Hansard Transcripts 1981-Nov-16 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Renwick: I rise on a matter of privilege as a member of this assembly to dissociate myself from the accord reached by the first ministers at the constitutional conference which concluded on November 5. I do so with regret but for a number of reasons. Whatever the federal nature of Canada may be -- historically, constitutionally and politically -- it does not permit the isolation of the government and National Assembly of Quebec. It is unacceptable to me that the first ministers unanimously agreed to delete from the charter the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the member for Riverdale wishes to express a point of view on the constitution he has every right to do so. Frankly, many of us would be very interested in his point of view; I have great respect for my friend from Riverdale. I do not, however, see that he has, in any way, been associated with the constitutional accord. Therefore I do not see why he should rise on a matter of privilege to dissociate himself from something.

I honestly feel that all of us could make speeches on a number of topics -- and perhaps do from time to time. But this is not a genuine matter of privilege. It is -- and I say this very sincerely -- a matter of interest. But it is not a matter of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think it is a matter of great concern to the member, although I would not rule it a point of privilege, with all respect.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if I could finish my statement, that would be sufficient.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think you have made your point and I think we all recognize --

Mr. Renwick: I have not made my point, Mr. Speaker. If you would listen to the balance of my statement then perhaps you could rule whether my privileges have been affected.

Mr. Speaker: I think, with all respect, you are representing a point of view. That really does not breach your privilege; your privileges have not been breached in any way.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond to the question of whether my privileges have been affected or not, the constitutional accord that has been agreed by the first ministers was not at any time a matter that was referred to this assembly. I had no opportunity with respect to a debate or a discussion to put the points I want to make. As a matter of my privilege as a member of the assembly, as I will state in my very brief comments, I want to have that privilege respected in the assembly and have the opportunity to complete my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Your privileges, of course, will be respected along with all other members, but I would respectfully submit that your personal privileges have not been breached in any way.

Before proceeding with the routine proceedings, I would ask all honourable members to join with me in welcoming guests in the Speaker's gallery from the New Brunswick Legislature: The Honourable Gerald Merrithew, Minister of Commerce and Development and government House leader, and the Honourable Malcolm N. MacLeod, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling for the honourable members the most recent report on the Niagara River which has been prepared by the staff of my ministry and Environment Canada under the Canada-Ontario agreement on Great Lakes water quality. The report, entitled The Environmental Baseline Report of the Niagara River, November 1981, Update, concludes that less than one per cent of trace metals and organic contaminants in the Niagara River are from sources on the Canadian side of the river. Canadian and Ontario surveillance activity indicates that the Niagara River is a continuous source of numerous metals and organic compounds to Lake Ontario.

Let me first put this report and our situation into perspective, if I might. As I have stated in the past, based on my ministry's monitoring and testing programs, treated water supplies serving Niagara-on-the-Lake, Niagara Falls and Fort Erie meet federal and provincial criteria for drinking water. The water supplies for these communities remain safe and this report confirms it. However, I do continue to be concerned about the potential long-term effect of loadings of metals and organic contaminants from the United States sources to the Niagara River at existing levels.

The federal and provincial governments are seeking assurances from the US government and the state of New York that effective abatement programs and containment of pollution sources will be greatly accelerated. With that perspective, I would like to review some of the highlights of the report. The scientists who prepared the report found that 12 municipal waste water treatment plants and 89 industrial facilities are licensed by the state of New York to discharge their effluents to the Niagara River and its tributaries. Numerous other industrial operations discharge to the river but do so via municipal waste water treatment plants, which eliminates the need for individual permit requirements.

In 1979, a report from the state of New York indicated there are 215 chemical waste dumps in Niagara and Erie counties. At least four of these waste sites have leaked in the past and continue to leach toxic contaminants into the Niagara River. These sites are the Love Canal, Hyde Park, 102nd Street and the Hooker "S" Area. Two of New York state's waste water treatment plants, those at Buffalo and Niagara Falls, continue to have serious operational difficulties and as a result fail to meet effluent standards.

It is estimated in our updated report that the total US point source discharges exceed Canadian discharges by more than one billion litres per day. Approximately 1.5 billion litres of US discharges enter the river in comparison with about .236 billion from the Canadian sources. US discharges account for more than six times the Canadian discharges to the Niagara River.

2:10 p.m.

In contrast, there are 19 municipal and industrial sources of discharge from the Canadian side of the river. All the discharges from the Canadian side are treated and meet the standards or are under control programs designed to bring them to the required levels.

In 1979 my ministry began a comprehensive investigation of abandoned waste sites throughout the province. Studies of these abandoned sites in the Niagara area and the ministry's ongoing programs of monitoring work sites indicates no problems from contaminants entering the Niagara River from Ontario sources.

Environment Ontario has been engaged in monitoring and surveillance of the Niagara River since the early 1950s. Drinking water supplies have been tested for primary pollutants since the formation of the Ontario Water Resources Commission, the predecessor of my ministry.

In the late 1970s the ministry began specific monitoring programs for some of the more recently detectable contaminants in drinking water for Ontario communities taking their water from the Niagara River. As I said, it has been established that the drinking water in these communities remains safe. However, as a result of monitoring under the Great Lakes water quality agreement the Niagara River has been identified by the water quality board of the International Joint Commission as a problem area.

In a series of diplomatic notes dating back to 1979, the government of Canada has advised the government of the United States of its concerns regarding water quality problems in the Niagara River. Specifically, these concerns included the operational problems of the Niagara Falls waste water treatment plant, the proposal to expand SCA Waste Services Incorporated and the security of abandoned waste disposal sites.

The US State Department has assured the Canadian embassy the United States would respect the obligations undertaken in article 4 of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 to the effect that: "Boundary waters shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other."

This situation will be a major issued discussed when the Premier (Mr. Davis) and I meet with Governor Carey of New York state in a meeting for which the agenda and timing are now being finalized.

The honourable John Roberts and I will continue to urge the International Joint Commission to use its considerable influence in pressing for abatement and containment of pollution sources from the United States side of the river as an urgent environmental priority.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN REPORT

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to table the seventh annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on the Status of Women. This report outlines the varied activities and recommendations of the council over the past year. Reflected in this document is the interest and enthusiasm of the committed men and women who make up this advisory body.

Present in the gallery today are the council's chairman, Lynne Gordon, and the vice-chairman, Linda Silver Dranoff. These women have made vital contributions to their council. I would ask members to join me in showing appreciation for the hard work of those who make up the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MASSEY-FERGUSON LAYOFFS

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Treasurer. The Treasurer is undoubtedly aware that Massey-Ferguson has announced a further layoff of 1,750 employees just two short weeks after laying off 600 and that this layoff is another by a string of manufacturers who have laid off people. Between January and August of 1981, we have McDonnell Douglas, 1,000 people; National Steel Car, 574; International Harvester, 334, de Havilland, 214; Millhaven Fibres, 250 and now we have had Canadian Admiral, 1,700; Budd Canada, 498; and the list goes on and on.

This pattern of decline which has taken over the northeastern United States has spilled over into Ontario. Does the Treasurer not believe the time not only is here but has been here for some time to adopt an industrial strategy that will allow Ontario to develop in the new manufacturing areas that have, perhaps, a better future than some of those that are in decline? Does he not believe measures are needed to help our traditional industries as well? And does he not feel the time has come to actually do something to make Ontario once again a centre of economic growth rather than just express concern each time thousands of workers are laid off?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on the specific layoff that precipitated the question by the Leader of the Opposition, I believe the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) intends to be in here shortly and will be making some comments or answering some questions about it.

In terms of strategy in general, it is intriguing to me the honourable member now should be crying for something when I believe he has opposed just about everything we have done. I refer, for example, to our efforts to assist the pulp and paper industry to remain competitive and to assist companies in the industrial sector, as well as the Board of Industrial and Leadership Development strategy we put forward.

Mr. Smith: The Treasurer seems incapable of discerning the difference between giveaways to highly-profitable companies and a genuine industrial strategy to develop the new manufacturing industries that will have a future in the world of today and the world of tomorrow. May I ask him how he justifies to himself the spending of $650 million in an industry that is not even Ontarian in the hope of making speculative profits in the oil industry in Alberta rather than using that money to help develop the new manufacturing industries, the high-technology industries, the resource equipment industries and the new types of auto parts industries?

Why is he not using the money here in Ontario to create new jobs so that those who lose in the traditional industries will have other jobs to go to and will not have to go to Alberta, "where the action is"? Does he agree with Duncan Allan, that to speak of the days when Ontario had a great economy is "irrelevant nostalgia"?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We have done both, and I am afraid the Leader of the Opposition does not want to recognize that. We have developed a strategy that will help the new industries, as he has called them. We suggested in the BILD document that we should put a lot of emphasis on high-technology industries. We recommended the creation of three centres for research and development and innovative assistance. We have been doing work on those through the BILD committee, and I am sure we will be seeing the fruits of those labours before long.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: 1,750 workers at Massey-Ferguson are losing their jobs and have been told they will go back to work some time in February without a definite date. Many of those workers do not even qualify for unemployment insurance because they only went back to work a few weeks ago. Will the Treasurer say what steps the government has in mind to provide some form of emergency assistance for those workers? Or is it the government's view they now should be victims of the recession and go on welfare?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said earlier. The Minister of Industry and Tourism will be discussing the specific question of Massey-Ferguson when he comes in.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer not consider this an appropriate time to bring forward a program of interest rate assistance, similar to that which is already in force in most other provinces, to assist the farmers in opening up a market for the products of the Massey-Ferguson manufacturing plant, particularly combines? Could we not support our farmers in a way similar to that which has already had some experience in other provinces and similar to the commitment made by the Premier (Mr. Davis) back in 1975?

Now that we know the initiatives coming forward from Ottawa -- such as they are -- this is an appropriate time for Ontario to support our farmers and thereby support the manufacturing capability in the Brantford plant.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, whether the honourable member thinks our actions were adequate or not we have put in some $40 million to $45 million so far this year.

Mr. Nixon: That didn't help the situation.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It helps somebody who buys equipment; I hope we will both accept that. The first problem of many farmers this year in certain sectors, such as beef and pork, was simply to survive a year. I am afraid in a year that one is surviving, keeping up the mortgage payments or reducing the bank loans, admittedly the purchase of capital equipment is not always high on the list. That is not true of all the commodities produced. The member knows as well as I do that a good chunk of the machinery produced by Massey-Ferguson is not even sold in Canada, let alone in Ontario.

We do not have a sales tax in Ontario on that equipment. I hope the member accepts that --

Mr. Nixon: We never had.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We had the prescience not to have one.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I like that word.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You take credit for the 10 commandments too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I only wrote eight of them so I cannot really say --

Mr. T. P. Reid: You broke all 10 of them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just nine.

One thing I was glad to see in the federal budget -- although I cannot, as yet, assess the value of the impact -- was that small business development bonds were being extended. In fact, they will apply to the purchase of capital equipment should a farmer wish to do so. That would get him his interest at almost half the current prime rate.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation regarding the McMichael Canadian Collection. Can the minister explain to this House why he or people in his ministry are circulating a draft bill called an Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Collection Act? In it the effect of the major clause 5 will take an agreement signed by John Robarts and the McMichaels in 1965, the basis for the McMichael conservation collection of art, and render that agreement retroactively void and of no effect.

Why would the government of Ontario now wish to invalidate an agreement signed in the year 1965 -- in good faith, one presumes -- to set up this great boon to Ontario, the McMichael Canadian Collection? It has had more visitors than any other gallery in Canada, with the exception of the King Tut exhibition.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, the planned legislation the Leader of the Opposition is talking about will be introduced in due course in this House. At that time I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will have all kinds of opportunity to debate the issues. I would simply like to say at this point, however, that this government certainly has no intent whatever to renege on any agreements made and reached with Robert and Signe McMichael. But in due course we will have all kinds of opportunity to express very clearly our intentions on the amendment to the present McMichael bill which dates to 1974.

