Hansard Transcripts 1981-Dec-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding I beg to inform the House the report of the Provincial Auditor for the fiscal year 1980-81 is being tabled today, and in accordance with standing order 91 it stands referred to the standing committee on public accounts.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of the honourable members there has been a mistake on page 554 of the Votes and Proceedings of the assembly for Friday, December 4 concerning a motion by Mr. Wells. It is quite obvious the House will meet in the chamber on Wednesday and Thursday of this week; however, the dates are wrong. That will be corrected in the journal.

Mr. Smith: I thought the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) was around. Am I mistaken? He was jogging this morning, I know, around Queen's Park.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, oh; that means new policy.

Mr. Smith: That may mean another rebate for the car industry, I do not know. Could the whip check?

ORAL QUESTIONS

TORONTO ICTS LINE

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, while we are looking for the Treasurer I will direct a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications regarding the $1.2 million study of public transit for the Toronto waterfront.

Will the minister give the House the following guarantees: first, that the study will deal with the transportation needs in that area and not simply the location of an intermediate capacity transit system line; second, that it will consider alternatives to ICTS technology; third, that the study will be carried out by a neutral and independent firm and not by the subsidiary of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation; and fourth, that the province's offer to pay 90 per cent of the first $100 million cost will stand even if the independent study finds the ICTS is not the preferred mode for use in that area.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, that certainly is the reason for the study. As I am sure the honourable Leader of the Opposition knows, an initial study was carried out by representatives of the Toronto Transit Commission, the city of Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto and my ministry. This study was submitted to Mayor Eggleton, to Mr. Godfrey, to the chairman of the TTC and to me. It recommended this further study to do exactly what the honourable Leader of the Opposition has suggested: to look at the public transportation needs in the waterfront area. They recommended that it not be limited to any degree.

I cannot guarantee the study will be carried out by an independent firm. It will not be UTDC, I can tell the honourable member that. It may be a joint working group headed by the TTC's own planning staff, who planned other TTC projects, in conjunction with representatives from Metro, from the city and from my ministry. I can assure the member they will be looking at the overall needs and the best way those can be met.

The third part of his question, whether the province will pay 90 per cent of the first $100 million even if it is not an ICTS system, will have to be answered at a later date if that is the recommendation.

Mr. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I ask why it is that in Toronto the minister is going to use a group that is not a UTDC subsidiary, but he did not favour Hamilton with such an independent study? We got a study done by UTDC's subsidiary, Metro Canada. How is it that the minister is willing to look at forms of transit need in Toronto other than the ICTS but he is not willing to do the same in Hamilton? Could the minister explain why he would have money to help Toronto with 90 per cent of the first $100 million if the intermediate capacity transit system is used, but he might not have it if a proper study indicates some other technology would be better?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I stated, this study is mainly being carried out by the Toronto Transit Commission in conjunction with Metropolitan Toronto and our ministry. That group may decide to use outside consultants. To my knowledge it is not planned that the Urban Transportation Development Corporation or Metro Canada will carry out that study.

In the case of Hamilton or the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, it was the decision of the technical group there to carry out the study on the ICTS system, including the city representatives who, if I recall correctly, unanimously approved entering into a contract with Metro Canada.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: If it is the desire of the provincial government to assist in the transportation needs of Metropolitan Toronto, the study should not be focussed just on the waterfront area. It should look at other areas where new rapid transit might be built in line with the priorities set out in the metropolitan region's plan, which did not include a waterfront line. Is it not the case the provincial government intends to try to get a line down on the waterfront as a showcase regardless of whether it happens to fit into the transportation priorities of Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the TTC and Metropolitan Toronto have an ongoing program to plan their present and future transit needs. They have been discussing this for a long time. In discussions I have had it is certainly recognized there is a definite need for an improved transit system on the waterfront, especially with the changes that have taken place and the approval of major new facilities in the waterfront area.

I believe it is recognized a study should be done. As far as I am concerned we are not in any way limiting the study to the Canadian National Exhibition and so-called Union Station loop. The committee that is studying it, and Metro, will be able to look at the total transportation needs on the waterfront, east to west, as they are looking at all other transportation needs. It has been our policy as a government and as a ministry to respond to programs.

Mr. Cassidy: That was not what the minister was proposing. There was a look at Eglinton, at Steeles and at Queen.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can only say exactly what the situation is at this time. I cannot say what the situation was 10 years ago. Over the years, this government has responded to the proposals put forward by the TTC or Metropolitan Toronto, in the construction of the Spadina subway, in the east and west extensions to the Bloor-Danforth subway and now in the construction of the system that is connecting the east-west subway to the Scarborough Town Centre. All those projects were planned and proposed by Metro Toronto, which we responded to with our funding.

Mr. Smith: Is the minister unaware that, in his task force report, it said the government of Ontario is prepared to use its Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program to stimulate the planned development of the waterfront? It says ICTS will be the technology for rapid transit in the central waterfront area.

Now the minister has accepted that other types of transit will be looked at in the study, I would ask two questions: First, why will he not do a similar study in Hamilton, where $3.5 million has been spent just on the one technology? We have been told if we do not take that we get nothing. Second, why would he now say to Toronto the 90 per cent of the $100 million might not be available in that amount unless the ICTS is used? Why is the minister so tied to that when it should be the real needs that guide the spending as shown by an independent study?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The BILD document, as I recall it, made a specific commitment to the 90 per cent funding for the first $100 million of an intermediate capacity transit system project on the Toronto waterfront, if Metro, the Toronto Transit Commission, et cetera, decide to proceed with that. That is a commitment. I cannot make a commitment beyond what the BILD document made. I am not going to speculate that, after the studies are carried out, the ICTS will not be the chosen system. After all, the Scarborough extension was planned to be a streetcar system. We had fully agreed to fund that system as a light rail system.

It was the council of the borough of Scarborough that made the decision, and came back and asked us to reconsider putting an ICTS system in there. I assure the member that was not initiated from my office. It was initiated by the elected representatives of the borough of Scarborough. The decision in Vancouver to use the ICTS system was made by the people who represent the city of Vancouver, not by my ministry.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Smith: A question to the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. The Treasurer will recall the very serious exchange we had in this House a month or so ago when he made it plain that even though he was against many aspects of the Canadianization program -- he was against the government using taxpayers' money to buy into American-owned oil companies -- he said that even though the deal would probably not mean new jobs or more oil for Ontario, at least the Suncor deal was a good investment.

Now we have had a chance to hear testimony from the so-called experts in which even they indicate that, given the cost of money and the anticipated return, we can expect to lose millions in interest for the next few years. They told us we can hope to break even by the end of the deal, about 25 years from now. So why does the Treasurer persist in saying it is a good business deal? Why does he not advise the Premier (Mr. Davis), while there is still time, not to sign the Suncor deal?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I assume the honourable Leader of the Opposition has come to his own conclusions based upon the exposure he had last week at the caucus meeting to the people who advised the government on the value of the purchase. The fact remains we posed a single question to that group and I believe they explained that. The single question was what is the value of the 25 per cent interest in Suncor. They came back with an answer and left to us the decision to buy it or not to buy it.

When financial analysts look at all the assets of a company and the cash flow predictions, obviously they make certain assumptions in the process, but I believe they are assumptions they make in a careful and probably conservative way to make sure the advice they give us is at least on the cautious side. I would argue that if those advisers said the shares were worth somewhere in the range between $550 million and $675 million, with a quarter interest, they were allowing for all the normal financial tests, allowing for the interest rates in effect at that time. Therefore, I would have no reason to question that advice.

Mr. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer must surely know he is wrong on that. The experts have said they were asked what the price would be for the shares and they based it on an estimate of between 15 and 20 per cent return over the 25-year life of the deal. They specifically said they did not take into account what the money would cost the province to borrow in order to pay for those shares. They specifically said that was not their concern.

It is the province's concern, however, and the cost of money approximately equals the overall return to be expected over 25 years with a definite cash flow deficit for the next several years. Given that, and the fact the Treasurer knows better than anyone just how hard it is to come by the money he needs to make things happen in Ontario, even to the point where he has to consider user fees in the health system, surely he has the responsibility to have the courage of his convictions and either say do not sign the deal or else resign from his position. He knows this is money Ontario can ill afford to waste in this way.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again there are two points there.

The member said interest rates of the day were not used. I counter that and say any time multiples of earnings or cash flow are used to set an asset value they take into effect the going interest rates. A few years back, it was not too uncommon to find companies selling for 20 times their earnings. Nowadays they are selling for much lower multiples because we have higher interest rates. That fundamental test should be used.

In the second question, he implied that Ontario had a hard job finding cash to run the government.

Mr. Smith: Why are you increasing user fees if you have a lot of money?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In eight out of the 10 past years, I hope the honourable member knows, we have not had to go into the marketplace to borrow any money except for those moneys that are held under the bond programs.

In eight of those past 10 years, we have actually covered all operating costs of this government out of our revenues, and a good part of the capital additions too. We can get money. Unlike the government in Ottawa we have been unwilling to borrow more or to spend more because we believe we are giving a fair mix of services to the people of the province, and we still are.

We can afford higher taxes if the member wishes. We can afford higher spending if the member wishes. One of the hallmarks of this province is that we have been very cautious before we spend taxpayers' money.

Mr. Cassidy: Having given this statement about his fiscal rectitude, could the Treasurer explain why the government is now prepared to borrow, by means of a note, $325 million from Suncor in order to help finance this purchase? It is prepared, possibly, to borrow the further $325 million for the other half of the purchase. It is not prepared to undertake $600 million, or some other figure of spending, in order to create jobs in the province at a time when we are faced with the worst economic crisis Ontario has seen for the last 20 years.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The only criticism I heard from the New Democratic Party was that we only bought 25 per cent. I thought they wanted us to buy 51 per cent, and that would have required at least $1.3 billion, as they know, or $1.35 billion.

There has been no sacrifice of any government program spending deemed necessary by the cabinet of this province because of the Suncor deal.

Mr. Smith: If the Treasurer of Ontario feels he has all the money he requires to carry out his important programs, could he kindly explain to the people of Ontario why he has found it necessary to privatize beds and bring in user fees in the health system, raise the ad valorem tax on oil during the last year to an unheard of point and to bring in the largest increase in taxation in his last budget that we can remember in this House. Why are universities and hospitals told they do not have enough money for funding'?

If he has all the money he needs and feels quite flush with money so that the Suncor deal, good or bad, is not going to hurt him very much, then why did he have to raise taxes? Why will he not fund hospitals and why is he privatizing beds instead'?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We are not changing the way hospitals have been dealt with over the years. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. There have always been private and semiprivate rooms; there has always been a differential, and it has been an insurable service. The only change was to free up the rate setting and allow the hospitals to keep some of the benefit. Surely that is not a change to a two-tier system, as some have called it, or some other major change. It is giving the hospitals a little more flexibility on their own end, so that they are not totally dependent upon the province for every dollar in the form of a budgetary allocation.

WITHDRAWAL OF REMARKS

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sorry I was delayed in getting to the House, or I would have raised this before the question period began. I shall leave it to your judgement as to whether you want to add the time this point of order takes to the question period.

Last Friday, the honourable member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) raised the requirement of having the rules lived up to rather firmly, particularly when anybody in the House describes another member of the House as having lied. The government House leader (Mr. Wells) supported that and so did some others. Finally, at least for that issue, it was resolved when the leader of the New Democratic Party withdrew his offending words.

I raised this at that time and nothing has happened, so I have to raise it again. It is now clear on the record that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) also told the government it had lied. From Hansard, I quote the leader of the Liberal Party:

"The leader of the New Democratic Party was thrown out of the House for saying the Premier lied. He was 100 per cent correct." At that point the microphones were turned off. The Acting Speaker, the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) did not hear what was shouted across the floor, interestingly enough, but it was picked up in the gallery and reported in the Globe and Mail as the Leader of the Opposition having said, "Of course they were user fees. You lied to the people of Ontario."

I draw to your attention that the Canadian Press story that has gone out to papers all across the province has these two paragraphs in it: "A short time later Liberal Leader Stuart Smith said inside the House what Cassidy had said was 100 per cent correct and he shouted across the floor to the government members in general, 'You lied to the people of Ontario.'"

There is no doubt about it, as was pointed out in the Globe and Mail editorial Saturday morning: "But why was Acting Speaker Don Cousens later less firm with Liberal Leader Stuart Smith? Dr. Smith said, 'You lied to the people of Ontario.' Hansard as well as Speaker Cousens failed to take note of Dr. Smith's words, but they were spoken. Perhaps Speaker Cousens did not wish to see the Legislature bereft of opposition leaders, but it was an uneven treatment of the two parties."

I think there is no doubt the Leader of the Opposition told the government side of the House it had lied. I now ask you to apply the rules of this House evenly, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk pleaded with you.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I am certainly prepared to withdraw the offending words. There are two things that need to be withdrawn. The first, I believe, is the statement that the leader of the NDP was 100 per cent correct. I certainly want to withdraw that. He never is, he never will be.

The other statement I wish to withdraw is, if I said, "You lied to the people of Ontario," I will withdraw that and substitute instead, "You did not tell the truth to the people of Ontario."

Mr. Speaker: That does not really alter the situation to any great degree. Contrary to the point raised by the member for York South, indeed there is room for doubt, contrary to what you may think. At present this matter is under investigation and has not been forgotten or lost sight of. As soon as I have a report I shall report back to this House. At this time it is unclear whether the allegations contained in the newspaper are 100 per cent correct. I just do not know.

Mr. Stokes: He even admitted to saying it.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I heard him, and that should dispose of that, but I am not really prepared to accept the substitute words.

Mr. Stokes: Are you saying the Leader of the Opposition is lying?

Mr. Smith: I do not want to prolong this. I will withdraw any allegation that the Premier has lied or that he is a liar. That is unparliamentary. I withdraw that. I say simply that he did not tell the entire truth and I think I am entitled to say that. He did not tell the entire truth on the subject of user fees and I think he knows that himself.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: I do not intend to get into this debate. I find it regrettable when members of this House use the kind of terminology they do --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I confess that when we have been involved in political campaigns I have indicated the Leader of the Opposition is sometimes not totally factual; which happens to be true, he is not. That is only a human error, because one cannot know everything and when one pretends to he makes mistakes.

The last part of his observation, that I knew, is totally factually incorrect. I will restate it very simply. The member should read my speech very carefully. We made it abundantly clear what was intended.

Mr. Kerrio: I force my kids to do that when they misbehave.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on my point of order, I appreciate you are looking into it and listening to the tape. I have done that. I have no doubt it was said because most of the people in the gallery heard it. However I leave that to you to look at.

The point I am raising is that this is the second time this year in which there has been an uneven application of the rules. On an earlier occasion --

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, there has not been an uneven application of the rules because there is some doubt. If you have listened to the tape, you must have doubt in your mind -- that is not recorded.

Mr. MacDonald: May I complete my point of order?

Mr. Speaker: No, because nothing is out of order.

Mr. MacDonald: This is an uneven application of the rules.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not. Order.

WINTARIO GRANTS

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Since the Minister of Culture and Recreation has taken his seat in the Legislature, I rise on a matter of personal privilege dealing with members on this side of the Legislature. I understand the minister will be making announcements this week concerning the capital grant approvals made by Wintario.

