into consideration the high financial costs and the financial burden on those existing builders?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, once again we are into this question of whether this House expects the Ontario Land Corporation to operate on a private basis, the same as any other private company. The investment that has been put into that information centre is obviously part of the development costs and will be laid off against the costs of developing the land, whether it be for industrial purposes or for residential purposes.

While the member has a concern for the other developers in the area, I have not had such a request from the development industry nor have I had any kind of offer from others in the development industry that we should participate with them in their information centres. So at this moment I am not prepared to take it under consideration.

Mr. C. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, if I made that request to the Minister of Housing on behalf of the builders in the area, would the minister give that consideration on their behalf?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: Why would the minister say in Simcoe a week ago Saturday that he was opening up the throttle on development for Townsend, not cutting it back, when he already has about $45 million invested in land and other services down there? There are already 1,000 or more private serviced lots for sale in the area and his best efforts have just sold a handful of lots. Actually the last report was only 11.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, I was not in Simcoe on Saturday; I was there on the Friday at the conclusion of the Commonwealth conference.

Mr. Nixon: Did the minister take the government jet to fly down?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: May I indicate clearly to this House that it was not by chartered jet, and the province of Ontario does not own a jet. The minister did travel by a chartered propeller-driven aircraft to that particular site to bring the province of Ontario’s position at the conclusion of the Commonwealth conference that was held, and I would hope respectfully, in the member’s particular constituency.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I don’t know whether the Minister of Housing is complaining because we don’t have a jet, but if that is his point of privilege, it is well taken.

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Does the minister recall our discussion in the Ministry of Labour estimates of December 11, 1979, and December 13, 1979, when he, Dr. May and Mr. Heath assured members that the seven toxic substances that were first gazetted in the summer of 1978, namely noise, lead, mercury, vinyl chloride, silica, isocyanates and asbestos, would be ready for gazetting for the second time in January for three of them -- lead, mercury and noise -- and perhaps two or three months later for the balance? The actual quote was, “But we are ready now to start the gazetting of regulations. Can you comment on that, Dr. May?” There is further direct comment.

Can the minister tell us what has happened? Why, as of last Friday, had his advisory committee received nothing, with no action within six months of the promised date, and with none of the toxic substances scheduled for 1979-80 or 1980-81 gazetted for even the first time? Can the minister not understand the feeling or the suspicion that he may have misled members of the committee?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows me better than to think I would deliberately try to mislead him or to mislead the committee. There has been some unavoidable delay in getting the particular substances published for regulation, but I may tell him I have been pursuing that actively over the past two weeks and I would expect that notification would be forthcoming on all of those substances within the next two or three weeks.

I may tell him there have been some technical difficulties. He may recall that at the time of the first gazetting of those substances in the summer of 1978, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1978, had not yet become law, and indeed there was some doubt as to its eventual course. We were faced with a legal dilemma in that we had not complied with the act as it now stands, but we are setting about to correct those problems and I can assure the member we will be proceeding forthwith.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: The minister specifically told us in the middle of December that some of them would have the second gazetting in January and the balance, as I say, in February, March or at the latest April. He also gave us a list of nine substances for 1979-80 and eight for 1980-81. What would have prevented him from at least gazetting those the first time, inasmuch as it obviously takes two years to get through the first gazetting, in spite of the general rule of thumb of a 120-day time frame?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the member, not being involved in the actual process and in the form of the regulations, might think it is an easy process, but it is not. I do apologize because there has been some delay. I am satisfied that it has not been due to any deliberate intention. I may say clearly that my staff will look upon endeavours now to proceed with due haste and with some degree of interest.

CONSOLIDATED COMPUTER INC.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the question raised in the House last Thursday by the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) concerning Consolidated Computer Inc. The financial difficulty faced by the company over the past year has resulted in a net loss for the year of close to $10 million. The government of Ontario, through the Ontario Development Corporation, has a 16 per cent interest consisting of 2.8 million shares in Consolidated Computer Inc. In addition, guarantees and a line of credit financing export activities provided by the ODC represent assistance amounting to $5.6 million.

The aid has not been provided without careful consideration. It has recognized the considerable contribution of the company in developing and marketing abroad Canadian technological expertise, as well as its important present and future employment significance.

None the less, its current financial situation has required that the government reassess its contribution and the company’s potential for long-term viability. In this connection, our representative on the board of CCI, along with staff from ODC, has been working closely with company management, representatives of the federal government, which is the major shareholder in CCI, and representatives of Fujitsu Limited, a Japanese-based technology company with a 25 per cent interest in the company, to develop together a solution to the short-term and longer-term problems faced by the company.

It is my understanding that these meetings have produced some promising results, and we are hopeful the jobs and the important technological capabilities of this company will not be lost. None the less, it would at this time be inappropriate, and I think premature, for me to discuss the details of the proposed package. I think we will be able to provide the member with some more detail very shortly.