Mr. Smith: The bill does date to 1972 and received proclamation in 1973. It was suggested by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) at that time that the very agreement of 1965 be included as a schedule to the act so that it would be clear future governments would be bound by it. The minister at the time, Mr. McNie, said that was the intention of the act; there was no need to include it because it was the intention to be bound by the agreement. Why would the minister now consider a draft act to totally invalidate the agreement?

Please forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I am lengthy on this but it is a complex matter. When the minister rises to his feet to answer, would he also tell us why he asked Mr. McMichael for his resignation, following certain allegations made about Mr. McMichael on A.Y. Jackson drawings, on west coast Indian artefacts, Mclsaac donations from the west coast as well and on the Blunden Harbour totem pole? Has the minister now seen the refutations to those somewhat scurrilous allegations made about Mr. McMichael? Does he in any way regret having asked Mr. McMichael so quickly for his resignation?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, at no time and at no place did we ever ask for Mr. McMichael's resignation. I think the Leader of the Opposition should understand that perfectly well. Mr. McMichael tendered his resignation because he wished to serve in a different capacity as the full-time daily director of the collection, and for very understandable reasons.

I would like to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker. We did not ask for Mr. McMichael's resignation. I would hope the Leader of the Opposition would also correct the record and make that very clear.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, and will the minister please answer directly: Is it the intention of the government to terminate the agreement between the government of Ontario and Mr. and Mrs. McMichael as of April 2, 1973, as is provided in the draft bill which has not been presented into the House but which is available?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I would simply reiterate it is not the intention of this government to renege on anything that was agreed to. The spirit of the whole thing was agreed to in 1965, and again in the legislation that was introduced in 1972 and took effect in 1974. Certainly we will be able to debate this more fully when the legislation comes before this House. In the interim I want to stress, repeat and emphasize that it is not the intention of this government to in any way welsh, or walk out or renege in any way on any agreements made with the McMichaels.

We too, over here, recognize the value of this collection. We certainly have no intention of changing the spirit of the agreement entered into in 1965 and then enshrined in legislation in 1972 to take effect in 1974.

Mr. Smith: The minister says he never did ask Mr. McMichael for his resignation. I want to make clear the issue is not Mr. McMichael's resignation, because that is a fait accompli. But could the minister explain how it is that when I was on the telephone with Mr. McMichael some 30 minutes ago he told me that two days after the accusations were circulated about him on the subjects I have just outlined the minister spoke with him and said, "Bob, you had better resign." Mr. McMichael said, "Well, I really do not know that I should. I can refute these, but it is going to take me a long time to get the information." The minister said, "I have spoken with Mr. Davis." He did not say Mr. Davis was alleged to have said he should resign -- I want to be clear on that -- but simply, "I have spoken with Mr. Davis." Mr. McMichael then said, "I thought that was pretty serious so I agreed to resign."

I want to know why he would tell me that if it is not so? Has the minister looked at the refutations Mr. McMichael has drawn up to the allegations and does he find them convincing?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I am pleased to note the Leader of the Opposition referred to these as scurrilous allegations and that it is scuttlebutt. They are rumours and certainly I do not think we would do Mr. McMichael or Mrs. McMichael or that gallery any service in this House if we were to conjecture only on allegations that may have been picked up in the press. For that reason, I really do not think we should be continuing this debate and work on these suppositions at this time.

CANADIAN ADMIRAL

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Premier, with respect to the workers at Canadian Admiral who lost their jobs a week and a half ago.

Last week in the Legislature, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) said successive Ministers of Labour since 1975 have been urging the federal government to provide for greater protection for the wages of workers in respect of bankruptcies and insolvencies. Would the Premier tell the House if that is government policy? And if that is government policy, what steps is the government prepared to take in Ontario to also give workers greater protection in the event of a company going out of business?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think we have debated this on one or two other occasions and the Minister of Labour indicated what representations had been made to the government of Canada. I think the leader of the New Democrats is aware that bankruptcy provisions are federal in nature and that it would be impossible for a provincial jurisdiction to deal with this --

Mr. Renwick: The company isn't in bankruptcy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, insolvency or whatever term one may wish to use.

Mr. Foulds: There is a big difference.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect, the basic issue is very similar. The minister made it clear this is a matter for federal jurisdiction, not for a particular province.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The company has recently been taken over by its bankers, and the bankers and bond holders are jostling for control. However, it has not gone into bankruptcy and is not under federal legislation and is therefore still acting under the laws of this province. Is the government prepared to make the necessary changes in an amendment to the Employment Standards Act so those workers can get their pay in lieu of notice -- any back pay that is owed them, their holiday pay and the severance to which they are entitled before and not after the bond holders and other banks and so on are served?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that sort of commitment. I have some personal knowledge of the Canadian Admiral situation because, although it is located in Mississauga, a number of people who work there are constituents of mine. I think the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) made it very clear last week -- I was here for his answer -- that the ministry is working very hard to find an ultimate longer-term solution for the employees at Admiral. A solution is not going to materialize within the next two or three weeks, but the ministry feels some degree of optimism that some solutions can be found.

I cannot give an undertaking with respect to the legislation proposed by the leader of the New Democrats.

Mr. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the Premier look into a matter that is perhaps relatively minor but is none the less very troubling to the employees of Admiral? That is the matter of having their appliances repossessed because what they thought was an instalment plan is now suddenly a demand for a lump-sum payment? In the event some of these employees have difficulty raising the lump sum at a financial institution will the government of Ontario consider assisting them so they can keep their appliances during this difficult time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the minister has not already started this I am quite prepared to look into it.

Mr. Kennedy: Final supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Under the Bankruptcy Act employee benefits and wages are not secured but preferred creditors fall into that category. Successive Ministers of Labour have discussed these pieces of legislation with the federal government. Will the Premier discuss with his Minister of Labour the possibility of approaching Ottawa to request again that they deal with this situation in order to raise employee benefits to the position of secured creditors?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I will be delighted to discuss this with the Minister of Labour.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, concerning the impact of interest rates on farmers in the province. The Treasurer will be aware that over the weekend the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food estimated the farmers in the province who are affected by high interest rates, far from being just one per cent, in fact control eight or nine per cent of the food production in Ontario. Almost one farm acre in 10 is therefore affected by the interest rate crisis.

What action is the government prepared to take, particularly when the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food has judged that the federal government's aid to farmers is nothing but cosmetic action? The action under the small business development corporation, which the Treasurer just said is a good action, is nothing but a rinky-dink measure?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will correct a phrase the member used. He said "small business development corporation"; it is small business development bonds that were referred to in the budget.

The small business development bonds were one of the measures requested by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and others. It is a mechanism which, I trust the member knows, effectively reduces the interest rate to one-half prime plus two in most cases. Therefore it brings to the borrowers, be they small business people or farmers, available money at a lower rate of interest.

Mr. MacEachen did two things in his budget, as I understood it: he made money available at 11.25 per cent through farm credit to a maximum of $200,000 per farm, and he made small business development bonds available through normal lenders for farmers in financial stress and trouble. He extended them for a further year. He also said he was extending them to unincorporated farmers, something that at one time was thought not to be possible, and he has also allowed refinancing with them.

I suggest it will take us a bit of time to study whether that will solve the problems of the farmers who are having difficulty.

Everyone is having difficulty with interest rate problems. The question is which people, be they small business people or farmers, are in crisis because of interest rate problems. That is something we are trying to assess.

I told the member on Friday that people would be in Ottawa today reviewing the contents of the budget with Ottawa. We will go at least this far: it has a lot more take, rather than give, than a lot of people thought at first after it was read Thursday night.

Mr. Cassidy: If the minister believes, as he just said, that everybody is suffering from high interest rate problems, will the government tell the federal government, on behalf of farmers, small businessmen, home owners and workers, that it is time to bring those interest rates down?

Will the minister also promise to bring in a long-term program of adequate and affordable farm financing for farmers in this province rather than a bridging mechanism, which is all the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food talked about?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The long-term problem of farmers is one that is uppermost in our minds and one we are working on as opposed to immediate crises and problems of short duration. I am not just talking about the price of commodities. That is their immediate and most pressing problem, one that is compounding every other one they have. Those measures are being studied, and I assure the member we are going to work at solving them.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not rather guarantee a loan at 11 per cent than at 19 per cent? If so, will he guarantee the small business development bonds for the farmers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is that I would rather guarantee low-interest loans any time, assuming a guarantee was in order. The honourable member led me to assume that by the way he phrased the question; he simply asked me which way I wanted to have it. If one guaranteed anything, obviously one would want to minimize one's risk, and a lower interest rate would do that.

Interest rates, by coincidence or any other means, dropped one and one half points last Thursday. I hope we will see that trend line continuing, but it probably will not be at the rate of drop we saw last week. There are now experts projecting that American rates may be as low as 12 per cent before long; if they are, there is every reason to believe we could be back, not into low interest money but into much more comfortable money, perhaps 15 per cent in Canada.

Mr. Cassidy: If the minister thinks 15 per cent is comfortable, he is living in Cloud-cuckoo- land. That is outrageous. Surely we could have an unequivocal statement from the Treasurer saying we should not just be coasting down if American rates are going down and rising up if American rates are going up. In Canada, we should have an independent interest rate policy that suits the needs of Canadian workers, manufacturers, home owners and farmers. Surely we should have an unequivocal and clear statement rather than this aping of the United States.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The leader of the New Democratic Party lost one word I said. I said "more" comfortable.

Mr. Cassidy: I didn't hear that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The words "more comfortable" will be seen on the record. They are by no means low, but interest rates are relative. It was only two years ago that we thought 13 per cent was a horrendous rate, and the member knows that. As long as inflation is at 12 per cent, we are going to have money in the 15 or 16 per cent range, no matter whose policy we follow. Do we have an interest rate policy in Canada that is independent? Yes, it is. It is 250 to 300 basis points higher than the American one, and it should not be.

2:40 p.m.

MINISTRY ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. My question deals with the advertisement placed in the newspapers of the province last Wednesday and Thursday dealing with a review of the school year. Is it a fact that no consultation took place with any of the teachers' federations in the province with respect to the publication of that advertisement prior to it being published?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I believe there were discussions at the staff level about the fact that this was going to happen because it was announced, or at least alluded to, in Issues and Directions, which was released one and a half years ago.

Mr. Sweeney: I have been advised by the presidents of all the teachers' federations that they were taken completely by surprise by this advertisement. Given the motion of censure mailed to the Premier (Mr. Davis) about two months ago by the Ontario Teachers' Federation, is this another example of the breakdown or deterioration in consultation between the minister, her ministry, and the teachers' federations of this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There has been no deterioration and no breakdown. There are hundreds of contacts made every month at various levels of the Ministry of Education with the Ontario Teachers' Federation. The communications between the federation and the Ministry of Education have been voluminous and continue to be voluminous, and there are regular consultations at the ministerial level as well.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, since it was consultation with various groups like the teachers and others that led the minister to withhold any comment on compressing the 13 years of education into 12, does she now know that the secondary education review program report is out and calls for 12 years instead of 13? Does she still think it immoral to comment on this until a year from now?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the honourable leader is quite mistaken. It was not consultation with teachers only, but consultation with the entire public. The discussion paper put out in May by the project steering committee asked for responses from the general public and from all interested groups. I was simply waiting until that group had had an opportunity to respond to the project review committee and the review committee had had a chance to collate that information and make its final recommendation. I think I was right. It was immoral to do it before that time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, could we have the consent of the House to revert to statements? The Minister of Industry and Tourism has now returned, and he has a statement concerning Massey-Ferguson.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY (CONTINUED)

MASSEY-FERGUSON LAYOFFS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consent of the House. Copies of the statement are being distributed now. I apologize for the lateness and my absence, as I was in northern Ontario this morning.

I do want to put some information on the record with regard to the critical situation at Massey-Ferguson. As the House is aware, that company today announced the layoff of 1,750 employees in Brantford and Toronto, effective Friday, November 20. This layoff is expected to be temporary, and the company has informed me that recall is still expected in February.