On Thursday this week, I called the minister's office asking whether that information would be made available to members on this side of the Legislature. I was informed we would be told about it only this week when the minister makes his announcement. I also understand the minister has given pre-information to some members on his side of Legislature as to those grants that have been approved. I ask the minister if he will clarify this matter.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, since the question was raised as a matter of privilege, I want to advise the House that, as the member opposite has suggested, there will be an announcement on the new capital grants program very soon, probably tomorrow. The usual procedure will apply. When all the grants have been approved and if the announcement is made tomorrow, the mail will be going out tomorrow night or Wednesday morning. We will be following the same practice we have followed over the years, which is that every member in the House will be getting a copy of the letter of approval. The members opposite will have it just as soon as they have it over on this side.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, further on the matter of personal privilege: Can I take it then that is the minister's assurance that not one member on his side of the Legislature has received that information prior to when the letters go out later this week?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, is that a supplementary point of privilege?

Mr. Cassidy: What is this?

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer on that. Yes or no?

Mr. Speaker: I thought, with all respect, the minister had answered that in the original statement.

Mr. Bradley: Is that yes or no?

Mr. Speaker: The member wants an assurance that --

Mr. Foulds: Is this question period?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, that is right. Obviously, it is now known what projects are going to be approved and what projects will not be approved. That information is confidential. It is in the computers. I have no way of knowing if one member someplace in this House got some information. I cannot verify that, but I can say that the practice tomorrow will be a fair one, the same practice we have followed over the years.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, on that same matter of privilege, if there is one member on that side of the Legislature who has received that information before members on this side, it is surely something that is wrong, and I would like an assurance of that.

Mr. Speaker: I think the minister did, with all respect.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I trust that --

Mr. Speaker: Is this the same one?

Mr. Cassidy: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a gross abuse of the question period, and I trust you will add some time to the question period in order to compensate for that.

Mr. Speaker: I think you are absolutely right, and I am prepared to do that. Let us move along.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am prepared to add 10 minutes to the length of question period for the points of order that were raised.

TRIBUTE TO DONALD C. MacDONALD

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have a brief point of privilege, in which I think all members of the House can join me in a very positive way. Today is the sixty-eighth birthday of the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) and he has now spent 26 years in the Ontario Legislature. I want to congratulate him for his fine service to the people of Ontario. No minister needs to respond to that.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. He must be aware that since the announcement made by the government that it was going to raise to more than half the number of private and semi-private beds which hospitals can have on their rolls in Ontario, and give them local option to do so, the Minister of National Health and Welfare of the federal government has stated quite specifically what the federal requirements are under the federal legislation, in saying in the Commons committee on Friday that under the accessibility criteria of medicare, and under the actual legislation, half the beds in any given hospital must be public beds. They must remain absolutely public, not only for those Canadian customers without money who cannot pay, but for those who do not want to pay because they have already paid through their taxes for their access to medicare.

In view of that statement by the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare, would the Premier not agree that the decisions announced by the government last week constitute a clear violation of the accessibility to medicare which should be maintained in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, no.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Premier aware, then, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has stated quite specifically, "If the minister in Ontario wanted to change the 50 per cent rule, he would have to obtain my permission, which I would not give because it is a breach of accessibility, and it would have to mean an amendment to the law as well"?

Why is it that the government undertook at the Ontario level to violate the agreement with the federal government, and, by not seeking permission from the federal government, also to jeopardize the funding for more than $2 billion of federal funds coming to Ontario for medicare?

Hon. Mr. Davis: My answer will be very simple: first, we do not believe we are jeopardizing; second, they are all public beds in Ontario hospitals; third, we do not believe we are in breach of the law.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Premier saying that if two thirds of the beds in a hospital are semi-private or private, that is no violation of a rule that says 50 per cent of the beds must be public? Is the Premier saying that if 95 per cent of the beds are being charged for, it still does not violate the rule?

Is the Premier not aware there are rules that were put in with the hospital insurance plan that were meant to ensure that hospital insurance would be available to all Canadians without their having to pay extra, and that the government of Ontario entered solemn agreements with the federal government to maintain those criteria, which are essential to medicare and essential to hospital insurance? Why, after 20 years, is the government of Ontario backing away from those requirements of universal medicare freely available and freely accessible to every citizen in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Very simply, we are not.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question, which is to the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of the conclusions reached by the joint conference committee of medical staff at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, wherein they determined that the situation at Queen Street has reached the point where psychiatrists are unable to review the treatment of acute and chronic patients as often as demanded by medical standards; where they find that required home visits to patients can no longer be made; where they conclude there has been a reduction both quantitatively and qualitatively in the standards of care; where they now speak of the frustration and hopelessness which has beset the staff because of the circumstances created by the freeze imposed by the ministry, and where they speak of the rapid deterioration of services to the extent where it endangers the patients?

Could the minister say why the ministry was not aware of that situation at Queen Street and why no action has been taken to improve it?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, a number of the ministry's actions in the last year are indeed intended to improve the situation at Queen Street. First, let me say we do not believe the situation at Queen Street constitutes a threat to staff or patients. Second, when we changed the administration at Queen Street earlier this year, it was the first tangible action on our part, recognizing as we did at the time that things were not all they could be at that hospital.

Having done that, we engaged outside consultants to make a thorough objective review of the programs at Queen Street. The honourable member will recall the initial report of those consultants was discussed at some length in the public press. I am sure he will also recall they were finding and continue to find some fault with the way programs have been carried out at Queen Street.

In particular, they were finding fault with what is known as the primary therapist model, with the geographic unit versus the functional program model, with the policies of the hospital with respect to the use of physical restraints, their policy being to use those hardly at all, if at all. Out of that review will come a number of significant changes in the program at Queen Street.

I could add that the government has approved the establishment of a medium secure unit at Queen Street as a means of better handling some of the more difficult patients. All of these things are aimed at improving Queen Street, not at perpetuating what we recognized some time ago was not an ideal situation.

Mr. Cassidy: The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) just told the House no public program in Ontario has been sacrificed to pay for Suncor. Could the minister explain how he expects any improvement can be made at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre when the government projects spending on its psychiatric services in 1981-82 will be only one per cent higher than the spending back in 1980-81, and when the government has reduced the number of psychiatric beds in the province by 15 per cent since 1975, bringing them down from 9,400 to less than 8,000?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Just to deal with that matter, I cannot quote you the numbers of beds in our 10 provincial psychiatric hospitals, but if I remember correctly, the number of beds in the 10 hospitals is just in excess of 4,000. The only reductions in my time in the Ministry of Health have been through the closing of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital. As the member will recall, all the inpatient population of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital was moved into vacant beds at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre.

That is the only change in my time. Over the last 10, 12 or more years a number of community psychiatric units have been established. At this time, about 60 are functioning in public hospitals or general hospitals, which I believe total about 2,000 beds, or something in that order.

Coming back to the question of the estimates, the member's health critic could tell him that when we discussed that matter in the estimates committee, I pointed out to him -- and I do not have the figures in front of me -- that last year there was quite a jump from the printed to the actual estimates and the difference between the printed and the actual was the settlement with the union. This year's printed estimates do not include anything for the settlement. That will be added when the settlement with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union is known to our staff, so the increase in spending will be much more than one per cent.

The member is right if he compares last year's actual, which includes the settlement money, with this year's printed estimates. It is about one point something-or-other per cent. What he has to compare is printed to printed and actual to actual. It would be much higher than one per cent.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, according to the article in the Globe and Mail that the NDP leader referred to, the minister received a hand-delivered letter on November 13, which outlined concerns of the medical staff at Queen Street over the declining quality of patient care. It recommends, in regard to the hiring freeze and replacement of eight psychiatrists who left and have not been replaced, that they be replaced this year. What course of action will the minister take to try to overcome a serious problem of this nature?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I thank the honourable member for asking that question, Mr. Speaker. I am glad he raised that point, because in the whole article, which I read this morning, there was only one thing with which I took issue and that was the statement early on in the article that I had said I did not have any time to read the letter. That is not at all what I said --

Mr. Ruprecht: That is not what I am saying. I am not saying the minister did not.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I might take the opportunity to correct the record because in a way I think my privileges were abridged, because I did not say that. In fact what happened -- I checked very thoroughly and had most of the office working all morning to find out about this letter, and we have no record of having received the original copy of the letter -- is that apparently a Dr. Frank phoned my secretary subsequent to the date the letter was sent. I am not disputing it was probably sent, but I am saying we cannot find any record of ever having received it.

Subsequent to that, she phoned my secretary to follow up on the question of a possible meeting, and my secretary told her she could not recall having received it or seen it, at which point a copy was sent. That copy arrived in my office on the 24th, 11 days after the date of the original letter. On the 25th, it was sent out immediately to the director of the psychiatric hospitals branch asking him to prepare a reply for my signature as soon as possible. Discussion of the date of a possible meeting is also pending with my secretary. I wanted to clear that up.

As regards the freeze, at this point I am advised by the director of the psychiatric hospitals branch that there are eight frozen positions at Queen Street. The total complement at this time is 1,131 full-time equivalent positions at Queen Street, and there are eight frozen positions. Over and above that there were, until about 10 days or two weeks ago, 10 medical positions, three psychiatric and one medical, which positions were, if you will, unfrozen, and for which hiring will proceed.

Throughout the application of the freeze, since the spring of this year, selective rehiring has gone on to preserve the integrity of the program. In fact I am advised that the complement today, which I am advised is 1,131, is within 10 or so positions of what it was a year ago. So in fact there has not been, in this last year, a significant reduction in the staff, which one would understandably conclude there had been, given the way the matter has been reported.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the minister states he just had a copy of the letter sent to him a few days ago by the medical review committee at the hospital. Could the minister explain what is it about the operations of the Ministry of Health itself that leads to the minister not being aware of the feelings of frustration and the difficulties the staff were having long before November 24 when he actually received that letter?

Specifically, what is it about communications within the Ministry of Health that, when the fact that the medical director of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre -- the largest in the province, I think it is -- tells his superiors that staff are becoming dangerously overburdened in terms of their capacity to meet the demands for service, talks about the situation having become intolerable and submits memos to his superiors to that effect back on September 30, leads to there being no reaction and apparently no cognizance of that taking place within the ministry, unless it is a decision by the ministry to try to ignore completely the problems of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Even if we wanted to, and we do not, that would be impossible, obviously. The decision to lift the freeze on the three psychiatric and one medical positions was taken on the advice of the administrator and the medical director of Queen Street. I have been aware, of course, as we all have, of a variety of concerns at Queen Street. I suppose that is to be expected inasmuch as we decided almost a year ago, getting on for a year ago, that rather than enlarging the staff even further, as was recommended by the medical staff at the end of their think tank session held at the Guild Inn last October or November, the time had come to do a complete review of Queen Street.

2:50 p.m.

Given that we were not satisfied and we had heard any number of complaints about the geographic units versus functional programs and of various things -- the primary therapist model and so forth, all those things that had been coming in for criticism in the consultant's report -- rather than accepting that report, we said, "No, we are going to change administration; we are going to engage consultants to look at all these policies" -- including things such as have been raised by the health critic and the member for Parkdale; the so-called open door policy and so forth, all of these matters -- "in order that we can carry out our responsibility as the ministry responsible for that hospital and say, 'This is the role we intend that you will play in order that you may best meet the psychiatric, and/or mental health needs of the people of the catchment area which you serve.'"

I can assure the honourable members that since the new administrator has gone there, he informs me he has been holding daily meetings with the medical director and with the director of nursing to go over all the daily reports and to follow up on anything that is untoward in any of the daily reports. I am told he now meets monthly with the medical director and with the medical advisory committee. There have been a number of changes in the administrative structure at Queen Street, I think all to the better.

I should say too that I am told there was a recent audit of nursing care carried out by the director of nursing and she has reported that nursing care in the hospital has improved. I am also pleased to note, which is perhaps one indication of overall morale, that the number of lost days per employee has gone down this year from 14.2 to 12.2, which is one barometer, one index one could use to indicate that perhaps things are not quite as bad as some would have us believe.

HUNEAULT DUMP SITE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. The minister may now be aware of a dump site in the city of Gloucester called the Huneault dump site. The site has been the source of complaints to his Ottawa regional office for a very long time, concerning odours. The site is located immediately across from the Notre Dame des Champs school and the schoolyard is often filled with gulls and other birds which inhabit the site.

Given that all certificates of approval issued for the site and the original application indicate that the dump is to accept only 100 per cent industrial, nonorganic and inert material; given that these photographs, which I have here and which I will send to the minister, and the presence of birds clearly indicate that organic waste of one form or another is obviously going on to this site, would the minister ensure that this site is operated in a legal manner according to the specifications set out in his certificate of approval?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into that matter and give the honourable member whatever assurances I can. Obviously, off the top of my head I am not sure whether it is the dump or something else that might be attracting the gulls, but I will certainly try to find out.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, the minister may very well have some question about that, but the fact is that representatives from his ministry have visited the site and said that indeed they were being plagued by complaints about the operation of the site, especially recently, related to odours. In his consultant's report, it says "a section dealing with the operation will be necessary. Although there have been improvements, there was indeed odour on the site."

When the minister considers that this site was just to accept waste such as concrete and other building materials, while my colleague has mentioned the gulls and pictures of what is obviously garbage being dumped on the site, the fact that his inspectors went there and found this to exist appears to be somewhat of a contradiction with some of the reports that other members and inspectors of his ministry have given on this site.

It appears there should be some thorough investigation made of this situation, because there is a great deal of controversy about it and we cannot get precise clear answers. I wonder if the minister would have that done.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly inquire into it. If by "a thorough investigation" the member means a judicial inquiry or something, I do not think that kind of response is necessary, but I will certainly respond to the concerns expressed by the honourable members opposite. I must say, although I am impressed by the photography, I cannot really tell from the pictures whether the material is organic or inorganic. But I will certainly inquire of the ministry.

Mr. Smith: Seagulls know.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Seagulls know, but I am not sure if --

Mr. Smith: They don't chase concrete.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Well, you never know.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Otherwise they would be landing on your head.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You never know when you might meet a kinky seagull.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, because this facility is located right across from a school and the danger is potentially much greater than it would be otherwise, would the minister assure us that his ministry will do an especially thorough investigation? We have been told by people that organic food waste is sometimes dumped at night or at times of the day when nobody is looking. Would the minister undertake to look into those aspects, not just make a routine check in the daytime and say, "Well, this appears to be fine"? Would he investigate this thoroughly, because there have been very many complaints. The thousands of birds that he has seen in the picture, as the Leader of the Opposition said, are not chasing concrete.

Hon. Mr. Norton: For the third time, Mr. Speaker, yes.

RENTAL CONSTRUCTION LOAN PROGRAM

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It concerns the thousands of people on waiting lists for assisted housing in Metro Toronto, emergency cases such as those of women who are pregnant and have two kids and who applied to the Ontario Housing Corporation in July and were told they would not get in until next spring.

Does the minister think he is doing enough to stimulate assisted housing starts when he is going to have only 132 assisted units in Metro Toronto under the Ontario rental construction loan program, when up to 40 per cent of private housing, according to the housing registries, will not accept women or women with children, and when he is following a policy of evicting the empty-nesters at a time when there is an 0.3 per cent vacancy rate in the private market?