The member has referred to the role played by Fujitsu Limited in the overall development of CCI. I simply want to assure the member that the relationship between Fujitsu and CCI is an important and attractive one. Fujitsu Limited is one of the world’s largest computer manufacturers outside the US. The Japanese investment in CCI has provided the company with vital linkages to foreign technology and products. Fujitsu’s position is not one of control. Its holdings represent only about one quarter of the equity, compared to a 65 per cent federal-provincial interest, nor is CCI simply a vehicle for overseas research and development. It is a key component of an international network of high technology companies. This year CCI anticipates spending in its own right more than $3 million on R and D.

Fujitsu’s involvement, far from limiting the growth of CCI, has given it access to added technology and the ability to manufacture and market more, not fewer, products. Specifically, the company has been given a mandate to adapt and manufacture for the North American and European market the Inagi II micro-computer in co-operation with Fujitsu. Other high technology products are being sought as well. Development along these lines will enable the company to capitalize on its past success in penetrating export markets for its key-edit desk data-entry product lines.

Despite the company’s immediate financial problems, the mandate provided by Fujitsu holds some promise for longer-term success at CCI. I am hopeful that ongoing discussions will result in the maintenance of this important component of our technological capabilities in Ontario. I will report to the House further as the discussions continue.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CANADIAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT ACT

Mr. Williams moved first reading of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting Canadian School of Management.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Roy moved first reading of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

BRANTFORD BILL

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Since the introduction of bills has been completed, I wonder if the government House leader can explain how he is going to introduce the bill dealing with the city of Brantford and the township of Brantford and hold committee hearings, as I understand he has promised to do, now we are so late into the session? Can be explain to the House why there has been this delay and if he is thinking of dividing the bill so that the parts dealing with freezing of development in the township might be dealt with in the fall?

Hon. Mr. Wells: In answer to that, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to bringing in the bill, I hope, later this week, and I am looking at ways of instituting some procedure so we will be able to consider the bill over the recess period and yet not interfere with the process that is there. I would be happy to talk to my friend about it.

Mr. Nixon: Is the minister going to divide the bill?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not sure how we are going to do it yet but it is not a short bill and it has taken a while for legal counsel and legislative people to get it ready for introduction into the House.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I wonder if I might have unanimous consent to revert to motions.

Agreed to.

MOTION

COMMITITEE MEETING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on social development be authorized to visit the Ontario Educational Communications Authority in Toronto on Thursday, June 12, and that the provisions of section 66 of the Legislative Assembly Act be not applicable.

Motion agreed to.

100TH BIRTHDAY OF THOMAS P. MURRAY

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the members for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) and York South (Mr. MacDonald) celebrated their 25th year in this Legislature.

Today I want to bring to the attention of this House and all its members another very special event. Today, June 10, is the 100th birthday of Mr. Thomas P. Murray who was a member of this Legislature from October 30, 1929, until June 1945, a period of almost 16 years. We all know his grandson is the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway).

Yesterday both members mentioned that when they were elected there were taunts from this side of the House that they were only overnight guests. Somehow they brought their sleeping bags with them and stayed a long, long while. Mr. Murray was, I believe, elected by a scant 77 votes and I am sure there were similar remarks at that time, but he remained for almost 17 years.

Mr. Murray is well known throughout the province. He is a sports-minded person, a great conservationist, a fine gentleman and a great Canadian. I am sure all members of this House, along with his grandson and myself, would like to extend to him today very special congratulations and best wishes on this very unique event.

Mr. Nixon: Because of the well-known reticence of the present member for Renfrew North, I want to rise to speak on behalf of my Liberal colleagues in support of what the honourable member for Renfrew South has just put before us. Certainly we want to join with all of the good wishes that possibly can be directed towards the gentleman who has had a distinguished career in this province. He founded the Murray Lumber Company, which is still working extensively in the area, and has earned the respect and support of the community at large.

Mr. Murray, with his large family of people who have been involved in business and in politics, as the honourable members well know, has also provided a great example to all of us as a man who has lived his century involved in the affairs of the community with great commitment to his family, and a person whom we honour in this House for having been a member here, in the great palmy Liberal days, in support of Mitch Hepburn when there was so much development in the Renfrew area that has been lapsing in recent days. We wish him many more years of happiness, health and interest in the community.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the same position today as I did the other day when commenting on the appointment of the new Lieutenant Governor. I do not know the gentleman nearly as well as do the previous two speakers, but I am sure that he has served his constituents and the people of Ontario well. We in this party want to wish him, as did the previous speaker, many more years of health and happiness.

I must enter a slightly partisan note: I certainly hope the present member for Renfrew North does not have as long a parliamentary career.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs re: amendment to the committee’s order of reference.

Report adopted.

MONTREAL TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA ACT

Mr. Renwick, on behalf of Mr. McCaffrey, moved second reading of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada.

Motion agreed to.