Massey-Ferguson reports that this layoff is a result of a decision to shut down temporarily the combine operation owing to total saturation of the market for this equipment. With production so far in excess of sales, the company feels it must bring inventory within a realistic ratio to sales and thus reduce current operating costs to protect the long-term ongoing viability of the company. Massey-Ferguson has reported to us that continuing high interest rates are inhibiting sales and are a direct cause of the current layoffs.

It is important to note that this situation is not unique to Massey-Ferguson, as it is currently reflected in the overall performance of farm machinery and related industries in the North American market. John Deere has laid off 3,200 employees in the United States. As well, International Harvester has laid off 9,600 employees and Caterpillar has laid off 12,000 employees.

It is equally important to note that, since 1976, Massey-Ferguson has reduced its work force by 40 per cent outside of Canada, while reducing it by 16 per cent within Canada.

Massey-Ferguson is not in default of any of the terms of its agreements with the federal and Ontario governments. It is important to remember that government guarantee programs were entered into to allow Massey-Ferguson a chance to compete and survive in a difficult, high interest rate market.

We are satisfied that the company is being well managed in these difficult economic times.

I urge everyone to remember the importance of not placing any unusual stresses on Massey-Ferguson during this next crucial period of time; its reputation and its work force deserve balanced and fair treatment.

Our government, together with the federal government, will continue to monitor the situation, and I will report back to the assembly as appropriate.

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

MASSEY-FERGUSON LAYOFFS

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I defer to my friend the member for Brantford.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for allowing me to ask a question of the minister.

In view of the very serious ramifications this layoff has for my riding, and while I appreciate his assurance that the loan agreement has not been breached, will he join with the city of Brantford and myself in urging the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to bring Brantford under the umbrella of the industry and labour assistance program, which has a number of tangible benefits for the community in terms of supplementary benefits for unemployment insurance, relocation and incentive grants for industry, under which I understand the city of Windsor is benefiting in its current difficult times?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there seems to be little enough in terms of federal industrial stimulation programs for Ontario, I will be delighted to join the member for Brantford in bringing pressure to bear on the federal government to help this community and others at this time.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not consider that four days' notice of that layoff does not give the employment office in Brantford much of an opportunity to assist in the relocation of even some of those workers during this layoff period? Will he not agree that the layoff should be postponed for at least 10 days so that some plans to accommodate the workers might be made by the offices that are already in place?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) is closely watching the activities of the company to make sure that all the proper notices are given to the workers under the existing legislation. As well, as I indicated, the company is in compliance with all the terms of the agreement entered into between governments.

I can only remind the honourable member that for the time being the workers will remain in a situation where they will get, for the next few weeks anyway, about 95 per cent of their after-tax income; that will decline appreciably after the next couple of weeks, but for the next couple of weeks they will be in a relatively protected situation. As I say, the company is complying with all of the provisions, everywhere.

I am not sure it would be in the best interests of the company to do anything but to allow them to operate within good standard business practice provided, of course, that at all times they stay within all four corners of the law and the agreements entered into with the governments.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Brantford's reiterating the request that has already been made on behalf of the workers in Brantford by my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke).

My question to the minister is simply this: While he is prepared to make a request to the federal government, what emergency assistance is Ontario prepared to provide, or to help provide, for those workers, particularly in view of the fact that a large number of them did not have enough work in the Massey-Ferguson plant between the spring and now to become eligible once again for unemployment insurance, and in view of the fact that many of those workers are not qualified for the supplementary unemployment benefits referred to by the minister because they are only available to workers with 10 or more years of service?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to make a couple of points, Mr. Speaker. First, any sensible scheme that would help the workers in terms of finding alternative employment will be looked at by myself and my colleagues in this particular period of time.

Second, I remind the leader of the third party that this ministry sponsored an industrial diversification study for that community some time ago, at the urging of the local member, to ensure that there was some good, clear analysis of some of the opportunities outside of the farm implements industry for that community, both during and after this crisis, which I hope will be a short one. I think the member will find that the mayor of Brantford and his council have found that study to be most useful and that they are most optimistic about the opportunities this government-sponsored study will bring to that community.

2:50 p.m.

Finally, while I appreciate the concern of all members of this House in asking questions on behalf of the workers and, indeed, we all have to be concerned about that, I have to say that when the leader of the third party reminds the members of this House that his colleague asked questions on behalf of those workers some time ago, it was that same colleague who strongly urged this House to withhold the passage of the Massey-Ferguson financing, which passage has allowed this company to get to today's date with some employment and with an opportunity to hire back those workers. My colleague, on the other hand, has supported the refinancing package all the way through.

CANADIAN ADMIRAL

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to revert to the Minister of Labour and to the question of the 1,200 employees of Canadian Admiral Corporation.

Will the minister distinguish, at least in reflection after the question is put today, between a company in bankruptcy which is under federal jurisdiction, and a company in receivership which is under the jurisdiction of the courts of this province with respect to the assets in this province?

Will he consider the introduction of legislation that will secure as a first lien and charge, ahead of all other claims on the assets of that company in Ontario, the moneys for termination, severance and other pay due and owing under the Employment Standards Act?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if I may take a moment to show that I understand the point that the honourable member is trying to make, let me reiterate that at present there is a tripartite task force of the federal government looking at issues related to bankruptcies and insolvencies. I understand what he is saying.

Mr. Renwick: This is not insolvency; it is receivership.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know the member was a great corporate lawyer once --

Mr. Foulds: He still is.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: -- but let me try to explain my understanding of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member was with a very prestigious firm at one time, so I know he acquired a great deal of knowledge about it. But let me tell him this: he knows very well that in this particular instance we have two situations to date. First, we have two banks that have intervened under section 88 of the federal Bank Act. Second, we have the Caisse de dépôt of Quebec that, on the basis of a debenture, has come in and made its claims.

Surely the member does not believe that bankruptcies and insolvencies do not have some relationship. He knows very well that unless they are dealt with simultaneously, we will have everybody going into bankruptcy to get a ranking under the Bankruptcy Act; so they have to be considered together.

In the meantime, we are continuing to evaluate just what is owing to whom. As of today, we have filed a claim on behalf of 1,600 or so employees for about $412,000 in vacation pay owing. We are continuing with that.

The member knows very well that the issues of insolvency and bankruptcy have to be dealt with simultaneously, otherwise there will not be any situations potentially salvageable. Everyone will go into bankruptcy to become secured creditors. Surely that is not what he wants.

Mr. Renwick: I say to the minister, it is not a question of argument, it is a simple question of fact. There is no trustee in bankruptcy. The receiver was appointed for the assets in Ontario to take possession of them. The receiver has possession of them. The title to those assets remains in the hands of Canadian Admiral.

I am asking the minister whether he will introduce legislation to give a prior claim for the moneys owing under the Employment Standards Act to those employees over all other creditors.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am really not sure what more I can say to the member, because I honestly believe, as I am sure he does in his heart, that the two issues are so intertwined that they have to be dealt with simultaneously. The task force is expected to report within the next week. We have continued to press the federal government over this issue and, although he wants to separate them and say bankruptcies are one thing and insolvencies are another, he knows they are intertwined. As soon as that relationship can be straightened out, we will be pleased to look at it.

STELCO DISPUTE

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister is aware that talks will resume tonight in the 14-week labour dispute at Stelco. Since the dispute is the longest in Stelco's history and since some 12,500 workers and their families face financial ruin, is the minister prepared to assume his responsibility as the Minister of Labour and personally step in to mediate the dispute if the upcoming mediation efforts fail?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, let me say from the outset that this minister and this government have recognized this dispute as very important, and it was with this in mind that I initially had advisers appointed, in particular the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour and the vice-president of Noranda, to endeavour to solve the problems that led to this strike early on. That did not work.

As the honourable member knows, the union was out on strike for several weeks and then commenced face-to-face mediation with the company at its own request. We remained in touch with them. After four to five weeks' progress did not appear to be satisfactory, particularly in the monetary areas, and a series of meetings involving mediators was then set up.

The mediation process broke down last Wednesday. I phoned the president of the local union, Cec Taylor, on Thursday and indicated my willingness to take any active part he wanted to suggest and to consider it; I have done the same thing with the company. We are keeping in touch with them for, as the member knows, today they are sitting down again in face-to-face negotiations. I remain willing to listen to anything they may have to request.

But, as members know, the members of that union have voted in favour of face-to-face negotiations without mediators, and I really do not think there is anything the Minister of Labour can do in the face of a voluntary vote by those workers to have that kind of mediation.

Ms. Copps: Since the company has stated publicly that the strike is helping to avoid massive layoffs in the industry, does the minister feel that strikes should be used as an alternative to layoffs, depriving workers of the right to economic assistance that would be theirs in a normal layoff situation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not want to get into any suppositions about whether people are bargaining in bad faith. I have not seen any evidence of that. If the member opposite has such evidence, then she should tell the union or the company about it, because there is a mechanism to deal with that. But I have no evidence or suggestion of bargaining in bad faith.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, has the minister made any input into the application for and granting of an injunction to limit the picketers at the plant gates at the Stelco works in Hamilton? Was he asked for his opinion on the matter?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, Mr. Speaker.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Will the minister table the details of the agreement between the Urban Transportation Development Corporation and TIW Industries Limited of Ottawa to set up an entirely new company to manufacture the transportation vehicles designed by UTDC for the Vancouver, Scarborough and Detroit rapid transit systems?

How much money is the government putting into it? Is it $30 million or $100 million? Why is the government using taxpayers' money to build an entirely new plant when there is already a facility in Ontario capable of building the cars, the Can-Car plant in Thunder Bay? Why is the government deindustrializing the north to industrialize eastern Ontario? Should we not be reindustrializing both areas of the province?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the figures of $30 million or $100 million that the honourable member has suggested are, I suggest, nowhere in the ball park.

Mr. Foulds: What are you doing? You can't build new plants for less than that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: UTDC has entered into a partnership agreement with TIW Industries Limited, an Ottawa-based firm, to construct an assembly and car body manufacturing facility at the Kingston research and development centre. This contract was entered into after five different companies, I believe, were asked to make proposals for the manufacture of these partial components for the intermediate-capacity transit system.

After the company fully reviewed the five proposals that were received, the management of the company made a recommendation to the board of directors, which approved entering into the contract with the TIW firm, as this proposal from TIW was assessed to be the best of the five proposals received.

As to tabling of the agreement between UTDC and TIW, I will take this matter under advisement and advise the member when I have talked to the officials of the company.

3 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister table all of the proposals so that we can see the competitive stature of each of them and why it was that TIW Industries got it, when my understanding is they were the only firm with no experience in building transportation vehicles of any kind?

How does the minister feel about betraying the people of Thunder Bay in the Can-Car plant whose expectations were aroused by the statements of the Premier (Mr. Davis) during the last election campaign? Employment in that plant has been reduced from 1,200 to 138. Is that how they keep the promise?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can assure the House that this government has always been very interested in supporting Can-Car.

Mr. Foulds: You have effectively deprived them of the market and of the next three important contracts.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member's memory is very short. It was only a few short weeks ago that I announced I had signed a contract with the Hawker Siddeley Can-Car plant for $59 million or $60 million --

Mr. Foulds: That employs 138 men, and the plant has been reduced from 1,200.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member obviously doesn't want an answer. Over the past number of years we have supplied that plant in Thunder Bay with the majority of the business that company has had in that plant, including a further contract for $60 million worth of bi-level GO Transit cars, which the company is gearing up to construct. That company has had a very major portion of all the rail car orders. In fact, up until now, they have had them all from this government. They have built every GO Transit car that is in the GO Transit system, and they will be building 71 new cars over the next two years to 30 months.