Will he accept the request of the Metro Toronto social services committee that OHC involve itself directly in housing construction in Metro, which it has not done for the last six years? Will he look at the possibility of using province of Ontario lands, such as those east of Bay Street, to provide substantial assisted housing starts in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on the subject of the provision of rental subsidy homes in this particular community and, indeed, across Ontario. The honourable member might say that we have not been in the direct construction business, and that is absolutely right -- but that has not been since the last six years; rather, since about 1978 or 1979, when there was an agreement by the 10 provinces and the federal government that we would then get into nonprofit housing, both public and private, and into the co-op units. Indeed, we also got into rent supplement by the private sector.

Through those programs we have attempted to satisfy to the greatest degree possible the need for units for people on subsidies in all communities in the province. I pointed out to the members of this House during my estimates, and I do it again today, that our advancement through the co-ops and so on has been rather rewarding. Indeed, the Ontario rental construction loan program will reach better than 15,000 units under construction by the conclusion of this month, and that is for the province of Ontario. We have indicated very clearly that to qualify for that program, 25 per cent of the units must be made available, where necessary, for rent supplement purposes.

I think when you put that together with the amount of turnover we have in the housing program in this province, whether it be ownership, nonprofits or through the rental construction loan program and the supplementary rent program, there is a 10 per cent turnover even in this community. The cases that have been referred to will be analysed by OHC.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister met with his federal counterpart, Mr. Cosgrove, on December 4, can he relate to the House specifically what they may have discussed on that occasion concerning the Ontario Housing Corporation's empty-nester evictions policy? At that time, at that meeting with his federal counterpart, did he propose a revision of the eligibility criteria and the cost-sharing agreement, and can we expect an end to the present position of evicting people simply because they no longer have any children at home?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether that is a supplementary, but I am prepared to answer it. It is very clear that I met with the minister reporting for housing in Canada in my office this morning, not on December 4.

3 p.m.

We reviewed a number of issues relating to the rent supplement program, the rental construction loan program and the new program announced by Mr. MacEachen on November 12, and we looked at the empty-nester policy as it relates to Ontario Housing Corporation and as to how it affects other parts of Canada as well. My comment on that is that I said to Mr. Cosgrove that his people, my people and the Ontario Housing Corporation will be reviewing it and hoping to have a policy announcement some time in the new year. This met with the minister's acceptance.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that last week at the regional council in Waterloo, James Gray, the regional chairman, expressed grave concern at the inability of our region to house people who have emergency needs because of the extreme shortage of OHC units in our area? If so, and if this pattern is repeated in other regional areas around the province, does the minister have any advice whatsoever to offer to such a regional chairman?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I expect Mr. Gray likely had some comment to make. Others have had comments to make on it as well. I must say the regions are not forbidden from trying to assist in the problem of emergency housing if they see a problem in their communities.

I do not have the exact figures with me on that particular region, but we have attempted through the Ontario rental construction loan program to put more units both on the private rental market and in those that require assistance in that community, as we have in any other across the province.

I am not disregarding it. I said clearly in my estimates a week or so ago that there are some problems in the field of housing and the immediate need for some units. That is why we have pressed the private sector to participate with governments in trying to find a solution to that situation. There is no funding under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the loan program for the provinces and the federal government, to go back into direct construction in major urban areas.

There happens to be one program which allows for this in the rural and native programs in various remote parts of Ontario and the rest of Canada, and in some of the smaller communities, where CMHC still takes a rather active part with the OHC in actual construction.

COW-CALF STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last Tuesday, the minister announced a program for cow-calf operators. He also mentioned he was going to establish a high-powered action committee and appoint one member at large from the farm community. Has the minister appointed that member yet?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. I have appointed Mr. Fred Lewis, who is the reeve of London township, ex-warden of Middlesex county and a graduate of the Ridgetown College of Agricultural Technology. He has a beef cattle operation, a broiler chicken operation and is a cash crop farmer. I am happy to report that committee is meeting today.

I am sure the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) would agree that Fred Lewis is a top candidate for this. The reason we chose Mr. Lewis is we felt we should get a farmer from western Ontario. Mr. Ralph Barrie is from eastern Ontario and we wanted a farmer from western Ontario. Mr. Lewis lives north of London near the area where they are having problems.

WINTARIO GRANTS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege relating to the answer given to my colleague regarding the Wintario announcement. Could the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) investigate and report to this House how the system broke down, allowing the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) to announce a $1-million bonanza of Wintario grants? Are these the same grants he is going to announce --

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I think that is a new question.

Mr. Eakins: No, it is not.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is.

Mr. Eakins: It is a question of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: If it is a legitimate question of privilege, I will entertain it at the end of question period rather than take up the time of question period.

ANCHOR CAP AND CLOSURE EMISSIONS

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Because of the minister's inadequate response to my question on November 23, I shall ask it again. Since the Environmental Appeal Board ruled in favour of Anchor Cap and Closure Corporation of Canada Limited to install a stack to control emissions and since the residents in the junction triangle have been complaining about odours from Anchor Cap and Closure company for over a decade, as the minister is well aware, and he fully knows that Anchor Cap has duped his ministry for years into allowing it to have exemptions and extensions in its control order to clean up emissions, will the minister assure this House that rather than placing a control order on the company to abate its emissions, an order in council under the Environmental Protection Act will be imposed on the company to ensure that the pollution abatement equipment is installed by May 31, 1982?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the honourable member is aware, the decision made by the Environmental Appeal Board related to the type of technology that ought to be installed. If I recall correctly, they referred specifically to a new stack. It is my understanding that the earliest time by which one could properly assess the effectiveness of that, once it is installed, would be later than next spring. It is my further understanding that the company will be proceeding forthwith with the construction of the stack pursuant to the decision of the board. If there is any indication of their failure to do that, we will take appropriate action.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister is fully aware that there is a real pollution problem in the junction triangle area. I am specifically speaking about Glidden paint and Nacan company which are also at present under control orders, and there is a voluntary abatement program.

Following the installation of a stack at Anchor Cap, will the minister undertake the task of further monitoring the area on a monthly basis so that if any further abatement programs of any other companies is required, the ministry will have all the necessary data on which to impose new control orders or orders in council? Will the minister also assure this House that in the future his ministry will not be duped by polluting companies into granting extensions of their control orders? Will the minister also allow that negotiations leading to control orders should be held in a public forum for all matters other than those dealing with confidential information?

Hon. Mr. Norton: We will go even further than part of what the honourable member was requesting in terms of monitoring. That has not ceased. There is a clear timetable being worked out with the company for not only the implementation of the decision of the Environmental Appeal Board, but also for the ongoing monitoring of odours. Subsequently, once the stack is in place, for monitoring for downwind impact from the stack, we will immediately be doing work with the company to determine what can be done to restrict any fugitive emissions, which are those that are not at present directed through the stack even though that, as I understand it, was not specifically dealt with by the Environmental Appeal Board.

I think the ministry clearly has not been duped. As a matter of fact, our position at the hearing was more restrictive than the board chose to accept. The stack was not our first choice in terms of abatement measures. However, we are also bound by a decision of the board and are willing to pursue not only the implementation of that abatement technology, but also further steps to try to reduce the impact upon the residents of that area.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not agree that had he accepted the amendment to Bill 143, that would have stopped this process where these companies that continue to pollute can continuously apply for extensions through the appeal process and continue to pollute areas even after they are given a reasonable length of time to clean up a situation that should not exist, not only in this jurisdiction but all across Ontario?

Would he not agree it is time he started looking at the amendments we put so that a company, after it has been given reasonable time, is going to be put to the task of stopping the pollution of our cities and towns'?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, obviously from time to time I experience frustration about apparent delays in the process, as does the honourable member opposite. But I think the specific amendment proposed by the member during the course of consideration of the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act was a difficult one to accept for a number of reasons. Not least of these was that I still happen to believe that when there is an administrative decision made by an administrator, albeit a senior one, in my ministry or any other, there ought to be an opportunity for some review of that if the individual who bears the brunt of that decision feels it was somehow unfair, and that individual ought to be entitled to some hearing or review.

That is precisely what this provision in the act provides for, and what the honourable member was willing to take away, flying quite in the face, as I understand it, of the intent of the recommendations of the royal commission headed by Mr. Justice McRuer a number of years ago in this province. Following that, a number of provisions were made so that if this kind of thing happened individuals could appeal from certain administrative decisions. I do not think we would want to turn the clock back on that one, even though we do face frustrations from time to time.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Health regarding a 14-year-old girl by the name of Mary Bulat, who lives in the city of Windsor. At the age of nine, this young girl was diagnosed as having schizophrenia, and since then has had one year at the regional children's centre, one year at Glengarda, and many years of bouncing around from one spot to another.

She has been, as of November 6 of this year, committed on a doctor's authorization to St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, an adult institution, which has indicated to me verbally that it is providing absolutely no treatment for this child; it is simply providing a babysitting service, because there are no facilities available for this 14-year-old girl.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health how it is that in this day and age children like Mary can go untreated for five years in an appropriate facility, and doctors today are throwing their arms up in the air and simply saying, "We have no facility for children of this age who have serious psychotic problems."

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to answer the member's question, I would draw to the attention of the House the presence in your lower gallery of a friend and former colleague of many people here, Mr. John Root, the former member for Wellington-Dufferin and former Minister without Portfolio.

I really am not in a position to answer the honourable member's question, inasmuch as the children's mental health programs have not, for almost five years, come under the Ministry of Health. They have, since July 1, 1977, been the responsibility of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I recognize the seriousness of the question, and I will take it as notice for my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), and see that it is drawn to his attention today, or to his staff if he is not in town, so that an answer may be completed for the member as soon as possible.

Mr. Cooke: I understood these services had been transferred to the children's services division, but I also understand this child is in a health care facility, a hospital, right now, and therefore I am sure the minister is, and should be, concerned that these facilities are being inappropriately used and children are being improperly placed in his facilities.

I would like to ask the minister if he would also bring to the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services that when CPRI was looked at in London, the St. Thomas facility indicated the very earliest they could even get an assessment is the end of January; when London Psychiatric Hospital was looked at as an alternative, there was at least a four-month waiting list; when private special foster care facilities were looked at as a possible alternative, there were none; when they applied to Maryvale in Windsor, they rejected the application because they said the child was uncontrollable; that basically there are absolutely no facilities for this child. In the meantime, she goes on in St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital with no program, where she is just in limbo, and as was said by the staff, she is just being babysat by the staff at St. Thomas.

Will the minister communicate this to the Minister of Community and Social Services? As a government, when are they finally going to get their act together and provide facilities for children who need institutional care and need the type of institutions that are confined?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will draw all of the points raised by the honourable member today to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, and ask him to include those in his consideration of his reply to him.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

WINTARIO GRANTS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The matter of privilege I rose on previously was to follow up on the point of privilege of my colleague and to ascertain from the minister if the announcement made of the $1-million Wintario bonanza by the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) was the same announcement he had assured the members had not been announced previously to any member of the House.

I wonder if the minister would comment and let the members know how the system has broken down that would allow one member to make this announcement. Is it the same announcement the minister is planning to make later this week?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press reports that are alleged to have been based on a report made by the member for Renfrew South, so I cannot comment specifically on this. As I noted in my response on an earlier point of privilege raised by the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), I can only repeat what the system is, which is that when the announcement is made -- and it will be made very shortly -- the letters of approval go out to all the successful projects. At that time, copies of those letters will be issued to every member of this House and they will be made aware of this immediately.

I have no way of knowing how the member for Renfrew South apparently got some information, but I can assure the member this is an exception. Everyone who knows the member for Renfrew South recognizes him as being an entrepreneur and an enterpriser who has had long experience here. Maybe he found a way. I do not know. The policy, as I have noted, is that everybody in this House is informed at the time the letters go out.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wonder if we might ask the minister to report to this Legislature as to how this particular case happened and whether there were any other breaches of secrecy on this matter. It is an important matter. There should not be one member on that side who has more access on this.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with the member for Renfrew South. I will do so and if I find out anything more from him, I will be happy to report to the House.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, as the minister is contemplating his report to the Legislature, I would be grateful if he would table the guidelines or procedures with regard to the delivering of cheques as well. Certain of us on the opposition side get the idea there is a political flavour to this.

ONTARIO HOCKEY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to try to ascertain what is going on between the Ontario Hockey Association and the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

I have a copy of a letter sent by the president of the OHA, Mr. Brent Ladds, and I will quote in part: "The bottom line to what is outlined, Mr. Minister, is that either Mr. Cousens in his submission has misled the committee on procedural affairs into believing that you recommended that he attend the proceedings, or conversely, that you are misleading us in your letter of November 12, 1981, wherein you outline that the committee acts totally independent from the ministry.

3:20 p.m.

"The chairman is a Mr. G. A. Kerr, MPP from Burlington South. Being a fellow Conservative, I am sure that there must have been some discussion between your office and himself as chairman of the committee, to establish the groundwork for Mr. Cousens' appearance before the committee."

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that somebody misled somebody else; it is not clear who misled whom. I would like you to investigate the matter.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REVISED STATUTES CONFIRMATION ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 184, An Act to confirm the Revised Statutes of Ontario Act, 1980.

Motion agreed to.

REVISED STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 185, An Act to amend the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, it is customary after the decennial revision of the statutes of Ontario for this House to enact legislation which confirms the effect, in law, of the statute revision. Accordingly, the Revised Statutes Confirmation Act, 1981, confirms the form of the statutes as revised and republished in the RSO 1980 by the statute revision commissioners.

The Revised Statutes Amendment Act, 1981, has as its purpose the correction of certain errors and omissions in the 1980 RSO publication for the purpose of preserving the original text of the statutes amended.

SURROGATE COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 186, An Act to amend the Surrogate Courts Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the amendment would permit matters in the surrogate court, in which the office of the judge is temporarily vacant, to be dealt with by a surrogate court judge outside the county. The amendment is parallel to the provisions applied to county court judges under section 17 of the County Judges Act.

EXPROPRIATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, first reading of Bill 187, An Act to amend the Expropriations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, this amendment would permit former owners of surplus expropriated land to repurchase it at the price paid by the expropriating authority, plus interest, rather than having to meet the best offer for such lands as at present.

ARMENIAN COMMUNITY CENTRE ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Kennedy, first reading of Bill Pr45, An Act respecting the Armenian Community Centre.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to table the answers to questions 255 and 265 standing on the Notice Paper. (See Hansard for Friday, December 11).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: I might also indicate that the business for the day indicates that following the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs we would move to the second reading of Bill 166. Since it is now likely that the estimates will last right through to six o'clock, it has been decided we would call Bill 166 at eight o'clock tonight before the other orders on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

On vote 601, ministry administration program:

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I adjourned the debate on Friday. In my very brief remarks on Friday, I selected four questions which I had raised during my introductory comments on these estimates and asked the minister if he would specifically reply to those four questions.

Just to refresh the memory of the minister, I will very briefly enumerate the four questions and then I hope the minister will reply on those issues.

My first question was, did the minister follow my suggestion that he urge the Premier (Mr. Davis) to talk to the other signatories to the November 5 accord on the constitution resolution in order to make a last-ditch attempt last week before the resolution was adopted to get override clause lifted from the sections of the charter dealing with discrimination on grounds of sex, physical and mental handicaps, race, religion, age and ethnic origin and such matters?