This contract was worth $60 million. As time goes by, I fully anticipate there will be other proposals for the construction of this type of equipment.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the possible loss of jobs for 800 to 1,000 people in the district of Thunder Bay, and I wish to know what discussions were held between UTDC and Can-Car before the contract was let. What was the difference in price between TIW and the local firm?

The local firm has all the facilities, and I find it very hard to comprehend why the minister is going to get a $10-million plant down here with no expertise whatsoever when there are 800 to 1,000 people who can do the job --

Applause.

Mr. Hennessy: Do members opposite want me to run for leader too? With all due respect, I am greatly concerned and, being a member of this government, I am more concerned, because I think the people of Thunder Bay will not accept it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that the Hawker Siddeley plant in Thunder Bay was given every opportunity to make its submission for this contract. I cannot guarantee that any one company can have a monopoly on every contract that is awarded for transportation equipment.

As I stated, proposals were requested from five companies, and the best proposal was accepted from the company.

AUTOMOTIVE HARDWARE DISPUTE

Mr. Kolyn: This must be the government's day, Mr. Speaker. I want to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Automotive Hardware Limited has been on strike in my area for more than six weeks now. Can the minister tell the House what stage the negotiations are at and to what extent, if any, his ministry is prepared to assist in effecting a satisfactory outcome?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the member should know that company has been on strike now for a little over a month. Mediators remain in touch with both parties on a weekly basis or more frequently if it seems indicated, and they remain willing to bring the parties together for further mediation at any time. The member has reason to believe there now is a willingness on the part of both parties to get together. I am pleased to have that information and will advise my mediating staff.

WALKER BROTHERS QUARRIES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister no doubt has read the press articles that appeared on the weekend concerning the fact that his ministry, in violation of the certificate of approval for the site, allowed radioactive materials to go to the Walker Brothers site.

Is the minister also aware that officials from his ministry allowed radioactive wastes that are 10 times the normal background radiation levels to go to the Walker Brothers site from the Exolon Company in Thorold? Can the minister explain whether it is common practice for his officials continually to violate the laws of this province as many people in the Niagara Peninsula are beginning to believe?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, that is a reasonably straightforward question to respond to. If the honourable member read the articles which form the basis of his research, he will see there are some clear statements from senior people in my ministry indicating what the response was as soon as they realized what had been going on in the Walker Brothers quarry. This goes back a few years.

As soon as the individual who was quoted realized the materials going in were in contravention of our provincial legislation, although they had the express knowledge, authority and permission of the Atomic Energy Control Board, he immediately stopped it. That continues to be the case to this day.

In terms of any impact from the material that previously had gone to the Walker Brothers site, there has been a close examination of the material. It has been determined, for example, that the levels of detectable radioactivity are essentially at background levels in terms of any possibility of leaching. As I understand the situation now, some testing is being done to determine whether under different circumstances, such as different levels of pH, that might vary.

With respect to the original situation, which was done in conjunction with and with the knowledge of the Atomic Energy Control Board, I do not think one can fairly accuse my staff of being less than responsible, because they stopped it promptly when they realized the conflict that existed.

Mr. Bradley: Recognizing that there is a greater perspective on the whole problem of disposal of radioactive materials, in view of the fact that Norton still has some of these materials on its property and in view of the fact there is still some radioactive soil in Scarborough, when is the ministry and the federal government going to get together to provide this province with a reasonable site, acceptable to all, for these radioactive materials?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I ought to make it clear that I do not have a conflict of interest in this situation. I have no interest in the Norton company that is involved and, to the best of my knowledge, the people who do, or from whom it got its name, bear no relationship to me, blood or otherwise.

Mr. Bradley: I thought it was your company. That is why I asked the question.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I see; yes, just one of my sidelines.

Mr. Kerrio: They are in the abrasives business.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member should know the last thing I would ever be in would be the abrasives business. It is not part of my nature.

There is ongoing work being conducted by a federal-provincial working group directed towards the location and establishment, ultimately, of a safe low-level radioactive waste site. That work is in progress. I cannot give the honourable member a specific date. Obviously, when a site is located, extensive public consultation and hearings will be necessary to ensure that it can proceed.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that large amounts of radioactive material still remain at the Exolon Company and that they refrained from taking any further to Walker Brothers Quarries when the matter blew up last year? Is the minister aware that this is close to residents and close to many workers there? What are his plans for the radioactive material that still exists at the Exolon Company? Or has he just ignored it because there has been no public outcry or public knowledge of it until this time?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows I would not do that. It is true there is material, I believe, both there and at the Norton site --

Mr. Martel: The Norton site? Is that your property?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have already dealt with that point.

It is my understanding that in both instances the material is safely contained, in some cases in a silo and in enclosed buildings. Where some is stored temporarily out of doors, it is under tarpaulin so it will not blow about. The level of radioactivity in this material is exceedingly low, so low that the Atomic Energy Control Board originally suggested an appropriate place for it would be the Walker Brothers Quarries, which we have subsequently stopped using.

I think we can safely assure the residents in the Niagara area and anywhere in proximity to those plants that the material does not present any hazard to them and it may well be necessary to continue to store it securely on those sites until such time as a permanent disposal site is located.

RAILWAY SERVICE

Mr. Samis: A question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Now that Jean-Luc Pepin has completed the first stage of his bludgeoning of Via Rail services in Canada, can the minister give the House some idea when we will know Ontario's final decision on the matter of assuming one, two or three of those routes? Second, can he outline to the House what criteria will be used in making that decision, whether they will be purely financial or whether other factors will be taken into consideration in making that decision?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, at the present time, officials of my ministry and the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority are doing a detailed review of the three rail passenger lines in the Toronto area, that is Barrie, Stouffville and Peterborough-Havelock lines. We are looking at possible options we might be able to consider for both short-term and long-term consideration for maintenance of commuter service within that area by way of possible expansion of the GO Transit rail system into that area.

I do not have that detailed report yet. I have stated before that I hope to have the report and information in my hands to be able to make a recommendation to my cabinet colleagues before the end of this calendar year. In other words, I hope to have something before Christmas to put before cabinet. When I will be able to announce a definite decision. What action will be taken, of course, will depend upon when cabinet deals with the matter.

Mr. Samis: Can the minister explain to the House the basis of the statement made in the Toronto Star on November 11 by Quentin Payette, president of the Toronto-Barrie Train Passengers Association, who said he met with the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson) and was assured that the train would continue to run on the Barrie line? Also, the minister was quoted in the same article as indicating he might expand the train service to two trains daily instead of one.

Mr. Hodgson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I said to the Barrie-Newmarket people that this government would not let them walk, it would provide a service for them.

Mr. Martel: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Based on what the honourable member has just said, maybe the government is going to do that on that line from Capreol right through to Winnipeg where there are not even roads.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am having some trouble trying to gather the question out of that statement, but I will say that where we do have a GO Transit rail line we normally have more than one train each day. I have met with Mr. Payette and his group of riders -- and we had a good meeting, a good discussion -- as I have met with the Peterborough-Havelock people and the Stouffville line people. In all cases, I recognize their desire to maintain train service; but there are limitations, as far as I am concerned, on the mandate of GO Transit to serve the commuters of Metropolitan Toronto.

We are looking at short-term options that could be entered into because, as I have said, it takes from four to five years to implement a full-service GO line, for which new signals, new stations and all the facilities have to be built. I have said we will look at short-term options as to how we can maintain limited rail transportation service once Via Rail service is discontinued, if it is, next September, but I do not have the details on all the costs and everything before me to make such a recommendation at this time; I hope to have that information within the next month or six weeks.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the comment by his deputy minister, as reported in the press over the weekend under the headline "Bankruptcies Hitting Best Farmers First, Top Official Warns," that Ontario lacks an agricultural policy and has not had one for years, and that if Ontario does not bring in some sort of financial program we will lose a lot of our most productive and efficient producers in the next year, what does the minister intend to do about this situation? What programs will he be introducing to help the farmers out of this high-interest squeeze?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it is important that this honourable member asked this question. If he were to take a look at the beef stabilization he would find that his own area has received about twice as much as any other county in Ontario under the beef stabilization plan. And he could look at many other programs that his own area has had the benefit of.

My deputy spoke his own words, and he has every authority to do that.

PETITIONS

PLANT LAYOFFS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 33(b) of the Legislative Assembly, the undersigned members of the assembly hereby petition that the annual report of the Ministry of Labour for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, tabled in the House October 13, 1981, sessional paper 181, be referred to the standing committee on resources development for such consideration and report as the committee may determine.

We are doing this because of the mass layoffs that are taking place at Massey-Ferguson, at Canadian Admiral, at McDonnell Douglas and in the auto industry, and because of all the many hundreds and thousands of plant closures that are taking place across this province. It is about time someone in this Legislature took an interest, and we in the New Democratic Party intend to do that.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TORDOM CORPORATION CONTINUATION AUTHORIZATION ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved, seconded by Mr. Yakabuski, first reading of Bill Pr40, An Act respecting Tordom Corporation.

Motion agreed to.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the former member for Yorkview, Mr. Fred Young, is sitting in the gallery today. I am sure we all welcome him back.

3:20 p.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 175, 186, 189, and 192 to 220, standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SPEAKER'S ROLE

Mr. MacDonald moved resolution 31:

That this House has lost confidence in the Speaker's capacity to exercise the responsibilities of the chair with adequate competence and impartiality, thereby resulting in frequent infringement of the privileges of individual members and jeopardizing the orderly conduct of legislative business. Therefore this House (1) urges the Speaker to resign and (2) establishes a committee made up of the House leaders of each party which would report back with an acceptable list of nominees for election by members of the Legislature of a new presiding officer.

Mr. T. P. Reid: A shameful day.

Mr. MacDonald: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with two or three procedural matters; the member for Rainy River's interjection makes it even more necessary. Last week one of the government back-benchers came across to one of my colleagues and spoke of this motion as being a matter of embarrassment, and he hoped it would be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. In moving the motion, I do not think you mentioned a seconder.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: He doesn't have one.

Mr. MacDonald: The seconder is the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke).

Some hon. members: Where is he?

Mr. Bradley: Let's find a seconder. Elie will second it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Now who's incompetent? You've been in the House 25 years, and you don't know the rules.

Mr. Yakabuski: You've been here 25 years. and you make a boo-boo like that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacDonald: The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) is the seconder.

Mr. Speaker: It is moved by the member for York South and seconded by the member for Hamilton East. We are going to proceed with the debate on item 31 standing in the name of the member for York South. Proceed, please.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I understood that the member for Windsor-Riverside had seconded this motion on November 5. Are we going to have two seconders? Where is the member for Windsor-Riverside today?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not really matter as long as we have a seconder for the motion. The member for York South will please proceed.

Mr. MacDonald: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, may I deal with two or three procedural matters such as I indicated a moment ago, perhaps even more pertinent because of the interjection from the member for Rainy River. A government back-bencher visited one of my colleagues last week, and he referred to this motion as being a matter of embarrassment, as though it was out of order within parliament.

May I acknowledge that a motion of censure of the Speaker, while rare, is an acknowledged part of parliamentary procedure. If one reads May or Beauchesne, though they are not explicit on exactly how they should be handled, there are references to many occasions on which it has happened in the history of parliament. In our own standing orders, they are silent.

As I am going to quote from Philip Laundy on a number of occasions, I should identify him at the outset as perhaps the outstanding expert and authority on Speakers. He is the director of the research branch of the Library of Parliament at Ottawa. He is the author of a volume entitled The Office of the Speaker, which is perhaps the definitive work on the office of the Speaker. He has written many other volumes, some of which I will refer to at a later date.

Mr. Laundy said, "It is of course always open to members to criticize the Speaker's conduct by way of a substantive motion of which notice would be required. Such a motion, if carried, would undoubtedly result in the Speaker's resignation."

As we indicated in the House last week when this motion was first indicated, the last time this kind of motion was placed in the House of Commons in Canada was by the Honourable George Drew, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, in 1956 at the end of the pipeline debate. The last time it was placed provincially was in 1975 in the Nova Scotia Legislature, where the Speaker ruled it out of order because it referred to his conduct while not in the chair.

A second procedural point is the comment attributed to the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) in one of the newspapers to the effect that such a motion is unparliamentary. That comment is not worthy of spending much time on.

For the record, I quote from Philip Laundy in The Office of the Speaker: "The moving of a resolution of censure against the chair is necessarily a distasteful procedure," a point I would agree with, "but the right to do so is indispensable to the machinery of a free parliament." That is from the expert on the office of the Speaker.

Perhaps the most puzzling comments that have been made are those of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith). On November 6 in the Globe and Mail, he objected to the motion. He said: "It really could destroy a person and a career ... I think it is too drastic. I think enough of him as a human being that I don't want to subject him to the terrible indignity of a motion of no confidence."

The proposition that a motion of no confidence is to be regarded as an indignity and a reflection on the individual passes my understanding. This House is replete in its procedures with motions of no confidence, such as motions of no confidence in the government which if they succeeded would wreck a lot of careers, and motions of no confidence in individual ministers.

I remember many times when members, including many Liberal members, in consideration of the estimates of individual ministries, moved -- ineffectively but at least as a symbol -- a motion that the salary of the minister should be reduced to $1 as an expression of no confidence in him.

I remind the House that if there ever was a case where there was an effort to destroy a career by criticism, by the expression of no confidence in a minister, it was from the Liberal Party, and particularly its leader, with regard to the former Minister of the Environment, Mr. Parrott. He is not now in politics, and I suspect he is not because he felt it was not worth the candle in terms of the criticism he was getting.

That suddenly the Leader of the Opposition should become squeamish, when he has been so forthright on the issue until now, I find a little bit puzzling.

Mr. Nixon: Is that what this debate is supposed to be about?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. MacDonald has the floor. Proceed, please.

Mr. MacDonald: Turning now to the substance of the motion, may I make this point, which should be recognized by everybody in this House and outside it: This motion does nothing more than to focus for a debate in this House the criticism that has been expressed in and out of this House time and time again.

3:30 p.m.

On the day I introduced the motion, in an article written prior to my introduction of it -- it appeared in the morning paper and had been written the night before -- the Globe and Mail on November 5 had an article captioned "Critics Call for New Speaker, Saying Turner Is Too Partisan." Let me read three paragraphs of that story.

"Ontario Speaker John Turner is too partisan, insensitive and inconsistent and Premier William Davis should replace him before he damages the workings of the Legislature, some opposition members say.

"'I do not think the Speaker can think rapidly enough in the melee of debate to make the decisions that are sometimes required,' Opposition Leader Stuart Smith said in an interview yesterday. 'I think we would be better off with a different Speaker.'"

In a later paragraph in the story: "Criticism of the Speaker began soon after he was appointed last spring, when he had difficulty controlling the unruly Legislature. In May, during one dispute, Conservative House Leader Thomas Wells suggested that Mr. Turner read up on parliamentary precedents."

We have had criticisms from both sides of the House, admittedly somewhat muted on the government side, but very strong criticisms. Indeed, the following day, on November 6, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Smith) is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying he "thought that Mr. Turner suffered from a 'lack of experience ... and quick-wittedness' and was not creative enough to be effective." On the same date in the Toronto Sun: "Liberal Leader Stuart Smith said Grits won't support the NDP motion, although they wish Turner would resign."

I repeat, all this motion is doing is focusing criticism that has been made time and time again in this House and outside this House, and nowhere more vigorously than by the Liberal Party, particularly by its leader. If there is any embarrassment in this situation, it arises not from my resolution calling for the Speaker's resignation but rather from the inadequate competence and from the partisanship repeatedly illustrated in the conduct of the chair, which has given rise to this persistent criticism.

Where is the responsibility for this situation? Admittedly, in part, it rests with the Speaker. But the point I want to make is that the problem goes much deeper than that. Almost 10 years ago, this government saw fit to establish the Camp commission on the Legislature. The purpose of the commission was to review how this House operated, because the procedures of this House had become ossified by years of neglect, as was perfectly reflected in the new standing orders that emerged about the year 1970.

The comments of the Camp commission are rather worthy of our consideration at the moment. For example, they came to two conclusions: First, "The Office of the Speaker, and consequently the administration of the Legislature itself, has not grown and developed along lines consistent with modern parliamentary democracy." Second, "Although virtually all the Ontario government reports dealing with the matter recognized this fact and made worthwhile recommendations, none of these was adopted."

With regard to reports that had been prepared prior to the Camp commission for the guidance of the government for reform of our procedures here, none of which had been implemented, the commission commented acidly, "We can only assume that the government, for its own reasons, declined to act upon the recommendations of these reports, or perhaps more likely there was a failure to attach sufficient priority to implementing them."

After reviewing the situation at Westminster and Ottawa, the Camp commission concluded as follows, and I think this is key to our consideration of this issue today: "The commission is intent on a similar independence for the Speaker and the Clerk in Ontario, and on emphasizing the privacy of their functions as officials of the assembly. Respect for the offices and a deep belief in the goodwill and high purpose of the Speaker and the Clerk are slow to develop. In these offices they are dependent on the ministry for the fulfilment of their smaller personnel and financial needs."

Therefore, as we know, there have been very great steps forward. In the wake of the Camp commission, which was accepted by this government -- I remember very vividly Eric Winkler, the government House leader, rising and saying the government had accepted the Camp commission report -- we established this Legislature as an independent body, in effect as an independent ministry, with the Speaker as the minister and with the Clerk of the House and the director of administration as deputy ministers. We established the Speaker as chairman of the Board of Internal Economy, which decides on what the expenditures are going to be without having to go directly to the government.

We established a standing committee on procedural affairs so the kind of impasse that had resulted in an ossification of our rules and procedures in this House would be corrected. It would be under the control of the members of the House to look for innovative ways to improve all our procedures.

The government accepted the Camp commission, it has implemented many of the things; but in one area, the independence of the two chief officers of this assembly, the government has refused to respect or implement the spirit of the Camp commission.

The Speaker began his career under a cloud. This House opened on April 21, a Tuesday, last spring. On the Thursday prior to the opening of the House -- in other words five days before -- the Premier (Mr. Davis) finally called the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), the former Speaker, and told him he would not be reappointed and his name would not be submitted. Rather, a choice was going to be made from the government ranks. That evening or the next day the Premier approached the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) and asked him if he would be the Speaker.

An hon. member: That is speculation.

Mr. MacDonald: There is no speculation at all.

Mr. Rotenberg: You do not know that.

Mr. MacDonald: I do know that. I happen to have done my research and sometimes it is better than the member's. The member for Burlington South by Friday apparently indicated that for personal reasons he was not interested in the position. Not until Saturday, three days before the House opened, was the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) called and told he was designated to become Speaker. He had one weekend to scramble to accommodate himself to the difficult task of knowing the rules, procedures and everything else in connection with the office of the Speaker.

As we have already noted in this House, not until Tuesday -- literally two, three or four hours before the House opened -- did the Premier call the leaders of the opposition parties and let them know what had happened. They knew over the weekend because it had gotten into the news but they were not formally so informed.

I suggest if we are looking at the problems related to the Speaker of this Legislature, part of the problem was the belated manner and the particular manner in which it was done. It reflected, I suggest quietly and unprovocatively, a great disrespect for the high office. I felt strongly enough about this that I wrote an article for the Globe and Mail which they published entitled, "Better Way Needed for Ontario to Pick Its House Leader."

Mr. G. W. Taylor: Did you get paid?

Mr. MacDonald: That is totally irrelevant. The honourable members might be interested to know that article was deemed in the academic world, among those who were studying the problems of reforming parliament, to be an accurate account of the problems in Ontario, problems which are reflected in varying degrees in other provinces. It is included in the fifth edition of Politics: Canada by Paul Fox which is one of the basic studies in political readings for students all across this country.

There is a second consideration honourable members should take into account when they are considering why we have gotten into this situation which, in my view, is worthy of a vote of censure. The Premier ultimately chose a person who had no experience in the chair.

When my friend the member for Lake Nipigon was asked to become Speaker after the 1977 election, he was asked to become Speaker no doubt in part because it served the political purposes of the government in a minority situation to have an opposition member as Speaker. But I suggest the main reason was because he had acted as Deputy Speaker in this House and he had manifested some of the capacities necessary to cope with what has sometimes been described as the most unruly legislature in this country. That is why he was chosen.

3:40 p.m.

Yet in this instance the Premier saw fit to choose a man who had not had experience as Deputy Speaker, had not had experience as chairman of the committee of the whole House. I think I am correct in saying he had not been chairman of any standing committee and had never manifested any interest in or capacity for the very difficult task of chairing a big assembly such as this, particularly one with such a reputation for unruliness.

In other words, in making the appointment the government in this instance is still operating in the pre-Camp commission manner: namely, the appointment of the Speaker is really a choice of the government on whatever basis they see fit and it is no business of the rest of the House; they just rubberstamp it pro forma. The commission condemned that approach as destructive of the historical role of the Speaker. Yet that is what the government persists in doing.

Let me once again quote Philip Laundy, if I may. This is from an essay he wrote on legislatures, which appeared in The Provincial Political Systems: Comparative Essays, by Bellamy, Pammett and Rowat. In it he makes a very interesting comment at the beginning of his conclusions:

"The effectiveness of the legislature in the provincial system of government has sometimes been questioned. The story is told of the provincial member who, on receiving a request from a constituent for a copy of the rules of the legislature, replied by sending a signed photograph of the premier. Exaggerated though this story may be, some provincial governments in the past have shown a tendency to regard the legislature as another department of government."

That is our problem. The government still considers this Legislature not as an independent institution --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacDonald: The government regards the Legislature not as an independent institution freed of administrative subservience to the government but as another department of the government, as another adjunct to the Premier's office, and they consider the appointment of the Speaker as their prerogative. It is wrong.

Mr. Rotenberg: You just cannot accept majority government.

Mr. Martel: What has majority government got to do with it?

Mr. Speaker: Just direct your remarks to the chair, Mr. MacDonald.

Mr. MacDonald: May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, and some of those who are interjecting from the other side of the House, that in the Mother of Parliaments, which on occasion is cited as a model we should follow, the Speaker is chosen by the House leaders and the whips, who meet as a committee. They discuss possible nominees, and if any party objects to any name it is usually not put forward. It is a totally consultative and unanimous process.

When they do come up with a name everybody is happy with, he is not nominated by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition; he is nominated by a government back-bencher and seconded by an opposition back-bencher as a symbol of the fact that the presiding officer of the House is the chief servant of the House and not a servant of the government. And may I say to my friend the honourable member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) the government has to realize this is fundamental, whether it has a majority or a minority.

Mr. Rotenberg: Is there anybody you would accept?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes.

Let me move to another aspect of this problem, Mr. Speaker, with a couple of quotes, again from the Leader of the Opposition. On November 6 in The Globe and Mail he is reported to have said the Speaker "relied too much on the advice he is given by the Clerk of the House." And in the Sun on the same day was a quotation that said, "'Turner is not deliberately biased,' said Smith, but he makes partisan rulings due to bad advice." In other words, the Leader of the Opposition has specifically said the problem does not rest with the Speaker. He is not deliberately biased; he is biased because of the advice he is getting.

This is another nettle we have to grasp. Our Speaker is an arch-traditionalist; he is a servant of the Legislature, yes, but when the chips are down and when there is a conflict between the government and the Legislature, our Clerk has always been, is today and always will be a servant of the government. Once again, I am not saying anything that has not been said many times in commentaries on this situation. Indeed, the member --

Mr. Speaker: Mr. MacDonald, I would ask you to direct your remarks to the motion, please.

Mr. MacDonald: Fine. I am speaking about problems in relation to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Speak directly to the motion, please.

Mr. MacDonald: Part of the problem in relation to the Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, is the bad advice he is getting from the Clerk.

Mr. Speaker: That is an opinion.