Also, did he urge the Premier to attempt to get the override clause lifted from fundamental freedoms and legal rights, which are also very important parts of the charter?

Obviously if he did take up this initiative he did not succeed, but I would like to know did the minister and the Premier make an effort to get a further change in the accord.

My second question is, what initiatives is the government planning in order to join in the north-south dialogue and bring more aid to the Third World? Does the province feel it has a role to play in this very crucial area for world development and world peace?

3:30 p.m.

My third question is on the subject of the proposed cutbacks of $5.9 billion in federal transfers to the provinces over the next five years. What plans does the province have to make common cause with the other eight provinces to oppose reductions in the revenue guarantee in equalization payments and to oppose changes in the established program funding grants for health and post-secondary education?

Such federal transfers are the means we have adopted in this country to establish national standards across the country in social fields. They are the sinews of Confederation that bind us together. I would like to know what leadership Ontario is giving to see that these transfers are not cut back.

My fourth question relates to the hospitality fund which comes under this ministry. While I do not object to the Ontario government providing hospitality to distinguished visitors and honouring people who have made significant achievements, I think the policy of hosting affairs for a lot of visiting organizations should be looked at very carefully in these times of restraint.

Perhaps both the number and the style of such affairs should be reconsidered in the light of cutbacks that are being made in other fields. We do not seem to have enough money to pay adequate allowances to people on social assistance or to provide adequate housing for people who are caught in the very tight housing situation, particularly for low-income people, but we do seem to have money for very elaborate entertainment functions. One way of cutting costs, as I mentioned, would be to institute cash bars at such affairs, and not encourage the trend towards alcoholism, which is growing in this country. I would like some figures from the minister as to how much the hospitality fund has grown in the last two years.

Those are the four areas in which I would like a reply from the minister before we go on to other matters.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to reply to those before we go on to other speakers who may wish to comment on several other matters. First of all, let me deal with the member's first question, which, as I understand it, was, did the minister speak to the Premier about an Ontario initiative to convince the other first ministers to remove the override on fundamental legal and equality rights.

Of course, I discussed this at numerous times with the Premier. If the member is asking specifically whether in the last few days we discussed having it removed at this time after the accord has been signed and as the resolution is going through the Parliament of Canada, the answer is no. The discussions that took place between the first ministers of this country, most of them either by conference call or by Telex, et cetera, concerned straightening out the matter of guaranteeing equality to males and females in the constitution and the reinsertion of an aboriginal rights section.

In answer to the honourable member's question I think it has to be said first of all that Ontario, of course, is one of only two provinces in Canada that consistently supported a charter of rights without any override provision, and I am sure we did so with the support of all the members of this House. We supported the original charter and the original federal resolution, which did not have any override, and we supported that charter vigorously. When many groups made their presentations before a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons there were matters added to the charter of rights. Ontario continued to support that charter as it was revised by the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate.

Ms. Bryden: Then you sold it out.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No one has sold out. I am trying to explain what the whole situation is all about. I do not think anyone need question the province's motives. I think Ontario's motives in this matter have always been of the highest. I think there is no need to question the motives of the Premier or this government when we say we would not use the override in any detrimental manner.

I would like to explain to members why I add that phrase "in any detrimental manner." The inclusion of the override was for positive reasons as much as it was for negative reasons. I realize a lot of people view an override to the constitution as somehow watering down those specific guarantees. However there are others who will argue -- and indeed I read the article by Douglas Fisher which I think was referred to here last week by my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). When one reads the whole article, it is really a fairly balanced one.

It says there are eminent authorities on both sides -- those who argue that an override is not a good thing and others who say the presence of an override is an added protection. These say it ensures the supremacy of the elected people who are able to correct some wrong that may not have been even envisaged and yet may be brought about by some judicial decision at some time. Therefore, I thought the Douglas Fisher column was fairly balanced and certainly did not argue completely there should be no override in the charter of rights.

Ontario, and of course New Brunswick, supported the original charter, and as members know there were eight provinces in this country that did not support it. Indeed they spent a fair amount of time trying to develop an alternative. They did develop an alternative, which colloquially has been called the Gang of Eight accord. That accord provided for patriation of the Canadian constitution and an amending formula, and was silent, really, on anything at this time in regard to a charter of rights. It suggested that could be worked out in Canada at some future time with the use of the amending formula that they were going to add.

So when we went to the last conference in Ottawa the first week in November, we had the federal government and two provinces in favour of a charter and we had eight provinces saying they wanted no entrenched charter in the constitution of Canada. I think we have to realize that backdrop, that kind of setting to what went on, in order to talk about what went on in Ottawa during that first week of November.

I am not going to quote some of the speeches of former Premier Sterling Lyon, but in the minutes of the December 1980 first ministers' conference, for instance, there were words like these: "I do not think the bill of rights should be entrenched. We are talking about rights we have as human beings, a charter of human rights, and we are not talking about part of a Confederation bargain." Or further: "We simply do not support entrenching a broad charter, either as a matter of principle, because I think voters should have this ultimate power, or on the basis of our analysis of how this has worked in the United States, or on the basis of extrapolating and saying how it would have worked in Canada had we had an entrenched charter."

Those quotations came from Premier Blakeney, who was one of the group of eight Premiers who were not in favour of an entrenched charter of rights. So we get to the meeting of first ministers in Ottawa the first week of November of this year. We get a group of first ministers together who, realizing it was important the constitution be patriated and looking for some common areas of agreement, decided to sit down and work out what those common areas of agreement were. We all know what they were because they are now present in the resolution passed by the House of Commons.

3:40 p.m.

One of the common areas of agreement was that the charter of rights was not to be completely entrenched with no provisions on it. As I recall, one of the documents put forward by Saskatchewan during our two and one half or three days of sessions was an opt-out or opt-in provision. Anyway, there was quite a bit of discussion about putting a charter in and allowing provinces to opt in to it.

In other words there would be a charter which would apply to the federal government, and the provinces, if they wished, could opt in by a vote in their legislatures. It was an arrangement I and this government did not go along with and did not feel would be a satisfactory way of writing a constitution for this country.

Ultimately we came to the point where, by putting a non obstante or notwithstanding section on some of the provisions in the charter of rights to arrive at an agreed-upon constitutional package, it was possible to bring around eight provinces that had said they did not want any charter of rights in the Canadian constitution.

One then has to ask himself whether it is better to say, "We want nothing but a complete, fully-entrenched charter of rights and it is better to continue to battle for that alone," than to take what I think is the same basic charter with some notwithstanding sections so that of the eight provinces, seven will now come around and agree.

I realize there will be differences of opinion about that but what I have tried to illustrate is the kind of thinking that went on as that arrangement was worked out. What we ultimately got was the charter of rights entrenched in a Canadian constitution which will come home and which will have some notwithstanding clauses.

Then the question is, what do the notwithstanding clauses do? How do they limit what is in the charter? As far as fundamental freedoms are concerned I think it would be very difficult if not impossible for any legislative body in this country to pass any piece of legislation that would in any way take away or diminish any of the fundamental freedoms in that charter. The only time I can conceive of a parliament elected by the people in a country like Canada acting under that provision in so far as fundamental freedoms are concerned, is to use that section to do something that would seem to be infringing upon some of the basic beliefs we have in this country.

In other words, it may be that at some time there would be a judicial decision that would diminish or infringe upon what we would assume would be a fundamental belief in this country. In this way a legislature or the Parliament of Canada under full public scrutiny could pass a notwithstanding act. That piece of legislation would have to be able to sustain itself through three readings, through committee study and through the full force of public opinion looking at it. My friend knows if that were to happen it would obviously have to enjoy a fair degree of support, and it could only take effect for five years.

What is an example of something I am thinking of? We may disagree on this example, but it is one that was brought forward by some of the participants at the conference. Supposing the freedom of religion section was interpreted by a court in Canada, as it was in the United States, to mean that prayers in our public schools were not possible. Such an occurrence might happen, and it worried some of the provinces.

If that happened it would be possible for a legislature to pass a piece of legislation saying, "Notwithstanding the freedom of religion section in this province, prayers in our schools will be legal." I think that is a highly justifiable thing to do. If the majority support was there in the legislature and the people of that jurisdiction wanted that to happen it should happen. That is the kind of thing people had in mind when they thought of "notwithstanding" clauses.

Another example could be someone worried that the freedom of association section might be challenged legally in court in order to throw out closed-shop labour union agreements as violating a constitutional principle of freedom of association. That was one lawyer's opinion, and numerous other lawyers I asked said it was a ridiculous suggestion. Yet if it happened and there was no "notwithstanding" clause, it would not be possible perhaps to correct that situation.

I am sure that is something everyone in any legislature would want to correct. They would not want a freedom of association section in the constitution used to throw out some hard-won labour-management principles that have been guaranteed in contracts.

I use those as examples to indicate that all that matters in all the things concerning the notwithstanding provisions were not done -- and this was put in for highly motivated reasons. It was not an attempt to diminish things in the charter, but to get a little closer to the principle of having the elected people in the legislatures keeping some control over what happens, while at the same time enunciating and guaranteeing rights in this country for all to see.

In so far as the rights of women are concerned, or the equal rights of male and female, it was always the intention of this province when we signed that accord that section 28 would stay exactly the way it was. It amounted to some drafting changes and there were differences of opinion by lawyers as to how to apply the notwithstanding sections that led to some disagreements about the ultimate inclusion of some words in sections 28 and 33 that were eventually, and I think rightfully, taken out. When we signed for this province we always believed section 28 would stay exactly as it was and it would state fully and clearly that everything in this charter was to apply equally to males and females.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one further question just before you go on to the next item. This province did succeed, with some other Premiers, in getting the accord changed with regard to section 28, which deals with equality for men and women under the charter and with aboriginal rights. Since the province did intervene in that part of changing the accord, why could it not have attempted to intervene regarding the override clauses? The minister has explained the thinking on the override clauses. His first argument was that the province would not use them and his second that, if they were used by any province, it would be for positive changes.

Why would the preamble to the constitution, which says, "These rights shall be enforced within reasonable limits," not be considered adequate for an override to take account of the somewhat unusual cases where there might be negative results from some legislation that attempted to remove discrimination or to protect those fundamental freedoms and legal rights? In other words, there is already an override clause in the preamble, and to put in an additional override clause that allows provinces or the Parliament of Canada to discriminate if they wish is unacceptable to a lot of the groups that have had discrimination practised against them.

3:50 p.m.

Certainly there have been instances in this country where fundamental freedoms have been taken away, as in the treatment of the Japanese-Canadians, the padlock law in Quebec and the War Measures Act. To say that we should allow those sorts of things to happen again, as is possible under the override, is to put fundamental freedoms and equality rights and legal rights in jeopardy. Would they not be sufficiently protected by the preamble phrase?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Neither of us is a lawyer, and we could get into a lengthy discussion about whether they would or would not. All I can say is that the people who worked on this accord did not feel it was an adequate override provision. If they had felt it was adequate they might have been more favourably disposed to the original charter -- which of course they were not willing to accept.

You asked why, when we added the male- female equality and aboriginal rights sections, we did not do anything about the "notwithstanding" or override clauses on the rest. We did not suggest anything be done because that was the essence of the accord and, indeed, was the accord. In other words, if you wanted to suggest that the override then be wiped out you were negating the accord we signed.

You have read a lot in the papers about little pieces of paper that were signed and so forth. Here is my piece of paper, which shows what we were talking about on that Wednesday when we started to work out what would be an agreeable compromise solution for all the --

Mr. Stokes: Was that in the kitchen or the bedroom?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not going to tell you where it was.

It is right here. The non obstante on fundamental legal and equality rights was part of the arrangement; it was the essence of the accord. So if we were to go back at this date and say, "Look, fellows, we want you now to take those off; we do not want to go through with that," we would be denying our participation in the accord. Of course, we were not ready to do that, and we do not think it would have been the right thing to do.

I have tried to point out with regard to the section on the equality of males and females that there was in our view -- and I do not think all the provinces would agree with this -- a misunderstanding in the drafting. When the accord was signed we always believed section 28 would stay exactly as it is now in the final version that was passed. Aboriginal rights were not included, but they were put back in.

It might be good to explain that also, because I think that has been misunderstood. The aboriginal rights section was not included. It is not a part of the charter; it was a separate section in the constitutional resolution. It was not included because when it was discussed it was pointed out that at least half of the native peoples of this country were opposed to the section that was in there. At that time they were opposed to the section that was in; they did not like the wording. In fact, they were already making great noises about opposing the whole constitutional resolution that was then proceeding to Great Britain.

They were part of the group of eight provinces and the native peoples. When we looked at it people said, "We do not have the kind of wording in the section that is really acceptable to the native people so why would we repeat it?" They were originally enthusiastic about it but as time wore on they became less enthusiastic about the wording that was in the original section.

That, certainly, was the perception of most of us around the table in that room that day. So we decided rather than putting it in now we should put in a section that guarantees that a first ministers' conference with the native peoples present would be constituted within a year when we would work out proper wording. Because there was no --

Mr. Cassidy: You were trying to punish them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, we were not trying to punish them. We were trying to get the proper wording. We knew there would certainly not be time, with the involvement of the native people, to get the wording for the resolution that was being drafted at that time.

Mr. Stokes: What do you mean, "time"? What was the real urgency?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The real urgency was that we wanted to move ahead with the patriation resolution. Whether we did it then with the wording in place or through a first ministers' conference with the native peoples present in the next year and then put it in the constitution, one way or another, we would ultimately have the right wording. I am not quarrelling with what we have now -- it is fine. We have a section in there that says existing aboriginal rights are protected. We also have a section that says there is going to be a first ministers' conference with native peoples to define --

Mr. Stokes: What are the existing aboriginal rights?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is right; we do not know. Nobody knows and that is part of the point. That will, perhaps, become a little clearer when the first ministers' conference is held with the native peoples and a definition of those aboriginal rights is agreed on. Maybe that is what will be defined but what we have now is a constitutional package that guarantees existing aboriginal rights and suggests that within a year we will have a conference to define what we are guaranteeing. That is fine -- that is what we have.

All I have tried to explain is why the section was not there in the first place. I am pleased, and we are all pleased, that it was put back in --

Mr. Stokes: Everybody is pleased except the native people. They are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The point I am making, and it is unfortunate, is that it might have been better if the native peoples themselves had been a little more highly supportive of the constitutional package beforehand. I fully acknowledge that Mr. Broadbent moved the original section in the House of Commons. I think he would probably be the first to admit he was rather sorry that four or five months afterwards there were as many native people who were opposed to that section being in there as there were who agreed with it. They said it was not worded right, that it did not go far enough, and was not the right section.

Mr. Stokes: That's the problem. There isn't unanimity.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Perhaps if there had been some vigorous support for the original package from those people at the same time it would have made it easier for us. Certainly it was not in any way suggesting anybody was being punished --

Mr. Cassidy: You put the natives down for more than a century and then you expect unanimity.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, no. This province -- and my friend was part of it -- supported the original constitutional package, and we did not hide our light under a bushel when it came to supporting it. As I am sure the member did, I took some pretty rough barbs from some of your colleagues in your party. If he travelled out to Saskatchewan, I am sure he did. We took some barbs from our federal Conservative Party for supporting the original package.

What we end up with is a --

Mr. Nixon: We had nothing but support from our friends.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, that is good.