Mr. MacDonald: It is strictly within the confines of the motion. What I was going to draw attention to is a statement by another member of the Liberal Party in the public comments that were made last June when the Leader of the Opposition was named and thrown out of the House. My honourable friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) was quoted as saying, "The Clerk is the most partisan man in the Legislature."

That is perhaps a little exaggerated, but the Speaker has been burned more than once because of the advice he got from the Clerk. The classic example last spring occurred on one occasion when the Speaker was delivering awards to a neighbouring riding held by an opposition member. When he was criticized for indulging in activities that were not appropriate for the Speaker, he said he had received legal advice; he got that legal advice from our Clerk.

He has been around here for all of these years, and while it may, by some tortuous thought process, be deemed to be legal, it was not an ethical thing to do. Indeed, the Speaker summed it up beautifully in the hallway in front of the Legislature in speaking to a member of the media when he said, "Next time I won't seek legal advice. I will just use my own common sense."

Our problem is graphically illustrated by the way in which, Mr. Speaker, you handled the John Holtby affair, the dismissal of the First Clerk Assistant in this Legislature. On August 18, the House --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is there a reason for all this?

Mr. MacDonald: Right, you bet there is.

On August 18, Mr. Speaker, you wrote a letter to Dr. E. E. Stewart, the deputy minister in the Premier's office, the first two or three paragraphs of which read as follows:

"I have today advised Mr. John A. Holtby, the First Clerk Assistant, that I will not be recommending his reappointment. By receipt of this letter, I will advise you, and through you the cabinet, of this decision. Let me hasten to say this decision has not been taken lightly or in haste. After consultation with all parties, it is apparent to me there is irreconcilable conflict of personalities which makes my position very difficult, to say the least."

In the first place, may I respectfully suggest if a top officer of this Legislature is going to be dismissed the matter is not to be communicated to the government, because this assembly is not another branch of the government. This assembly is a separate independent institution. If a top officer is going to be dismissed he should be dismissed after consultation with an appropriate committee representative of all parties in this committee. Only in that way will it be an independent institution.

Not only did you indicate that in your view -- and it was publicly perceived as such -- you were responding to your masters and your masters were in the cabinet office, you also said you had consulted with all parties. The fact is you had not consulted with any party in the political sense. You may have talked to the individuals involved but none of the opposition parties had been consulted. The result was the Leader of the Opposition wrote a letter to you, in which he said, and I quote:

"I would hope that all important personnel changes among your senior advisers would be made, as recommended by the Camp commission, only in consultation with senior representatives of all parties, and would not be unduly influenced by the government of the day."

3:50 p.m.

The Leader of the New Democratic party wrote, similarly, as follows: "First, I would ask you to meet and to consult with the three House leaders over why you propose to dismiss Mr. Holtby, what other changes may be contemplated in the Clerk's office and what changes in personnel might be suggested by way of other parties." Presumably, Mr. Holtby went because there was objection from the government side of the House that has translated itself into a personality conflict with the Clerk. The supreme irony of it is that John Holtby, who was a champion both in approach and in philosophy of an independent Legislature went, and the man who is a champion of this Legislature being just a branch of the government and the Premier's office stayed. So the source of our problem is still with us.

I will not say anything that has not been said 100 times along these halls. I suggest the time has come to stop sweeping this issue under the rug, to stop pussyfooting. The time has come to insist this Legislature be established on an independent basis from the executive branch of government. That is what the Camp commission recommended. That is what you accepted when you accepted the recommendations of the Camp commission, whether you realized it or not.

Camp pointed out the key to the independence of the Speaker and the Clerk can be achieved both in perception and reality only when the Legislature's two top officers are appointed or elected by the Legislature, with nominations being made by designated spokesmen of all parties and not by the unilateral decision of the government itself.

That is what they do in the Mother of Parliaments. That is why, in the event the Speaker responds to this motion and resigns, the Legislature, as my motion requests, should then appoint a committee made up of the House leaders to report back with acceptable nominees for election by members of the House of a new presiding officer.

Finally, there is perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the whole situation: The Liberals have indicated they will not support this motion. Nobody has been more devastating in criticism of the Speaker than the Leader of the Opposition. I quote: "I do not think the Speaker can think rapidly enough in the middle of debates to make decisions that are sometimes required." "The Speaker lacks experience and quick wittedness." "The Speaker is not creative enough to be effective." "I think it would be better to have a different Speaker." These are all direct quotations from the Leader of the Opposition, reported in the press.

All of that, surely -- if the English language means what it says -- adds up to no confidence. The members cannot have it both ways. Having been a tiger in words it is not credible to now become a pussycat in action.

The Star's editorial last week, entitled, "Speaker Turner Should Resign," was, ironically, published on Saturday, two days after my motion introduced in the House, and two days after the Liberals had indicated they were not going to support it. Yet strangely enough the Star editorial writers indicated the Liberals were going to support the New Democratic Party motion. I do not know whether the Liberal editorial writers knew something we do not know or whether they were just naive enough for a fleeting moment to think the Liberal actions were going to be consistent with their words.

I invite the members of the Liberal Party not to sacrifice something as fundamental as getting this Legislature back on the rails to short-term political objectives. I invite the members to accept their responsibility as the official opposition in the House and to act in a manner that is consistent with the criticisms they have made.

My final word, Mr. Speaker, is to yourself. I want to quote again from Philip Laundy in his article on page 283 in The Provincial Political Systems. He said, "Complete confidence in the Speaker's impartiality is obviously essential if the rules of procedure are to operate smoothly and if he is to be associated with the process of procedural reform."

It is clear as far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, and it is equally clear on the basis of the words and the criticisms uttered repeatedly by the members of the Liberal Party outside this House, that you, Mr. Speaker, no longer have the confidence of two of the three parties in this House.

I want to put on the record how the Toronto Star editorial concluded its comments because I think it rather sums it up: "It may be that Turner was never given a fair chance to learn his difficult duties in the first place, but clearly this argument is no longer relevant. The reality is that, fairly or not, Turner appears to have irrevocably lost the respect and confidence of two of the three political parties at Queen's Park. This places him in an impossible position.

That is the conclusion Philip Laundy comes to. I respectfully leave it to your judgement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak briefly on this matter and to present the viewpoint I believe is held by the Liberal Party, the official opposition at this time.

We shall not be voting for the resolution as outlined by the honourable member for York South. I want it clearly understood, however, that our vote against that resolution should not in any way be regarded as support for the existing system, a system which falls short of what is desirable in terms of the amount of consultation that should occur in the appointment of senior officials and in their promotion and/or dismissal.

I believe the honourable member for York South is correct when he speaks of the fact we need reform along the lines of the Camp commission with respect to the senior officers of this House. I believe the Speaker should be regarded as a senior officer of this House in that respect.

The Speaker will know that, in the instance of his appointment, there was not sufficient consultation. It was explained to me at the time that personal circumstances precluded such consultation. I accepted, as the Speaker well knows, the explanation given to me by the Premier, who is an honourable man. I have nothing more to say, therefore, on the consultative process with regard to this appointment.

In general terms, however, I think it fair to say there tends to be insufficient consultation on the decisions made that pertain to senior officers of the House. I do not intend to return to that aspect of the topic.

Similarly, our failure to vote for the resolution of the member for York South should not in any way be regarded as support for the government. In fact, we have tabled today a no-confidence motion with regard to the government on the topic of the Suncor dealings and the failure to release information pertinent thereto.

Similarly, I think it is important no one regard our vote in this matter as an indication of whether we might prefer some other individual, some other member of this House, to occupy the Speaker's chair. I know there are worse members of the House who could occupy this chair who would be available if this Speaker were not there. I also believe there are better members of the House who could occupy the chair the present Speaker occupies.

The fact, however, is not whether we might prefer a different Speaker. The resolution, as we understand it, is a serious and grave matter of singling out the Speaker for the censure of the House which is what a lack of confidence implies. We take that matter extremely seriously. We believe the present Speaker has weaknesses, but we believe there is only one kind of deficiency, one defect that would justify this resolution being passed by the House. That would be deliberate partisanship. If there were deliberate partisanship we believe the resolution would then be justified. It is our view that such deliberate partisanship is not to be found in the present Speaker, and that is basically the reason we will not vote for the resolution.

4 p.m.

There are a number of secondary reasons why we are not going to vote for the resolution. The main one, as I have already said, is that the passage of such a resolution is simply too drastic. The present Speaker, in our view, does not deserve to be singled out for such a drastic decision. To have his name go down in history as someone sanctioned by this House in this way, in our view, is not deserved by the incumbent Speaker. On a personal level, we think he is a very fine human being and we like him as a person, whatever we may think of certain decisions he has made as Speaker. In addition to that we believe it is a drastic action to take in the absence of deliberate partisanship. I do not believe there is any evil intent in the decisions made, even if we sometimes feel the outcome of a decision favours government as opposed to opposition.

I will give as an example the matter of defining what a "compendium" consists of. The Speaker presented us with advice he had received and considered, and which presumably he had come to believe, that indicated a compendium was essentially anything the government said it was, be it a Mickey Mouse comic book or a copy of some ancient speech given by some minister. I believe another Speaker might reasonably have said that, although that is one construction that could be put on the rule, another construction might be that a compendium must be what a reasonable person would regard as material truly pertinent to the background of the matter under discussion.

I feel the advice being received by the Speaker frequently seems to interpret only one kind of construction placed on the rules and that tends to favour the government. Personally, I believe Mr. Holtby's dismissal stems from the same style of reasoning. I did not know Mr. Holtby well and I cannot speak at length about him. I am sure he would not wish me to do so. What little contact I had with him indicated to me he always tried to be objective and tried as hard to see the opposition view as the government view. It is my feeling this willingness to accept that the opposition has a legitimate view in a democracy is one of the reasons Mr. Holtby was dismissed and why he was found to be incompatible with certain of his colleagues in senior office.

We do not want the Speaker to be censured in this way and that is partly because we do not want to deflect attention from the real problem in the conduct of the affairs of this House. The reason the House has been such a bitter place, the reason there seems to be so much negative feeling in the House, does not stem, in our view, from the Speaker. Nor does it stem from a refusal on the part of the opposition to accept the realities of March 19. It stems entirely from the unparalleled arrogance of the government of Ontario since it gained a majority.

I would point out the way in which the opposition has been blocked in its efforts to ask reasonable questions on the matter pertaining to Re-Mor and Astra Trust. I would point out the way the government has used its majority to prevent us from investigating the Argosy matter, the Co-operative Health Services matter, and to prevent the select committee on Hydro affairs from being reconstituted. The government has also used its majority to prevent the Vaughan township matter from being discussed properly.

More recently, the grand champion of them all, was the way the Suncor matter has been dealt with. The Premier had the audacity to rise in the House as we came back from our summer recess to announce one of the largest and most significant expenditures in the history of Ontario and then tell us if we wanted information we could attend his press conference a few hours later.

The arrogance that has subverted the democratic process in this chamber has a person who is responsible for it. That person, however, is not the Speaker, who currently occupies the chair. It is the Premier of Ontario, who seems to have been waiting so long to recapture his majority that he is unable to recognize the limits that go even with majority government if democracy is to have a meaningful role in Ontario.

Unfortunately, because of other duties, it may not be possible for me to return for the vote. I will try to do so. If I get here, I shall vote against the resolution. If I do not get here, Mr. Speaker, you know I would have voted against the resolution. This does not mean I am happy with the way things have gone on in the House. I have expressed that fairly clearly.

I believe the bitterness and division, the rancour that exists in this House, the bitter feeling that none of us can be very happy about, stem entirely from the unparalleled, untrammelled arrogance of the Premier and the government of Ontario. That is why we will not vote to single out the Speaker as having any responsibility at all in this regard.