Mr. Stokes: As he said with tongue in cheek.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Anyway, what I have tried to outline to the leader of the third party is that we did not do anything about the notwithstanding or override sections because they were part of the accord that was agreed to. To repudiate or attempt to change those would have really meant we would have been repudiating the accord, which, of course, we would not want to have done.

Question number two --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) had some inquiries of the minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I was going to answer number two, which was about contributing to aid in the Third World.

Of course our answer is yes; Ontario is contributing to aid in the Third World. It is basically a matter for the national government. The national government makes extensive contributions to help for Third World countries in a variety of ways, and 40 per cent of the tax revenues that go towards those payments come from this province. That is the position we have always taken.

4 p.m.

As far as direct cash grants are concerned, except in cases of assistance in relief, catastrophes and so forth, we have assisted national Red Cross organizations and made contributions to relief funds for various things, like the Italian earthquake. We contributed expertise and personnel to the Canadian International Development Agency. We have set up a new corporation, Ontario Educational Services Corporation, that provides a single window through which governments from the Third World may locate and contact educational services of all sorts from this province.

Our Ministry of Agriculture and Food financially supports agriculture and technical research programs in Ontario and in Third World countries, so I am informed. We make donations to various Caribbean countries from time to time in the areas of food, medicine, equipment, educational materials and so forth.

Ms. Bryden: It is rather a cop-out. We are not really adding to the percentage of the gross national product.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would say we certainly support very vigorously initiatives taken by the Prime Minister and the government of this country in dialogues with the Third World. I believe the majority of the people of Ontario would take those same initiatives. We, the provincial and federal governments, have certain responsibilities. Fiscal responsibilities in that area, I think, belong with the federal government. The people of Ontario are supporting that heavily through their taxes which they pay to the federal government.

Mr. Stokes: Is the minister meeting with Prime Minister Seaga?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Am I meeting with him? I met with him this morning before lunch. I had lunch and listened to an excellent address by the Prime Minister of Jamaica --

Mr. Stokes: We like to know about these things.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I inform members of this House that he is a very impressive person. In his speech to more than a thousand people at the Canadian Club today, he indicated in very clear and unequivocal terms how eight years of darkness and decline in Jamaica have been turned around, and he received a standing ovation. He hopes they are on the verge of a rebirth of their economic system, et cetera. I thought he made an excellent presentation of the things his government, the Jamaica Labour Party, has done and how they are moving on the road to economic recovery.

He pointed out, which I thought was very interesting, that 28 of 32 countries in the Caribbean basket are democratic countries. We tend to think too often of the Cubas -- these are not his words, these are my words -- and the Haitis. But 28 countries practise the British parliamentary system. He pointed out that they have two good viable parties. Each runs in elections. The governments tend to change back and forth. It is a very vigorous political system --

Mr. Nixon: We need two parties here; one of you will have to go.

Mr. Rotenberg: It might be you.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He was looking forward to help from the people of Ontario and Canada. I sensed he was going to get it.

Mr. Nixon: The Jamaican flag is flying on the front lawn of the Parliament buildings. I thought he would mention that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is because he paid an official visit here today.

The third question was, "Are we making common cause with other provinces to oppose the $5.9 billion cut in federal transfer payments over the next five years?"

The answer is yes, we are. In the time available I will not go into quoting some of the presentations and speeches which the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has made and the positions he has put forward. The finance ministers met in Halifax on November 23 and 24, they are meeting again in Toronto on December 14 and 15, and they will, in all likelihood, have another meeting in January. Seventy-five per cent of the agenda of these meetings has been, and will be, concerned with the established program financing proposals that have been put forward. I would say the almost, if not completely, unanimous position of the provinces is that they are not happy with the new arrangements, and particularly with the cuts in transfer payments that are going to be occurring. Perhaps we can get into that in a little more detail in a few minutes. I do not want to take all the time with my answers.

With regard to the hospitality fund, I would find it very difficult to agree that we are being too lavish with it. For a province the size of Ontario, for the number of people who come to visit here and for the number of requests we receive, what we spend on the hospitality fund is really quite frugal in overall terms. I know it is a very difficult thing to say in financial times like those we are in now, but I see we spent about $347,700 in 1980-81 and will probably spend $311,100 in 1981-82. The total budgeted is around $350,000, and perhaps by the time the end of the fiscal year comes we will have spent that.

What we have been doing is partially sponsoring a number of events, rather than completely sponsoring the dinners. I recognize and respect the point of view of my friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine. She indicated she did not think we should be purchasing wine or cocktails as part of the hospitality fund. I am sure there are others here who would share that view, and there are others who would not share that view. They might think we should be purchasing Ontario wine and letting the people buy the dinners. There is a variety of views. The way we do it now in a number of events, half sponsoring them, means that whatever your opinion happens to be you can choose to say we sponsored one half or the other half of the event. In fact, for a number of events we have not been completely sponsoring the dinner and reception period that they might have at the event.

Mr. Chairman: We are going to have some confusion here in terms of picking up the debate from the last day. The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) had indicated to me a desire to be put on the list, but in conformity of rotation I think it appropriate that the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) be allowed his opportunity to make inquiries.

Mr. Cassidy: When did you make the ruling, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: About 6:01.

Mr. Boudria: The leader of the NDP will not have to wait very long, Mr. Chairman. I do not intend to speak ad nauseam. I have been waiting to speak, though, since the original speech by the minister. I have been in the House for the duration of all his estimates, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak at this moment.

First, I would like to congratulate the minister for fulfilling this role of Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It is a very sensitive one, especially with the constitutional debate, and I think such a position requires a minister who will not create frictions unnecessarily. We seem to have enough of them already.

I also want to say a few words about the deputy minister -- I see him sitting there. I am very impressed by the deputy minister as well. I had the pleasure of meeting him a long time before I ever met the minister. We met at a conference of the Organization of Small Urban Municipalities of Ontario in the town of Parry Sound a few years ago. At that conference, I made a speech on why the organization should not place advertisements in Quebec newspapers urging the people of Quebec to vote "no" in the referendum. The reason, I explained then, was that such an action would really be telling the people of Quebec that we in Ontario could go there and tell them what to do. It would have a reverse effect to the results we were trying to achieve.

4:10 p.m.

I think the deputy minister and I had some shared comments on that. I think we agreed that would not have been a good way, although well intentioned. Certainly, the people of the Organization of Small Urban Municipalities of Ontario were well intentioned but I do not think they fully appreciated what the result of that potentially could have been. In any case, that resolution was defeated and I am glad that policy was not enacted by that group.

I would like to speak briefly about the constitution. I am a new member of this Legislature and the whole constitutional process had started quite a while before I came into this great Legislature. Nevertheless, the day I heard a constitutional accord had finally been reached, the first question I asked was whether Quebec was a signatory to it. Unfortunately we learned it was not. I hope that somehow and in some way there is a possibility of getting the government of Quebec to go along with the other provinces.

Perhaps the other provinces will have to make some modifications to achieve that accord and perhaps Ontario would undertake to make some of those changes. Although Ontario has shown great support for the federal government throughout the constitutional process, it has not seen fit to demonstrate to Quebec that we could treat minorities here in Ontario in such a way that would lead them to believe we have every right to be, and every good intention of being, moderate people. We have taken rather extremist views upon occasion, sometimes even greater than the ones they have taken.

In Toronto and in this part of Ontario we hear what terrible things Premier Lévesque is doing to the anglophones in Quebec. That gets a lot of press here in Toronto and is something it is popular to talk about, but, Mr. Chairman, if you were a francophone resident of my constituency, you would not share those views very much.

I know the minister has stated there have been great improvements in the field of education and in other areas -- community and social services especially. There has been great improvement there, I acknowledge that; but what this government has failed to do is to make the symbolic gestures. One may say they are not important. In a way, the constitution is that, it is one of those symbolic gestures. It is not something that puts bread on the table tomorrow. It is something that has more meaning than that, a meaning which is sometimes not apparent to people on a day-to-day basis but nevertheless is important.

In speaking about these symbolic gestures, we can talk about section 133 and about the divisiveness that occurred even in this House among political parties on this whole issue. We can talk of Bill 7, about which I proposed an amendment the other day to have language as a prohibited ground for discrimination. That was not included because that would have been seen as being a "French amendment" and that would not have been popular.

Although we see great improvements in things such as community and social services and education -- in the literature, brochures and pamphlets -- we do not see very visible things such as highway signs, for instance, because again I think there is a fear on the part of this government that those symbolic things that people can see when they are driving the freeway will frighten them. I do not know why you think that way.

If it is only a political fear, that this government feels standing up for the rights of francophones will lose it all its seats, for instance, then why would this same province re-elect a federal Liberal government, which stood up and enacted official bilingualism a number of years ago? I think a lot of this fear, if it is for these reasons, is just unfounded on the part of this government, and I hope it will make some symbolic gestures in the next short while, at least to show the government of Quebec its good intentions.

I know the minister is going to respond to that with all the past achievements, dating back to when regulation 17 was here, how it was subsequently removed, and how we have progressed to where we are today. But that does not change the fact that, officially and on paper, the policy has not moved very much in matters such as French education being tolerated and this type of thing. I still think improvements can be made there. I am also very glad to see we are going to have bilingual trials, as enunciated by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) a few weeks ago.

I would like to speak for a few minutes on the program of the government called Renseignements Ontario that the minister referred to in his speech. The minister mentioned a period when he got up to 50 telephone calls per day, and I wonder if he could tell us if, by coincidence, it was during the same period in the election campaign when we had approximately 50 ads a day on television. I suspect it probably was. People in my area and in the riding of Ottawa East, as the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) mentioned the other day, were highly suspicious of those advertisements that came at this very politically opportune time, to say the least.

They did not have much of an effect, mind you, in retrospect, and if that was their purpose, I suggest that money was wasted. I would like to know what the current rate of calls per day is for that program, and also what the current rate of advertising is, because it seems to me I have not heard a "C'est facile" advertisement or a Renseignements Ontario advertisement in the last few months, at least not in my area. I am just wondering if the government has ceased to have those ads completely.

I would also like to talk a little about some of the boundary problems we seem to be having in eastern Ontario, between Ontario and Quebec. I believe it would the role of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to try to get some co-operation in several areas. In the labour area we have been having a serious problem in Ottawa and in Hawkesbury. Workers from Quebec -- tradesmen, contractors, plumbers, what have you -- come to work in Ottawa, or they come from Grenville, Quebec, to Hawkesbury, Ontario. But the reverse cannot be done; that is to say, a small businessman or a contractor who lives in my constituency gets stopped at the border if he is going into Quebec. He has to purchase gasoline there; on certain occasions he has to pay the Quebec sales tax on his vehicle, depending upon certain qualifications and certain trades; he also has to have a certificate allowing him to work there. None of these requirements is asked for here.

4:20 p.m.

I am not trying to say we should advocate confrontation and bombard them back with everything they are doing to us. Rather, I am saying I think the minister should be trying to get some co-operation from the government of Quebec to illustrate to it that some of those laws are just not fair to our local residents in my area.

We have been having very many complaints about this. The minister may remember a few years ago when the heavy equipment operators from the Ottawa area threatened to block the bridge between Ottawa and Hull because of the same reason. Bulldozers and all kinds of equipment from Quebec were coming to do the work on the Ottawa sites. At the same time a considerable amount of work was being done on the federal government buildings in Hull, yet no Ontario contractors, or very few of them, could go there and do any kind of work.

I think this is an area where the minister could perhaps try to get co-operation from his Quebec counterpart. I know that may not be easy. I think one time before, we were discussing how the minister had been trying to get more co-operation from his Quebec counterparts on various fronts such as this, but had not been very successful. I would certainly welcome additional attempts at trying to get some of these things done.

A few minutes ago I was speaking about some of the things that this government could do, rather symbolic things, to illustrate to the French-speaking population of Ontario, and to the government of Quebec, that it means business when it says it stands for minority rights. Of course, there is the famous hot potato of the Ottawa area, the French school board, the conseil des enseignants de langue française. That has to be addressed by this government at one time. I know the minister is going to say it relates to education but I think the repercussions go far beyond the educational field.

I guess I will end my comments now, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if perhaps the minister could respond to a few of the things I have said.

Before doing that, the minister mentioned in his opening remarks that some ministries had French-language co-ordinators. I notice that some exceptions seem to be the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Ministry of Natural Resources. For Natural Resources in our area, the local area manager is fluently bilingual and has developed his own signing policy for local parks, so they are done in a bilingual way. But I guess that is an initiative he has taken upon himself because there does not seem to be a ministry co-ordinator, according to the information I got and also according to the minister's opening remarks.

The most visible omission is, obviously, the one from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Highway signs and this type of thing could be done in a more appropriate way. If there is a part-time co-ordinator for that department, I would like to hear about it and what some of his tasks are, although the minister would probably want the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) to answer that question.

Nevertheless, I certainly feel if anything can be visible to the French community, it would be better highway signs. I had the opportunity last year of travelling through the states of New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine. I am sure they have far more French signs on their highways than we do here. Certainly, the state of Vermont does, that is for sure. If the United States can do this type of thing on interstate highways, I think the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, can do the same thing.

I will end my comments now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I could just quickly answer some of those things, Mr. Chairman. In so far as the advertising is concerned, my friend was asking whether any ads are at present being placed. A new advertising campaign is just starting. It started last week, and it will be visible over the next six to eight weeks. It seems the telephone calls now average 10 to 15 per day; when the advertising is running, they run up to as high as 50 a day. We are presuming the number of calls will again be coming in once the ad program is running.

On the matter of the Quebec-Ontario boundary dispute, this is something we have discussed at length here, of course. As perhaps my honourable friend is aware, a bill was introduced in this House by the Minister of Labour a few years ago that was never proclaimed; I guess it was never finally passed in this House --

Mr. Samis: It never got to second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I guess it never got to second reading because it was never necessary. It was brought in here --

Mr. Cassidy: The problem exists to this day.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I accept that my colleagues who live in the area would be more aware of that. But first of all I want to say that the Minister of Labour of this province and the Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec met many times, had many discussions and exchanged extensive correspondence on this matter, particularly with regard to jobs in general and construction industry jobs in particular on both sides of the border.

A variety of proposals was put forward, most of which were not completely acceptable, particularly to us. But as I recall it, the bottom line, after the new regulations came in and settled in in Quebec, was that through permits and through a variety of other means an equal number of people were crossing the boundary both ways, as they had been before.

I assume that if this were not the case we would have heard more about it recently. But I must confess to the members that I have not heard anything or had any correspondence on the question of jobs and mobility.

Mr. Boudria: I sent a letter to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) on it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I guess he has not sent it along to us, then. I do not know that any progress has been made as far as contracting and tendering are concerned. That has always been the case, certainly; it cannot be laid at the feet of the present government of Quebec. It began many governments back in 1962 when, for a variety of public jobs, particularly at the provincial and municipal levels, Ontario contractors and Ontario people were frozen out of the tendering process. I do not agree with that. I think it is absolutely wrong. I think they should be able to tender on jobs across the --

Mr. Cassidy: That says something about your government. You are not able to stop it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It does not say anything about our government. I will tell the honourable member what it does say about our government: this government -- I say in its infinite wisdom, though the member in his comments suggests it is not so -- has decided that one does not fight one wrong with another wrong. In other words, there is no way they are going to lift those restrictions at the present time. I have sat and talked with the Quebec people, and I am sure the member opposite has. They are going to maintain that Quebec-first tendering policy.