Mr. Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise to express my full support for the way in which our Speaker has discharged his responsibilities since the Thirty-Second Parliament began to sit last spring. Recent events make clear why his is such a thankless job. In essence, he serves 124 masters. Given the interest on the part of those whom the voters of Ontario chose to be Her Majesty's loyal opposition in maintaining a posture of concern and dissent, over time the Speaker is bound to find himself in situations where he has to make decisions that may not accord with everyone's wishes. How could it be otherwise?

The position of Speaker has been compared to that of an umpire in sports competitions. The losing side in any given decision may find itself having to accept unfavourable decisions with good grace. Our entire parliamentary system emanates from a tradition in which fair play and good sportsmanship are encouraged as prized qualities. The Speaker, like an umpire, has very little control over the quality of play. He simply applies the rules. The players themselves control the calibre of their performances.

I have examined the record of the past couple of weeks with particular attention in preparing to speak today. When one has sat through the tumult and heat of emotional debate, it is always amazing to read the transcript -- minus the shouting, of course. The cold, hard, logical facts are that our Speaker conducted what must have been one of the most difficult debates ever to take place in this House, and he did it with a firm grasp of the rules as presented in the standing orders.

One realizes, too, how often he is courteous and patient with members on all sides. It occurs over and over again. It is on the public record. He frequently takes pains to explain to members, who are not always so patient or so polite with him, which of our rules he is referring to and how it is being applied. Inevitably he is right. I am afraid this courtesy is not always appreciated and not always returned. I would urge upon all members of this House that it should be a reciprocal matter.

4:10 p.m.

Over the years, and based upon our inherited traditions, it is we who have created the rules of debate. In most cases, there is a good historical reason behind each of them. They have been developed and amended over time, with plenty of participation from both government and opposition members. They were accepted, as currently written, through two minority governments when the opposition could have used their numbers to change these rules had they wished. They did not. They accepted the standing orders, because they represent the rules of the game that we need to deal with the business that comes before us in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I believe it is always important for us to remember that the people who place their trust in us to serve them as their government must find displays of discourteous conduct to be disconcerting. I cannot help but wonder whether we undermine the confidence that our constituents have in us when we act in an emotional way in this House.

Certainly, we have been witnessing rather extreme behaviour in recent weeks. I urge all honourable members to reflect upon the consequences of this type of behaviour. It is, if you will forgive me for saying so, sir, a low calibre of play.

If one examines the transcripts, one sees the purported partiality of the Speaker is not even an issue. Really, he has been acting in a consistently fair and judicious manner. Thus, we must ask ourselves whether the accusations do not more truly reflect on ourselves.

In essence, that is what disturbs me. By calling foul on the umpire, as the honourable member's motion of censure does, it calls into question the quality of participation in the affairs of this House that is brought to bear by ourselves.

Our type of government has evolved over a long period of time. Tradition, precedent, convention, the rules of the game and a sense of fairness and justice are at the heart of our ways of proceeding, but they are only as valuable as the participants are willing to make them; they are only as good as we are.

I regret that we are having this debate. In the 33 years that I have served here as a member of this House, I have to say that this is perhaps the low point. I am sorry that the honourable member, for whom I have the greatest respect because he is of above average intelligence and he has contributed a great deal to this Legislature and to the welfare of the province over many years, saw fit to move such a motion, because I am sure, sir, that you are not without feelings. Anybody would feel the same way.

I want to remind members of the only perfect man who came to this earth to safeguard the welfare of the people. The people of that day saw fit to crucify Him. I suppose, living in this generation, we are bound to have people and sources who try to take revenge on things they feel are not favourable to them.

When I look around and see the back seats filled with these brilliant young government members, and the depleted forces over there, I can recall in 1948, when 21 of those members were the official opposition. By the end of the election in 1951, they were down to two. They are a sinking ship now, and this type of motion will deliver the same results when the next election comes.

I repeat that I regret we are having this debate. In the years I have been a member of this House, I have learned to feel a strong respect for it. The record attests to the fairness, even-handedness and tolerance of the member for Peterborough. He has been unfairly harassed by members of the opposition from the time he assumed the position. Yet he has never responded in anything other than a gentlemanly way.

I believe, in moving no confidence in the Speaker, the honourable members opposite are using the rules and procedures of this House in an attempt to go beyond the bounds of a legitimate disagreement with the government's point of view. This is not the appropriate way for members elected to a democratic Legislative Assembly, such as ours, to proceed.

Thousands of people have been involved over the centuries in developing the methods of proceeding we use in this chamber. Certainly there is opportunity to express dissatisfaction with those traditions as needs change over time. In fact, we have the standing committee on procedural affairs to do the job of examining our conventions and rules. In general, the public we are bound to serve has been able to get quite satisfactory results from our traditional ways of doing business. We must, however, treat these rules in the parliamentary tradition with respect. I am afraid it is a lack of the proper and appropriate respect that gives rise to this motion.

I am afraid if we do not act with the greatest of respect for the rules that moderate our behaviour in this House, then it is questionable whether we can expect the people of our province to show respect for the laws we enact on their behalf. Surely the wellbeing of this institution as a whole and the place of respect it is accorded in the eyes of the public are more important than for any of us as individuals to use it as an opportunity to vent our privately held frustrations.

I ask the honourable members opposite to weigh and consider very carefully whether it is appropriate to proceed by means of looking for loopholes in our rules. I do not feel it is in any way to the benefit of the people we serve for us to proceed along these lines.

I regret again that this motion has come before us. It calls into question the integrity of an individual who has served his province faithfully. It distorts the rules and objectives of this institution. It is a tactic that can only serve to diminish the efficient functioning of this House.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there has been an occasion in this House since I have had the privilege of being a member of it when I have been urged to get into a debate that has such far-reaching consequences on our assembly as an institution of parliamentary democracy.

I am participating in this debate, Mr. Speaker, because I feel I have a moral and compelling responsibility to do so, not because I intend supporting the motion but because I am the only sitting member of this Legislature who has been given the honour and responsibility of occupying the chair you now occupy.

4:20 p.m.

I suppose one of the most compelling reasons for entering this debate is to empathize with you. because unless one has been there, unless one has seen the forces at work, the push and pull on the Speaker -- who is the protector of the rights of all members, a judge who mediates, conciliates and arbitrates and delivers the final word in the interpretation and enforcement of our standing orders -- one does not realize that not only must your actions seem to be fair, firm, impartial, nonpartisan and consistent, Mr. Speaker, but also they must be that.

In his statement made previously, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry said the standing orders have stood us in good stead over the years because the combined opposition during the minority parliaments of 1975 and 1977 had an opportunity to change any or all of those rules if they wished to do so.

I want to speak on my own behalf for the time I occupied the chair, and I am sure I speak on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, in saying that the only way you or anybody else who occupies that honoured position is going to be able to speak on behalf of and be the protector of all of the members of this Legislature is through a complete revamping of our standing orders.

We hear day after day in this House someone getting up on an alleged point of order or an alleged point of privilege, when all Speakers, including myself, have ruled almost invariably that a good 90 per cent of those submissions were neither points of order nor points of privilege.

Yet if one wants to refer to Beauchesne or Erskine May, or any precedent at any of the seats of government or parliaments, one will find there is no unanimity as to precisely what constitutes either a point of privilege or a point of order. There is nothing in our standing orders that clearly tells us what kind of information must be tabled by way of a policy announcement by the government or a compendium as a result of a bill that is introduced.

As a matter of fact, in connection with this motion, there is certainly some doubt in my mind as to whether there is a clear understanding of how a private member introduces a private member's motion of this type. I must confess to you and to all members of this House that I have not been able to find anything that clearly and unequivocally justifies the motion that is before us at this time. However, you in your wisdom did accept it as a substantive motion, and you said you required 24 hours' notice in writing. I am not sure I would have agreed with that had I been in the chair; I see nothing in the standing orders to indicate clearly that you were right on that occasion. Given the nature of the motion, however, I am sure you did not want to be seen as stifling this kind of debate, which would clear the air once and for all concerning the responsibilities of the chair as a servant of this House.

I do not think a week goes by here when we do not mull over the standing orders and ask, "Is there really a precedent for what we are doing?" I want to suggest to the House -- and I am second-guessing you, sir -- that in the situation which arose on the evening when the closure motion was introduced in this House, you concluded quite correctly that we had reached the point of grave disorder and that the only alternative left to you was to call for a 10-minute recess, not only so that you could clear things in your own mind but also so that all members of this House would have an opportunity to cool down and reflect on what they were doing.

I think it was clearly unfair on that occasion, when the House in its wisdom chose to turn the clock back and unname certain members just to get the whole process back on the rails, for your advisers and the House leaders to ask you to come into this House and say: "Let us turn back the clock. Let us forget that certain events ever happened, and let us get on with whatever works."

No one appreciates any more than I the fact that this House is supreme; its members in their collective wisdom can do anything they wish to do as long as it is legal and does not involve criminality. But on that occasion it should have been the responsibility of this House to turn the clock back, and that could only have been done if you had come in to the House, reported what your advisers had said and then let it be the responsibility of this House, not you, to reverse your decision on that advice.

The House is supreme; it can do anything it wants to do with regard to the standing orders. I think they did you and the office you hold a disservice in asking you to report back to the House the results of your consultations. That gets to the heart of what I really want to say, because you as the protector of the rights of each and every member of this House are in the unenviable position of having to be the judge and the jury and of having to set the mood and the tempo of the deliberations of this House.

4:30 p.m.

In the case of any kind of -- I will not call it interference -- advice you receive that causes you to reverse your position to get out of a particularly distasteful situation, I think it is the responsibility of this House to act in a way that it should be held responsible for any violation or changing of our standing orders. I am not saying they cannot do it; I am saying they should do it. It is unfair to ask any Speaker or any presiding officer to bear the brunt for a particularly distasteful position, with the chair being perceived as reversing its position just because it is a nice, easy way for the House and all its members to get off the hook.

I think that this House did you a disservice on that occasion, sir. I also say that if the advice you get on other occasions is seen to be inconsistent and, by some who have spoken here today, if it seemed to be partisan, that is the responsibility of this House, all 124 members, and not you, sir.

A lot of members are not aware of the fact that, as a result of the Camp commission, and the Morrow committee which studied the five reports of the Camp commission, a very onerous task was placed on the Speaker. Prior to the implementation of those recommendations, the Speaker was the chief presiding officer almost solely, and the administrative function of the Office of the Speaker was minimal, to say the least.

Most of the junior members in this chamber really do not appreciate the day-to-day pressures that are put on the person who occupies that office on our behalf. It has a budget of $30 million, and the Speaker is chairman of the Board of Internal Economy and the chief administrative officer of the Office of the Assembly. If the members do not think that is an onerous responsibility, just ask anybody in the Speaker's office the number of detailed decisions that the Speaker must make on a daily and on a continuing basis.

Ask the Speaker or anybody who is associated closely with him the number of evenings he has to give up, the number of weekends he has to give up as the president of the Ontario branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in looking after protocol on behalf of this assembly and on our behalf.

We must be absolutely certain that we have the very best backup people assisting the Speaker in those very onerous responsibilities. We must have people sitting at the table who can be absolutely consistent in the kind of advice offered to the Speaker, because that kind of advice transfers, and the responsibility of the nature of that advice transfers from you, Mr. Speaker, to that table, where it must be thorough, firm, nonpartisan, impartial and absolutely consistent. If you are not getting that kind of advice, if you cannot rely totally on that kind of advice, I do not think you, the Office of the Speaker, this assembly, its members and the people of Ontario are being well served. Believe me, sir, I have been there, so I know of what I speak.

Let me remind all honourable members that we, individually and collectively, are charged with the responsibility of governing this province. Not just the Premier and the cabinet, not just the party in power, but each and every one of us shares that very important and onerous responsibility. As I was sitting here watching and listening to the proceedings a little earlier today, I noticed the government House leader got up when there had been some questions asked about a very important problem -- I think it was the layoffs at Massey-Ferguson. He indicated the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) would be a bit late but he hoped this assembly would give unanimous consent to revert to statements so that minister could apprise the House of what was going on and share the latest information with us.