Mr. Boudria: I was talking about private contracts.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Private contracts, of course, are up to the individual person. I do not know that there are any laws in Quebec that overtly prevent a person from getting a contract. Now, there may be certain licensing requirements and regulations that make it difficult.

But let me just deal with the other matter. It is my understanding that on government jobs they will not take a tender from an Ontario firm. As I said, I do not think that is right, but I also do not think it is right that we then reciprocate, which is about the only thing left to us. In other words, we have always believed that under the constitution there should be free movement of goods, services, people and capital.

In the new constitution we should at some time have something that prevents governments from placing these kinds of barriers around their own provinces. We do not have that at the present time, except for mobility rights. But we in this province are not about to respond in a like manner to Quebec; we will continue to urge Quebec not to discriminate against people who want to tender from the other side of the Ottawa River.

4:30 p.m.

As for private firms using Ontario firms in Quebec and so forth, I understand there are a number of arrangements. People have set companies up on both sides of the river. They license their trucks in Quebec so they can use them on jobs over there. There is a whole host of things happening, some of which allow them to get around those restrictions. I cannot really discuss it in any greater detail but I realize that does not help to solve it.

There is nothing this government will not do to try to solve the problem. We are willing to sit down and work out ways of solving the problem. Indeed, there have been some reciprocal arrangements signed between our revenue ministries and with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in some of the heavy construction areas.

We will certainly sit down and do those things, but it has been difficult to get Quebec to come around on some of those areas. If you want to fault us for not being able to convince them, fine, but they are difficult people to convince.

You were asking about French-language co-ordinators. MTC has a part-time co-ordinator now and we are still working as the co-ordinating ministry to urge them to have a full-time co-ordinator. Their part-time co-ordinator is an assistant deputy minister, John Barr. He is listed as their part-time French-language co-ordinator.

They also have eight regional co-ordinators in the various regions. Mr. Barr has appointed those people to decentralize the whole French-language co-ordinators' role in that ministry. I know the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) would like to have a co-ordinator and is working towards getting one. We are working with him and we hope one will be added shortly.

Mr. Boudria: Too bad Omer Déslauriers is going. He could have taken that job.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, one cannot help feeling from time to time that the Ontario government is anxious to see the promotion of Franco-Ontarians to high positions in government, provided they run as candidates for the Ontario government first, at least for the Conservatives.

I am a bit frustrated that the constitutional debate we should have had in this House did not take place at this time. The government resisted having a debate two weeks ago when we proposed it as a matter of urgency and emergency. In fact, discussion on the constitution, rather than being a focus and a matter of drama for the Legislature and the public, has become something attended by four government backbenchers and one government minister. I do not think that is good enough.

I believe among other things that the constitution is something we in this Legislature will have to continue to take an interest in. I believe we have only accomplished the first stage of what needs to be done and there are some important future stages. It is hard to tell to what extent that will be done quickly or to what extent the participants will be exhausted by the process up to now, so that the next stage of constitutional reform will have to wait for five, 10 or even more years.

I spoke a year and a half ago in the course of the constitution debate. Let me take people back to the mood that prevailed at that time. Heartfelt emotional appeals were being made to Quebec and there was a feeling of crisis. This place was full. The debate was one of the best we have had in this Legislature for a long time. At last, after successfully trying for so long to exclude the Legislature from what was happening in terms of considering the future of the nation, there was at least some participation here.

For a brief time we had a select committee on constitutional reform which did useful work, although it was cut off because it was set up much too late. It was cut off with the move into the election in the fall of 1980 and then in the spring of 1981.

There were a number of issues before it then and some are still outstanding. At that time it was clear everybody wanted to see patriation. The question of language rights was very much on our minds and on the minds of many people concerned with constitutional reform. The question of human rights, of equality rights, was on people's minds because proposals had already been made by the federal government for a charter of rights or something corresponding to that.

We had not yet begun to look at the questions of economic and social rights. I am afraid those questions have been ignored and abandoned in the course of the document that is now going to Westminster. That is something to which we must still give a great deal of attention.

The question of multiculturalism was given a sort of sweep of the hand, a little reference in the charter and nothing more than that. Making a reality and turning into a reality the recognition of the multicultural existence or the multicultural reality in this province, is something that had not been done in the constitution and which we need to do in the future.

There is the whole question about federal institutions which has yet to be seized upon by this government, by the federal government or by anyone else. As a Canadian, I happen to be proud and glad of the fact that in the end it was possible to come to an agreement which most of the population of the provinces of the country through their governments were able to accept.

The process was messy. If you look at what happened, you will find that probably on almost every issue every participant was at various times on both sides of that particular issue. It seems to me there was a great deal of politics and not too much principle at times in terms of the creation of the constitution, something which students of history, as some of the minister's officials I believe are, would recognize is not much different than what happened back in the period from 1864 to 1867.

We need to do some cleaning up of the process now. That can be done unilaterally by Ontario and I would hope to hear the minister say that Ontario was prepared to do that. For example, I believe the notwithstanding clauses are objectionable. I am sorry they are in, although I am prepared to recognize as one person and as one party which called for one last attempt by the provinces to come up with an agreement, that once the federal government sat down with the gang of eight, inevitably if an agreement was going to come out of that it was not going to be based on the position the federal government or Ontario took in to those negotiations.

There had to be some changes. There had to be some compromises and compromises there were. To give Ontario some credit, and in this case it is due, Ontario was one of the actors who precipitated the unblocking that took place on the second or third day of the constitutional conference.

However, bear in mind that for a period of some months prior to that conference last month, Ontario was prepared to live within a charter of rights which had no loopholes and no notwithstanding clauses. Ontario was prepared to take the view that should there be difficulties with a charter of rights, as I am sure the minister realizes could have occurred since we were going on to uncharted ground, the way to resolve that was not to have provinces dancing around using notwithstanding clauses in order to make the charter of rights look like a piece of Swiss cheese, but the way around that would be to subsequently amend the charter using the amending formula in order to set anything right which had been unforeseen and did not work out as we had hoped.

I want to suggest that is the way we should be prepared to act now. I think that not only should there be a commitment from the minister, but from the Ontario government right now, that it will not under any circumstances use the notwithstanding clause. We should have legislation in this Legislature which puts that intention into law. I understand that still can be overridden by another law. There is no way we can have a primal law or an overriding law within Ontario, but none the less we should at least give legislative intent to what has been stated publicly by the Premier, which is that Ontario has no intention of using the loopholes and of using the notwithstanding clauses.

We should do that partly in order to encourage other provinces to hold to the charter without using the loopholes and partly because loopholes can work two ways. Loopholes can be used -- and the minister gave some examples -- in order to override objectionable features of the charter where the charter, for example, was used within the courts in order to prevent union shop rules or prevent the right of workers to join together or where the charter was perhaps used in order to sabotage or undermine affirmative action programs which everybody in this House would agree were desirable and should be supported.

Loopholes can also be used to sabotage affirmative action programs which have otherwise been found to be acceptable under the charter of rights. Notwithstanding clauses can be used in order to disrupt the rights of workers to associate together even though that has been found to be acceptable under the charter of rights. Notwithstanding clauses can be used to take rights away as well as to give rights where questions are raised by the courts.

4:40 p.m.

That is why I do not believe Ontario should leave that nice, soft "out." I think we should have legislation that puts into Ontario's law the intention that Ontario made clear through the Premier from the very beginning, which was that we were prepared -- and my party was prepared to see that as well, as far as Ontario was concerned -- to live under a charter of rights that had the force of a superior law and that could not be overridden by a simple statute, whether that statute came once or had to be repeated every five years.

When we look at the constitutional process, the minister has given some inadequate explanations with respect to the cop-out that took place over the questions of native rights and women's rights. I still do not understand how Ontario, having endorsed the charter of rights in the constitutional package with protections for women's rights and for native rights, which were inserted because of far-seeing amendments put in by the New Democrats in the federal Parliament, could then turn around and at the stroke of a hand simply forget them as a result of a chummy deal between the 10 male Premiers of Canada and the Prime Minister, also male -- and none of them Indians, for that matter.

I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is naive if he believes the clause that was inserted with respect to a conference on native people's rights could ever have ensured even the bare minimum that has been achieved since the lobby of native rights groups finally got the charter turned around over the course of the last couple of weeks. The fact is that conference. which was to take place within a year or two, would have been subject to the new amending formula, and under the new amending formula there would have been every possibility that three provinces would have stood in the way and prevented any adequate constitutional protection for the rights of the native people of Canada.

That was what the crunch was all about. That was why it is so important that the native people's organizations and networks got going and turned around the governments in western Canada, and turned around even this government to the point where we were prepared to see the changes made. I think it is shameful that Ontario was not prepared to provide leadership while the Premiers were together up in Ottawa in order to ensure that was done at the time rather than having to wait until later.

There has been a great deal of change in the constitution since this country was created back in 1867 -- among other things, an enormous increase in the responsibilities of the provinces, which originally were intended and were foreseen by the founders of Confederation to be a little more than "minor local legislatures," in the words of Sir John A. Macdonald. The welfare state, the movement of governments into a key planning role in the economy, and a number of other things have changed the balance of power between the federal and the provincial authorities.

Some things in our country, however, have not changed. A century and a half ago, we experimented with the unified system of government in Canada, where the legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada were combined. It took Lord Durham and all his men to sort that mess out in order to see what had to come next. He saw clearly from the united parliament situation of the 1840s and 1850s that unless both Quebec and Ontario were given independent powers this country could not hold together.

In the case of Quebec, the government of Quebec had to have the capacity to maintain and safeguard the French fact in a North America that would otherwise be almost entirely English-speaking. That is a reality we discovered more than a century ago. I am afraid the weakness we have now, the tragic weakness of the constitution that has now been adopted by the Parliament of Canada, is, as so many of my colleagues have already stated, the isolation of Quebec.

I understand that part of that isolation is self-inflicted, and part of it is as a result of the policies of the Parti Québecois, and to some extent also because of the various positions taken by Monsieur Lévesque, on behalf of the people of Quebec or on behalf of his government, over the course of the constitutional negotiations. None the less, Canadian Confederation is only possible as long as we recognize that Quebec is going to remain as a province not quite like the others. That province has to have sufficient powers to maintain its unique and distinctive position in Confederation and on this continent.

Ontario has a special responsibility when it comes to ensuring that this particular status for Quebec is defended. We are the largest English-speaking province; more than half of the English-speaking population of all of Canada is here in Ontario. Until recently we have been the richest province in terms of per-capita income. There is no question that in the past we have occupied a special place in constitutional development.

We have special responsibilities and special obligations -- and this was the tenor of the debate in this Legislature in May 1980 -- to make Canada work and to break the isolation of the people of Quebec, and those responsibilities are like the responsibilities of no other province. I want to suggest in looking forward that we have responsibilities which have been unfulfilled, and in looking back that we have failed to live up to the responsibilities we have traditionally had.

Someone, some province outside Quebec, has to be prepared to explore all the avenues that are open to building Canadian Confederation, to breaking the isolation of Quebec, to making a new and signal contribution to Canadian unity and to the survival of a powerful and independent nation, a dynamic nation, on the North American continent.

When I spoke back in May 1980, I spoke about the central role that Ontario and her government could play in building Canadian unity. I spoke then about the nature of the leadership that we should and could provide in this country. It was sad to talk about it then, because through the entire decade of the 1970s this province, the Conservative government and its Premier had failed to provide that kind of leadership. It was a kind of leadership we had once provided.

During that entire period we made statements and we submitted briefs and that kind of thing, but where the devil was the reaching out to Quebec? The most we did was that, right at the very end, the Premier of Ontario was prepared to make some small gesture to unblock the logjam which had bedevilled the constitutional debate at the time the Premiers met a month and a half ago in Ottawa.

Look at the things that could have been done and look at the things, Mr. Chairman -- and I say this to the minister as well -- that we could and should be doing now, and doing unilaterally, regardless of what the other provinces are prepared to do. Where is the program from Ontario to find and use every means possible to break the isolation of Quebec? Where are the efforts by this province to prove to the people of la belle province that they are a part of Canada, that they are as welcome in Toronto as they are in Montreal and that they are as welcome to settle anywhere in Canada as they are in Quebec?

Where are the guarantees here in this province, no matter what progress we may have made in the course of the last year, that basic services are not only available now in French but that they will continue to be available in French and that francophones will not have to give up their vibrant and distinctive culture? Where is the guarantee that Canada will become a society in which two great cultural entities can meet and mingle, building a society that is unique in the world, stronger and more vital culturally than any other?

C'était Sir Wilfrid Laurier qui a dit en 1900 que le vingtième siècle sera le siècle du Canada. C'est possible que c'est quelque chose que nous pouvons achever. Nous avons encore l'occasion de devenir la seule société qui est vraiment ouverte, qui est vraiment biculturelle, qui est vraiment bilingue et qui est vraiment multiculturelle.

C'est seulement dans cette façon qu'on pourrait assurer que le Canada reste entier, que le Canada reste integral, que le Québec continue à rester une partie de la nation du Canada, une partie qui contribue à la diversité, au caractère, à la richesse de ce pays. Tout le Canada anglais a fait des promesses envers les Québecois pendant le vote de mai 1980 sur le référendum à Quebec. Nous avons promis de changer nos attitudes, de changer des structures, de changer le Canada dans une façon pour assurer la survivance des Québécois sans la séparation et sans la démolition du Canada que nous connaissons et que nous aimons.

4:50 p.m.

Those were the promises we made just 18 months ago. I am very sad to have read, after this weekend's conference of the Parti Québecois in Montreal, that we have been so unconvincing that not only does the Parti Québecois condemn the constitutional arrangements made in Ottawa, not only does it condemn the English-speaking Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada for the isolation of Réné Lévesque, but it has now decided that association simply does not count at all.

Mr. Mancini: How can you convince a bunch of separatists?

Mr. Cassidy: As far as it is concerned, sovereignty alone is the goal of the Parti Québecois and will be its goal in the 1984 election in that province.

Even Mr. Lévesque is upset at that determination by his own party. It would appear he has lost control of some of the stronger talents and some of the stronger and more opinionated members of his own party, but the fact is the Parti Québecois, democratically united in Montreal, has said it no longer sees any point in even considering association with the rest of Canada. That is a party which enjoys the majority of the votes cast and the majority of the seats in the National Assembly of Quebec.

Mr. Mancini: That was their platform when they ran for office.

Mr. Cassidy: They are prepared to look at association with the rest of Canada after Quebec has had the chance to establish itself with independence, after Quebec has had a chance to look around. They will also look at association with the Caribbean countries, with France, with Belgium, maybe even with the United States. Canada will be one of the countries on the list.

Is there so little between our provinces that it can come to that? Has there been so little done by this government in 38 years that there is no resonance at all within Quebec? Have we nationally in Canada and provincially in Ontario ignored our brothers and sisters in Quebec to that extent?

One has to conclude something serious has gone wrong and there has been a grave failure of comprehension and a grave failure to reach out. We thought the referendum was having an impact on the government of this province, on the people in control over there in the Conservative Party, in getting them to wake up to the French fact -- as the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) does not appear to have done -- in getting them to wake up to what is happening in Quebec and to the need to fight to make this country survive. None of that seems to have penetrated the minds of the government of Ontario.

I was in Ottawa on November 20. I was in my riding for a great riding dinner and to demonstrate with people from Quebec and Ontario, united 100,000 strong, on the steps of the Parliament of Canada on Saturday, November 21.

Mr. Mancini: The figures get bigger every time you say it.

Mr. Cassidy: It was 100,000. You should have been there. There were some of your constituents.

That was a mighty demonstration of concern and of unity and solidarity on behalf of the working people of Canada. I stood in Majors' Hill Park while 30,000 or 35,000 people -- I do not know how many thousand people -- came across from Hull where they had assembled. They came from Chicoutimi, from Chibougamau, from Rouyn-Noranda, from Montreal, from Quebec, from Ile l'Estrie, from the Gaspésie. They came from all over Quebec.

It was a stirring and magnificent sight to see working people, my brothers and sisters, coming across to stand shoulder to shoulder with working people from British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, from the Atlantic provinces, Ontario, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to express their concern about the economic policies of the government of Canada.

On Friday, November 20, an advertisement was placed in all the French papers, including Le Droit in Ottawa. It was signed by Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, by the Saskatchewan Franco-Canadian Cultural Association, by the Franco-Ontarian teachers here in Ontario, by the Franco-Ontarian school boards, believe it or not, by a series of Quebec groups including the Société nationale des Québécois, not a PQ association at all, but a French-Canadian organization in many parts of Quebec.

They said bitterly, defiantly and sadly that they denounced the constitutional accord between the federal government and the nine anglo provinces. They expressed a profound indignation that 10 governments with an anglophone majority were allying themselves against the only francophone government in North America, the Quebec government.

They took account of the fact that the federal government had not assured adequate protection to francophones in the past and that the constitutional proposals would not guarantee to francophones outside of Quebec respect for their fundamental rights.

They affirmed that there should be no expectation of a constitutional accord without Quebec's approval. They recalled that the federal government had never used its constitutional powers to disavow the anti-French legislation in Manitoba and the anti-French legislation in regulation 22 here in Ontario in 1912.

Mr. Nixon: In 1917.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, 1917. They established that the provincial governments which signed the accord had not had a glorious record when it came to respecting rights of the Franco-Ontarians. That includes the government of Ontario, because only eight years ago it was impossible to drive, get a birth certificate registered, get married, die, anything like that, in French. Even today, it is not possible to have a will registered in Ontario in the French language despite all the determination and bold claims made by this government. One can have it translated at government expense but one cannot have it registered in French.

They pointed out that even in 1981, as a consequence of Ontario's restrictive legislation, it is not possible to have a will in French. They invited the deputies and senators of French language not to support the constitutional accord. In fact, the federal colleague, the member for Ottawa East, Jean-Robert Gauthier, in the end did not support the constitutional accord for the reasons which I have just laid out.

These things do not come overnight. The minister may well say we disagree with certain aspects, and that in fact in associating himself with the gang of eight, Mr. Lévesque had given up the right of a Quebec veto. There are some debating points to be made. None the less, the cold, hard, full facts remain that one province has been excluded from this particular agreement -- Quebec. And this province, with its referendum, was what gave impetus to the final effort that is now bringing our constitution to Canada.

Mr. Mancini: You want special status, that is what you want. You want special status, that is what you are after.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Essex South said the New Democrats want special status. I would like to know what he would like because I just have to think that Quebec is a part of this country. Quebec has special status right now. It has special status because of a federal Liberal government.

Quebec has its own pension plan whereas the rest of Canada has the Canada pension plan. Quebec has its own family allowance scheme whereas the rest of Canada has got a separate national family allowance scheme. Quebec has a very distinctive medicare scheme, in many respects better than the rest of Canada's, and we have a different medicare scheme in the rest of Canada. That special status came because of a federal Liberal government's initiatives. The member for Essex South does not appear prepared to go along with that. If he wants to take that away, that is up to him. I say we should be looking for ways here in Ontario to reach out.

I heard the Premier the other day say, "We did not do anything about section 133 in the BNA Act or in the constitutional accord because Quebec did not ask for it." Quebec did not ask for it, no. But I think the minister should be very much aware that whatever Quebec asked for or did not ask for, they probably thought it was a matter for the people of Ontario to sort out. The people of Ontario, as far as I know, are prepared to see that sorted out if it were not for the political shenanigans of this government.

They are playing political games with fundamental rights of Franco-Ontarians at a time when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) and I as the leader of the NDP have made it absolutely crystal clear that we are prepared to support Ontario's adopting section 133. We got nothing but resistance from this government, for reasons which I find extremely difficult to understand, because we are judged in this province in terms of how we deal with our Franco-Ontarians.

5 p.m.

Every time we drag our feet with respect to a school, as in Penetanguishene, the headlines are all over the newspapers in Montreal and in Quebec City. That is a reality. When we finally come ahead and do the decent thing with respect to Penetanguishene, the story may well be put on page 22 of those same newspapers. The reason is clear. We deserve that adverse publicity because of the way in which we have constantly had to be dragged kicking and screaming into providing adequate services for Franco-Ontarians in this province.

That is not the NDP, that is the Conservative government which has been in power for 38 years and which has so frequently and so obviously dragged its feet and indicated that it hurt them so much to simply provide justice for the Franco-Ontarians. To accept section 133 would have a number of important effects. First, it would signal to the people of Quebec the fact that we in Ontario are really interested in the society in which the two solitudes can genuinely come together.

Nothing will be taken from either group in the creation of a society committed to the cultural diversity and richness that is possible here in Canada.

Second, the inclusion of Ontario in section 133 would signal to the federal government the fact that Ontario is determined to help create a new Canada, a Canada of open and cordial relations between the two partners in the French-English compact.

What a sordid deal there was between Premier Davis and Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, deputé du comté de Mount Royal dans la ville de Montréal dans la province de Québec. What a sordid deal where, in return for getting Ontario's support for the other portions of the constitutional package, Pierre Trudeau, a man who for his entire lifetime has been dedicated to ensuring equality, ensuring full recognition for the French fact in North America, determined that he was prepared to overlook Ontario's resistance to having section 133 apply to this particular province.

If Ontario were now to be prepared to accept 133 -- and we can do it tomorrow, it is a section of the constitution which can be changed by means of simple legislative resolutions by the province of Ontario and by the Parliament of Canada -- if we were to do that it would ensure to the francophone population of Ontario that this province welcomes them, admires them, respects their rights to cultural and linguistic integrity, and wishes to work with them to make them citizens with rights absolutely equal and inviolable here in this province.

But this government, despite repeated demands from the opposition parties, has refused to move in this direction, preferring instead to move by little steps, in quarter measures. It allows the building of a French school here, and then it fights another one for a while there and then it builds it. It extends French court services to the point where the requirements of section 133 are virtually met.

If French is accepted in this Legislature, as it is; if the statutes of Ontario are now being translated into French, as they are; if criminal trials in French are now a right everywhere in the province, as they are if the Attorney General's statement is true; and if 83 per cent of the francophone population of the province will now be served in civil trials and civil courts by French-language courts; why on earth are we resisting section 133, which simply guarantees the right of the statutes in French, of debate in this Legislature in French, of courts in French and that is all? I cannot understand it.

That is only one thing that has to be done, but the fact that the government resists it is, in my view, a sign of the hypocrisy of this government. I have just had brought to my attention a letter which was sent by the Attorney General to a lady in Haley Station, Ontario, as recently as October 15, 1981. It came to my attention because of a constituent in Ottawa Centre. Bear in mind that this is the same Attorney General who, at the time the government of Ontario was expressing full support for the charter of rights as put forward in the federal government constitutional package, was doing an undermining operation. He was making an end run around the Premier in order to suggest to the federal officials why he thought the charter of rights was weak and should perhaps be undermined or weakened.

In this letter to the lady in Haley Station, Ontario, the Attorney General refers to what he calls "the highly skilled and manipulative efforts of Mr. Lévesque to tear this country apart." He says, "It is difficult to understand why those efforts are not more apparent to the public." It is hard to think, if the Attorney General was really intent on building bridges to Quebec, he would use that kind of language in reference to the Premier of that province and the leader of 6.5 million Québecois. Then he has a few nasty comments about Mr. Trudeau. He says, "We do not believe that our sentiments about the Liberal government should prevent us from working for a resolution that in our view is absolutely essential to a united Canada."

The violins come out at this point and he says in a patronizing way: "In short, I am immensely proud of the fact that Ontario has risen above the petty, partisan, political bickering that has characterized much of the constitutional debates. I am confident that history will reflect that Ontario and New Brunswick alone were able to put aside parochial self-interest and work for the interest of all Canadians." When Ontario wraps itself in the flag like that, bedecks itself with a maple leaf, it does not really correspond with the Ontario record, and that is why I say there is real hypocrisy out there.

I had a chance to talk the other day with Mr. Elie Fallu, who is a deputy in the National Assembly of Quebec. He met with the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and myself and some of the other French-speaking members here at Queen's Park. We talked about Bill 101. I think Quebec is desperately wrong in its rules about signs. I think it is desperately wrong in refusing to allow any Canadian child who wishes to have education in English in that province to have such an education, as we allow education in French to any francophone child resident in Ontario, regardless of where the parents happened to be educated.

On the other hand, he pointed out to me there are some things to be said about Quebec that we cannot say in Ontario. In Quebec they do not have a rule about English-speaking education where numbers warrant. There are some English-speaking pupils up on the north shore who are actually picked up every Monday by airplane to be flown to a school where they can get their education in English. Then on Friday they are flown back to their homes so they can spend the weekend with their families. The Quebec government is prepared to go to that limit in order to ensure education in English for its anglophone minority. That is something we are certainly not prepared to do at this point in Ontario.

Another point he made was to say, "You know, it is all very well to talk about your French high schools" -- and I do not think he was particularly aware of them -- "but," he said, "you know, in Montreal, we have for a century had an English-language school board for our linguistic minority. Where in Ontario do you have a French-language school board for your French-language minority?" I had to tell him I was sorry but we do not have one.

In the Ottawa region in particular it is long past time. There are 20,000 pupils of the French language and their education is split among four separate school boards. They should be brought under one school board in order to ensure they can get full linguistic equality in the kind of education they need. I believe we should be moving in that direction in other parts of the province -- probably not everywhere, but there are other parts of the province where I suspect French-language school boards might also work.

Who appoints the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario? The Tory government. Who does it appoint? Alas too often its own cronies, rather than ensuring that people who are legitimate representatives selected by the Franco-Ontarian community are members of that commission.

5:10 p.m.

We should be looking for every means possible to reach out to Quebec. I call to mind that Quebec has had the Quebec government office here for a number of years. It has six, eight, 10 or 12 people in a downtown building. They are doing business with and are reaching out to Ontarians. They are providing cultural services to Ontarians. They are making Quebec known in Ontario. By contrast, our efforts in Quebec are minuscule and piddling.

I have already recalled that the two assemblies have almost no contact; that there are few contacts between business people, service clubs, youth groups, school groups, groups of women and church groups in our two provinces. There are so few contacts it makes one wonder how on earth we manage to coexist. Where the contacts exist they have overwhelmingly taken place not because of this government but in spite of this government.

We have two provinces which are now facing a danger of economic decline. Our two assemblies should be meeting together, perhaps with joint committees to work together on common economic problems because of the way industry is being sucked out of Montreal, Quebec and Ontario, going to western Canada, the sunbelt states or the Third World.

Our forest industries share common problems. We should be looking for common solutions and using those common problems to find the means of cementing relationships with Quebec. None of that is happening either. Every possible way should be sought by the government of Ontario to demonstrate to the people of Quebec we are doing our best to break down the two solitudes. Alas, it is not happening.

Alors, il faut reconnaître le fait, Monsieur le président, qu'il y a une grosse désaffection dans notre province, et à Québec, et dans le reste du pays, avec le manque des garanties pour les Franco-Ontariens. Je viens de citer la publicité dans Le Droit en novembre qui a indiqué la nature de cette désaffection. Alors, quand vous avez cette situation, quand vous avez une situation, les Franco-Ontariens ne sont pas prêts, ne comprennent pas exactement ça, qui est la politique de notre gouvernement ontarien et quand ils sont aussi en désaccord avec les conservateurs qui sont le pouvoir dans cette province. Evidemment, ça représente une faillite du parti du gouvernement de la province d'Ontario.

Does this government not understand the nature of its obligations and the pivotal role it must play in building Canadian unity? Does it not understand that for decades there has always been a special kind of relationship between the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec? Robarts and Lesage, Robarts and Johnson, Frost and Duplessis -- but what about Davis and Bourassa, Davis and Lévesque? Nothing; rien. There is nothing there at all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, Davis and Bourassa did meet often.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is grumbling about what I have to say. The fact is that long before René Lévesque came to power the lines between this province and Quebec were gradually running dry. The relationships were eroding. They were shrivelling up and there has been no legitimate and effective effort to try to re-establish them over the course of the last few years.

Premiers Robarts and Frost were concerned to ensure Quebec was not isolated, was always consulted, was always a part of a whole. Where has this Premier and this government been? They have not been there.

Leadership, in my view, means Ontario has to be prepared to move and to understand what the changes are, to prove its openness to French Canadians. I have made a number of suggestions already today. It is still not too late. I hope this government will look closely at its options to ensure that in the 19 or 20 years we have left, the twentieth century may really belong to Canada, so that a great and united nation can survive as an example to a world much too divided between races, ideologies and between rich and poor.

I have made a number of other points with respect to the override document and the whole question of human rights. I want to say finally that we must all seek to ensure that the constitution, which is now being passed and which will be home from Westminster by February or March of next year, becomes something more than a piece of paper, and that the provisions and guarantees it contains are there in spirit as well as in law.

Canada is a rich and varied multicultural society. People from all over the world have come here to find a free and economically secure future for themselves and their children. We are justly proud of the contribution we have made in this regard. But part of that richness is due to the fact that people of many cultural backgrounds other than British and French have been able to live here in peace and harmony and have been able to maintain among their children an appreciation of where they came from. This, too, must be maintained and guaranteed.

(Translation from Italian).

To say today that Ontario is multicultural is the truth. But multiculturalism does not end with the simple recognition of this fact. There is a clear role that the government must follow to promote understanding among the diverse ethnocultural communities, including the English and the French. We must recognize that if we deny our cultural patrimony, society will lose its richness. Multiculturalism in Ontario must not be a law designed to accommodate minorities but the basis of a dynamic society.

(End of translation).

Multiculturalism is not just something for the statutes, Mr. Chairman. It is not something one gives recognition to once or twice a year; it should be the basis of a dynamic society.

We still have to complete a lot of unfinished business with respect to the constitution, and not just with respect to relationships between Quebec and the rest of the country and French-English relations. We have not yet finished the business that was on the formal agenda of the constitutional talks of a year and a half or two years ago. The structure of the senate, federal institutions, the Supreme Court, regional representation in the House of Commons: all of that has yet to be finished.

The way in which our provincial governments, which are now so powerful and so important, will participate in economic decision making within Canada must be resolved. I do not believe the provinces should be excluded any longer as they are excluded right now. I believe what happened at the finance ministers' conference in Halifax was a farce, and the federal government has to bear a lot of the responsibility for making it a farce.