That is taken very lightly by people who may have been listening, taken for granted by people in the press, and it is taken all too lightly by the members of this assembly.

This House is supreme, and according to our standing orders, any one member withholding consent could have prevented the minister from making that statement. Those rules we have are for the most part those that have been handed down from parliament to parliament over the decades. I do not think members of this House fully appreciate just how delicate this process is and how one dissenting voice could upset it. I may be overly dramatic in using that instance. I use it simply because it happened today, but one member of this House could have denied the opportunity for that minister to report something of urgent public concern.

We have heard in this assembly so much about the realities of March 19, and that bothers me. I know this is a very partisan place; I know people will use every opportunity to gain political advantage to highlight something they want to bring before the House and get some coverage on.

I do not think the reality of March 19 has anything to do with the way in which we conduct our business in this House -- absolutely nothing. I am sure you, sir, while observing the way I attempted to lead this House between 1977 and 1981 as the Speaker, and which I attempted to do as the Deputy Speaker from 1975 to 1977, noticed it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there were more members in the combined opposition than there were over there. In terms of this place as an instrument of parliamentary democracy, the preponderance of members being on that side of the House should have absolutely nothing to do with the way we conduct our affairs in terms of the standing orders and the way, sir, in which you, of necessity, must interpret them.

4:40 p.m.

We must be ever mindful of our responsibility to the electorate, to the taxpayer, and perhaps even more important, our responsibility to respect the institution of parliament, which is the very basis of a parliamentary democracy. I think that is the question at issue in the motion of my colleague the member for York South. It is the responsibility of the opposition to question, to probe and to seek the truth. Surely that is the basis and the overriding reason for the kind of exchange we engage in. Certainly one would hope it is to seek the truth.

From my own perspective after having been in the chair -- the hot seat, the loneliest seat in this entire chamber -- I would say to all honourable members not to take their frustrations out on the chair. There are really no good guys and bad guys in this House. We are all sent here by the eight and a half million people who live in this province. They sent us here to make parliamentary democracy work. If we do anything that inhibits or takes away from that process we do the people in this province, this assembly and parliamentary democracy a grave disservice. If it works badly it reflects badly upon all of us.

You, Mr. Speaker, must be seen as the one person who sets the mood and the tone of this assembly. You must give yourself literally to the institution of parliament -- not to the government, not to the opposition, but to that sometimes indefinable process that makes our system different, makes it something to cherish, to appreciate and to strive to improve upon. This will only be done if you are prepared to give yourself totally to the process. It can only be done if you seek sound advice and know the rules literally better than any of us. It must be done if this assembly is to carry out its very onerous responsibility in this time of social and economic soul-searching.

I do not believe there is anybody in this House who empathizes and sympathizes more with you than I do. Believe me, I have been there. I will not be voting for the motion, but I felt I had a responsibility to stand before you and all members of this assembly to remind them, you and myself, once again, of our collective responsibility to making parliamentary democracy work. It is an imperfect system, one we must continue to build upon and to improve. It is far better than any system we may choose to say is second best. With your leadership and guidance, Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to make it work. There is no alternative. If we refuse to accept that fact, we collectively do so at our own peril.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at great length on this motion. I do want to say a few words, some of a personal nature, and endeavour to put the debate into the perspective of the government's view, and from my own as Premier.

I regret I did not hear all the contributions of all members. I heard bits and pieces. I heard a great deal of the member for Lake Nipigon. He gave a very reasonable and balanced perspective basing it on some personal knowledge.

I did not hear all the remarks of the member for York South. I wonder whether the member was not confusing two matters -- one I intend to address today -- that is, his motion of no confidence in the Speaker, and his point of view as to how the Speaker of this House should be selected.

I do not quarrel with the point of view of the member for York South as to the traditions or the process here. Our Legislature is not necessarily unique. Our traditions are very similar to many other legislatures in this country. I know he has written on the subject at great length. I have read articles and I understand his point of view. It is a proper area for discussion.

I confess I am not sure he has convinced me as to his point of view; but that is an issue for another time, it is not part of what he has put on the Order Paper. That is a separate and distinct issue wherein he suggests the members of this House do not have confidence in the Speaker's capacity to act as the Speaker. A great deal of the contribution by the member for York South related to a separate issue. When I say "separate" it refers to the selection of the Speaker. I intend to deal with the motion itself.

I make no apologies for it. I was the one who, contemplating the decision as to who would be selected by the members of this House, asked you to accept a very onerous responsibility. I did that on the basis of knowing you for a number of years, knowing you are a man of great integrity, that you, like the rest of us, were a partisan politician until you assumed this office and that you have been involved in the political process, as we all have been.

You acted as a gentleman, a person with sensitivity and ability to relate to not only your colleagues in government but those on the opposition benches. If I were asked to turn back the clock, and once again to search my own conscience as to whom from the government I would recommend to this most important responsibility, I would be on the phone to you asking you once again to assume this responsibility.

4:50 p.m.

This is a political environment. We all know that. I remember the former distinguished member from Sudbury, Mr. Sopha, who was one of the very eloquent speakers in this House. A lot of members are too young to remember Mr. Sopha but I remember him, not only as a member of this House --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Some of us are young and still remember.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Some of the members are younger. I was going to say something about the member's youth, but I will not.

I can recall Mr. Sopha reminded all of us that politics was not a tea party. It was not always pleasant. That is not why we have been elected, and we all understand the partisan nature of what goes on in this assembly. I have been here a good part of the time and I know some of the judgements you have been called upon to make, Mr. Speaker. On occasion the House has really asked you to make what is a political determination, and not a determination that relates to the rules of the House or how the House is conducted.

I shall not refer to the reality of March 19. That is not the issue that is before us. I think the opposition has every right to question the government. I like to think the members opposite do it in a constructive fashion. Some days I might feel it is not totally constructive, but that is part of it. But then it is part of government's responsibility as well to determine what answers are given. There is nothing in the rules that says how we must answer a question. In fact there is nothing in the rules, as I recall them, saying we necessarily have to answer.

I think you have been asked on occasion, Mr. Speaker, to make certain judgements that are part of a political process, and that the government can be held accountable for in terms of the views of the public as to our actions. We have to assume that responsibility. If the opposition disagrees with us we know where the ultimate recourse is at some point in time. It is not a position you should be placed in as Speaker of this assembly.

But to go back, I was very impressed by the views of the member for Lake Nipigon because if he wanted to go through his own experience, he would recall his first two or three months in office were not the easiest. He may recall some observations made by members of his own party as to whether he was being totally objective or whether he was being nonpartisan or whether he was exercising good judgement. I do not need to recite them chapter and verse but I think he will recall them. He will even recall the odd constructive article written by members of the media in his early days as Speaker.

The members opposite will not agree with this at all but as Premier -- which has its own responsibilities -- I found the first few months in office more difficult than I find now. The members opposite will not agree, but one does learn from experience. One is not put into a job and expected to achieve perfection the first day. It took me several years, and I confess I have not achieved perfection yet; that is brought to my attention regularly at 61 Main Street South, if nowhere else.

Mr. Speaker, the members of this House, by and large, understand that your job is tough; it requires sensitivity, and it requires judgement. But at the same time they are human enough to understand that you do not become an instant expert on the rules or decisions in a matter of 48 hours. I do not know anyone in this House who could have been asked to be Speaker, who within that short period of time would have been totally right in every decision made. I do not think even had I called the member for York South, with all his talent and experience, and asked him to be Speaker of this House -- which he would have refused to do -- he could necessarily have moved into that position and not made a mistake, or perhaps not have incurred some criticism by members of this assembly.

I remind the member for York South he was chairman of a very important committee. He has made some very great contributions in this assembly. He was chairman of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs. The one reason that committee had some measure of success was that in many cases, on a totally partisan committee, he had some pretty decent people from all political parties who helped him make that committee function effectively. They could have made his life as chairman as difficult as he perhaps on occasion has suggested we are making life difficult for the Speaker of this assembly. We are the ones, the members of this House, who have made the problems you have experienced, Mr. Speaker. We are the ones who have created them. There is no question about that.

Mr. Martel: None worse than the present speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. I am not going to say to the House leader of the third party that I have not on occasion prolonged some of my answers; I do not quarrel with that for a moment. But if he analysed the questions carefully, if he sometimes looked at the number of questions included in the question, he knows it takes me five minutes just to clear my throat. I do not have his ability to be articulate as instantly.

Mr. Martel: You were waiting for an interjection so you could respond.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand all of that.

Mr. Martel: You were waiting for the interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we all know how this House can be. For me, quite honestly, most days it is great fun; it is a stimulating experience. I think members generally understand the partisan nature. But when I heard that this motion was here, I must confess to you a personal disappointment, because I think we should be debating some of these issues on a political basis. No one is quarrelling with the opposition trying to make the life of government difficult. I know that is the responsibility of the members opposite. But it is not your problem to make those "political determinations."

I do not want to prolong this discussion. I have one thing I want to say very simply. As one who has been here as long as anyone and as one who has served under a number of Speakers, I have to say, sir, in terms of your sensitivity, decency, integrity and judgement, I have every confidence in you as Speaker of this assembly. I say that on a very personal basis.

I am going to make a personal plea, and this is not summing up the throne speech, which we do traditionally, or the budget speech, asking members opposite to reconsider -- I know every time I make that plea exactly what the reply is going to be -- but I ask the member for York South to canvass his own conscience to try to distinguish between his concern as to the procedures whereby the Speaker of this assembly is elected and his motion of no confidence in the present incumbent in that position.

I ask him to review in the next few minutes what his own colleague the member for Lake Nipigon has said and in a sense of decency, and I say this on a very personal basis, to reassess what he has suggested to the House and say to all of us: "Let us make it unanimous. Let us say to the Speaker of this assembly, 'Sir, we respect you; we understand the difficulties of running a House with 124 reasonably intelligent, logical, political people and how tough that is,'" and to join other members in this House in saying: "Mr. Speaker, we have been part of the problem that has been created; we have confidence in you as a person and as a Speaker of this House."

Let us, I say to the member for York South, give the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario a unanimous vote of confidence as he so rightly deserves.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate?

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a final comment. I understand in a debate like this one can make a final comment.

This debate has been something of a catharsis. I acknowledge Philip Laundy, who said no motion of censure on a person whom one respects personally is a tasteful thing. It is a distasteful thing. Perhaps it was a necessary catharsis. Perhaps the kind of criticism that has been poured out regularly into the media will cease. If it does, we will have achieved a purpose in terms of getting things back on the rail in this House.

5 p.m.

However, I say to the Premier, that I would search my conscience before I would do anything of this nature, so I did not need to be told by him that I should search my conscience.

Too much of what I put on the record in terms of how the Speaker has operated and why he has operated as he has -- in terms of his appointment, in terms of his advice which was pointed out to me many times by the member for Lake Nipigon and elsewhere -- too much of it is valid to wash out.

Therefore, I have no alternative but to leave the motion stand. But I join with all members in the House in hoping that it has served a purpose in getting a greater consensus, and for you, sir, a greater measure of support so that henceforth we will not have the kinds of scenes we have had in the past.

5:35 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. MacDonald's motion of resolution 31, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Cooke, Di Santo, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Renwick, Samis, Swart, Wildman.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Birch, Boudria, Bradley, Brandt, Breithaupt, Copps, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eakins, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Haggerty, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson;

Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, Mancini, McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen, McGuigan, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller G. I., Mitchell, Nixon, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Reid, T. P., Robinson, Runciman, Ruprecht, Ruston;

Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Worton, Wrye, Yakabuski.

Ayes 17, nays 86.

5:40 p.m.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 55, An Act to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act;

Bill 94, An Act to amend the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income Act;

Bill 137, An Act to amend the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act;

Bill 138, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act;

Bill 150, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

TOWN OF LINCOLN ACT

Mr. Andrewes moved second reading of Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Town of Lincoln.

Motion agreed to.