We have to look as well at the whole question of rights, because we have only written half the charter of rights that this country and this province need. It is all very well to have the right to equality, but there is an old saying that rich and poor alike have the freedom to sleep under the bridges of Paris. Rich and poor alike have the right to be unemployed, one supposes, under the charter of rights that has been adopted. Male and female, handicapped and whole, have the right to unemployment, have the right to be without shelter, have the right to be without hope or education. The fact is that economic rights are barely mentioned or recognized in the constitution we have adopted.

I had an opportunity this morning to speak to the economic development task force of the federal New Democratic Party. I told them what had happened at Admiral, what is happening in St. Thomas and in the automobile industry. They said, "That is the most pessimistic brief we have seen in a week and a half of travelling across Canada." I said, "I am sorry, but that is the truth."

We need to ensure that economic rights are not just a dream but a reality here in Ontario, a province that has traditionally been prosperous, flourishing, dynamic and vigorous. We need rights to jobs. The right to a job was guaranteed in the economic bill of rights I submitted as legislation in this Legislature about a year ago, but it has been ignored by this government, ignored by the 10 Premiers and ignored by the Prime Minister of Canada. That should be in the constitution.

Regarding the right to housing, we learn in the paper today that people are sleeping on straw mats in shelters here in this city. They are sleeping on gratings at city hall the way the clochards used to sleep on the subway gratings in Paris when one visited there 25 years ago. That kind of thing is intolerable in our society, in a decent society, yet there is now a crisis in accommodation where the right to adequate shelter is no longer being guaranteed by governments. I think that should be a constitutional right.

5:20 p.m.

The right to adequate income: what about old people living below the poverty line? The fact is this government turns around and says people should not be discriminated against on the grounds of age. Then the members of the select committee on pensions effectively veto a recommendation that would ensure single pensioners get an income over the poverty line. That speaks to the hypocrisy of this government when it comes to economic rights and social rights.

Access to education: I know the minister's sons and daughters have access to university. I suppose my sons will have access to university if they choose to go there. I know there are a lot of working people across this province whose sons and daughters do not have that right. I know in the city of Toronto, if you happen to be black, the chances are three, four or five times higher that you will be in an opportunity program or a dead-end educational program than if you happen to be of Anglo-Saxon and Canadian origins. That speaks to the fact that the right to education is not a reality. Access to education is not a reality either.

Those things have to be addressed if the constitution of Canada is going to be more than something that just turns on a few constitutional experts, the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and a few of his colleagues, and occasionally forms the subject of a debate here in this Legislature. A constitution should be a vibrant document. It should be a document that expresses the hopes and aspirations, the best instincts of a society. We should adhere to that constitution, not just in law, but also in spirit.

The fault of this government has been its failure to provide leadership, to really come to grips with the Quebec fact and the French fact in Canada and in North America; its failure to reach out to embrace the spirit of what was in the constitution, which failure has contributed to the isolation of Quebec and of French Canadians; and its failure to look to a spirit of equality in economic and social terms, as well as in purely judicial terms, in the charter of rights.

I look to the government to take those areas as priorities on behalf of the people of Ontario and the people of Canada and to start showing some leadership now rather than simply dragging along in the wake of the federal Liberals.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in response to some of the things the member for Ottawa Centre has put forward. First, he has indicated one province was excluded from the accord. I think the proper wording is that one province chose not to be part of the accord. Quebec was not excluded by nine other Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada. Quebec was given every opportunity and encouragement, and things were done to make that accord such that it could be acceptable to that province. I think that has to be made very clear. At no time or in no way during that week of discussions in Ottawa was any definite attempt made to exclude Quebec. I must say rather we got the impression that it --

Mr. Cassidy: What about the Attorney General accusing Lévesque of manipulation as he went in to the negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not think the Attorney General accused Lévesque of manipulation. All I am saying is we got the distinct impression it would not have mattered what we had proposed, there would not have been any agreement.

Mr. Cassidy: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: The letter quoted by the Attorney General said specifically, "Indeed it is difficult to understand why the highly skilled and manipulative efforts of Mr. Lévesque to tear this country apart are not more apparent to the public." Surely there is a prejudice there, a prejudgement on the part of the Attorney General, who was one of the three key ministers taking part in that session that took place only two weeks later.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, that letter is a private letter which, as you said, was sent to a constituent in either your riding or another riding; it was not something the Attorney General said at that time. But I think the general --

Mr. Cassidy: Did it not reflect his state of mind?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, but the general sentiment around here -- I am just looking again at one of our famous Queen's Park correspondents, Claire Hoy, who in one of his columns said he was not happy with Ontario and New Brunswick supporting the Trudeau recommendation. He said, "Wrong as the Trudeau aides are on the constitution, surely the more serious crime is for the silly seven to continue to share a bed with a man dedicated to the destruction of the country." You can claim the Attorney General may have overstated the case but a lot of us have felt, and I am sure even some in your party have felt at some time, that René Lévesque is really dedicated to the destruction of Canada. Do you deny that?

Mr. Cassidy: I am not sure, and I don't think you should go in a prejudiced way, as the Attorney General went.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right. But the fact is -- and I think what has happened this last weekend just emphasizes the point -- that René Lévesque and the Parti Québecois want to separate Quebec from Canada.

Mr. Cassidy: His party more than him.

Hon. Mr. Wells: His party more than him. I was particularly shocked that party gathering would extend a standing ovation to a member of the Front de Libération du Québec -- an ovation far exceeding the respect they showed for René Lévesque himself.

I wondered what they were doing when the members of the Palestine Liberation Organization were there, and they extended ovations to the PLO and a few other people, but then when I heard the next day that the FLQ member -- I think his name was Jacques Rose -- was given a two-minute standing ovation or something, it sounded like a very strange thing to me.

Mr. Cassidy: But where have they been, and how have we not contributed to them over the course of 10 years? That's the problem.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will get to that in a minute. What I am saying is the party René Lévesque leads, seems -- I agree with the member -- to be going far beyond what Monsieur Lévesque himself wants to achieve. That party is greatly dedicated to things that are different from what you or I, and I think most members, want for this country.

We tried very hard to effect an accord in Ottawa, during the first week of November, that would and could include Quebec. When it was finally agreed that we had something that nine provinces and the federal government could sign, the opportunity for Mr. Lévesque to come aboard on the accord was there. He was asked, and I recall he said there were three things in the accord that would not allow him to sign it.

I am just going by memory but as I recall the three things were:

First of all, in the amending formula, Quebec had agreed to the amending formula if it had full compensation if they opted out, and that was not there.

He then said he did not like the mobility rights section. To this day I am not sure what he did not like about the mobility rights section. When we asked him, as I recall, he started talking about tendering practices in the province and the desire to award contracts to Quebec firms that tendered on jobs in Quebec. This is not what the mobility section is all about. I am not quite sure what he was worried about in the mobility section, which was changed in order to accommodate some of the concerns of Newfoundland.

The third thing was in the minority language education section. He did not feel that should be imposed upon Quebec.

He was given every opportunity, and we all urged him to accept, but he did not accept the opportunity to sign the accord at that time. In the interval, listening to other voices from Quebec, certain changes were made in the resolution as signed on the Thursday when the accord was reached. They did not go quite as far as the Premier of Quebec wanted, but they certainly went a long way and met the concerns of other reasonable people in Quebec.

5:30 p.m.

First, there was fiscal compensation for any educational or cultural program which one opted out of. Mobility rights were left the same. The minority language education section had what is called "the Canada clause" which meant that people who were educated in English in Canada would be entitled to go to English-language schools, but new immigrants to this country who ended up in Quebec would not be entitled to that language option.

Most of us who were consulted felt those were reasonable extensions of some changes of the actual accord that was signed on that Thursday, things that were not in then but which were accepted afterwards. That in itself shows a degree of good faith on the part of the others who would have liked to have had René Lévesque sign the accord also, but who, many of us believed, felt there was nothing we could do to bring him along. The point has to be made. A number of people in Quebec would see this constitutional package and the things in it as being acceptable to them.

I would like to talk a bit about the relationships between this province and Quebec. I regret the member for Ottawa Centre has downplayed the relationship this province had during the 1970s. I think he is wrong. The spectacular public acknowledgement of the John Robarts-Daniel Johnson relationship was never there for the relationship between this Premier and Robert Bourassa. There was that bond of friendship and relationship until 1976. It permeated not only the top but all levels of this government.

To give an illustration, I happened to be sitting at dinner the other night beside Victor Goldbloom, who used to be Minister of the Environment in the Bourassa government. He asked me how George Kerr was because he and George Kerr, who had been Ontario's Minister of the Environment, had had a very close working relationship for a number of years when they were both environment ministers. That relationship extended throughout all areas of this government.

I recall the very close relationship I had with the Minister of Education in Quebec for a number of years when I was Minister of Education in this province. Those kinds of relationships have existed. They do not exist to the same degree at the present time, not because of something on our part but because of this strong ideological difference about the future of Canada that is held by the government of Quebec.

It in itself builds a chasm between us, and makes it much more difficult to operate. It is very difficult to side with people who are one's political opponents, who are on the other side arguing against a referendum that one's government is putting forward, and then to build up that bridge of relationships, the kind we used to have prior to 1976 and all through the '60s.

It has not diminished or caused us to break down any of the formal arrangements that are there. The Ontario-Quebec permanent commission that was signed in 1969 and set up in 1970 is still in operation. It is co-chaired by my deputy minister, Don Stevenson, and the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Robert Normand, of Quebec. It engages in a number of projects, and these are still going on.

We put in about $871,000. It has to do with secondary student three-month exchanges, Ontario-Quebec class twinning programs, teacher exchanges, post-secondary exchanges, co-operation in adult education and, at the university level, exchange fellowships, university exchange projects, journalism student exchanges, student summer job exchanges and so forth. None of them are big programs. Some of them involve perhaps one or two; the student summer employment exchange involves 100. But all of them were initiated jointly as part of the kind of thing the member is talking about.

Mr. Stokes: Too bad we could not dedicate some of those funds to a better exposure for our native people in the far north.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would not be opposed to that.

Mr. Stokes: I have raised that with your colleague the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would not be opposed to that, but at the moment I am just talking about what is happening between our provinces and the fact that we do have mechanisms set up like the Ontario-Quebec permanent commission on cultural and educational matters, and these things have been going ahead.

Mr. Nixon: It sounds like a dining and chowder society to me.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If you have not eaten down in the Quebec National Assembly you should get yourself invited down there to have a meal. Of course, you are going to have to list that as a taxable benefit next year.

Some of the relationships that have occurred at the ministerial level and so forth have unquestionably been hindered by the political events that have been going on and the policies and the vast difference between the approach to the future of Canada that our party has and that which the people in the government of Quebec have.

On the other hand, and I suppose this is our federal system in this country, we spend a lot of time discussing matters with people like Jean Chrétien and others who represent Quebec, who represent the aspirations and desires of the people just as much as people elected at the provincial level do, and who express those to us. We work with them also. The name Serge Joyal comes to mind. There is a whole group of people who have been working hard on this constitutional endeavour who must also be said to represent the feelings and aspirations of the people of Quebec.

I was moved, as I know many were, when that constitutional resolution was passed in the House and at least 72 or 73 of the Quebec members jumped up to sing, and certainly the prevailing sound I heard over the television was the French version of "O Canada."

Mr. Nixon: They saw themselves described as traitors in the newspapers the next day. It was appalling.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes. I think it was disgusting that they should be described as traitors, because they were not traitors; they were fine Canadians.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I have already had an opportunity to say a few words about the constitutional matter, and I hope you will permit a question or two on the financing of the ministry.

I just want to draw two or three things to the minister's attention. I continue to be very impressed with the fact that the deputy minister is able to provide his services for only $64,600 as of last March. That is something I am a bit unreconstructed on. I really do feel that the salaries of our senior people and of those in senior positions at the municipal and education levels have become too high in this province and in the municipalities.

I express concern about that because we seem to have allowed ourselves to be fitted into some sort of machine, a structure over which we have absolutely no control. We have a number of procedures now which dictate changes that seem to be automatic, and I really believe that for all of the competence and ability of the civil service, senior and otherwise, our salaries are getting pretty high. The fact that they are higher in Alberta or elsewhere does not cut very much ice with me.

I also notice from the public accounts that the minister spent almost $25,000 on travel, which sounds a little bit luxurious and expensive. I simply express that view. The minister might want to say something about it.

5:40 p.m.

We spent $177,000 with Foster Advertising. I am not sure what the programs were, but I noticed recently that somebody in the advertising business said governments at all levels are now the greatest spenders of advertising dollars in North America. Frankly, I wish they would leave it with the underarm deodorant crowd and the other group that has something a little more saleable to put forward. I believe the move by all governments towards the financing of expensive advertising programs is reprehensible, and I would hope the minister would do something about it.

An item of $45,000 payable to Goldfarb Consultants I find even more offensive. We know the government, by agreement of the cabinet, made public the results of many of the public opinion polls commissioned with public funds, but I believe the one done by this ministry was not made public. I am not sure about that, and it may very well be the one paid for by this $45,000 to Mr. Goldfarb. God only knows what he recommended. Having observed polling companies, and Goldfarb Consultants in particular, over a good long period of time, I sometimes feel they recommend what the consulter wants to know.

But when we see certain stands taken by the government in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Premier's stand with regard to the provision of French services and so on, we have the definite feeling that he has the confidence that seems to be instilled in him only when he gets the kind of poll he wants to hear.

Dineley Limited, a constituent of the minister's, $45,000; I am not sure what that was for. Perhaps the minister could tell us. One of the matters that did concern me and I did intend to speak about was the distribution of government hospitality. One of the dinners was the Chief Harold Adamson farewell dinner at $5,135. I can recall very well when that occurred because the Attorney General once again, and he seems to be getting more and more into the habit of this, was the actual host of the dinner. This minister may have paid the bill but the Attorney General went out of his way to see that only Tories from all levels were invited and then made the kind of speech we have grown used to from the Attorney General.

He said to the departing chief, who I guess left with his Group of Seven painting under his arm, and the other police-oriented citizens who were there, that the Conservative Party was the only party interested in supporting the police and everybody there drew the inference, which was certainly the implication the Attorney General wanted to make, that the other political parties were not in support of the police. I can remember being absolutely infuriated at the time.

Frankly, I do not like to spend too much time going to public dinners, although from time to time I do enjoy a good meal, but I felt at the time that something strange had happened to government policy in the last few years. I recall, as Leader of the Opposition when John Robarts was running the show, he always went out of his way through his protocol office to see that the opposition and the NDP were represented at public dinners. As a matter of fact, we were always asked to be present at the head table, because when public funds are being used to honour important individuals or to give some hospitality to important organizations, I think it is an incorrect assumption to presume, however much evidence to the contrary, that everybody there is a good little Tory and an enthusiastic supporter of the government.

I say this with the feeling that my days of being invited to the head table are no doubt over, and it has got nothing to do with anything other than the proper utilization of public funds for hospitality. I was particularly offended about the Harold Adamson deal because of the speech the Attorney General was reported to have made.

I notice there is a goodbye dinner for Dr. Robert McMichael at $11,295. Did you present him with a gold watch and expect him to disappear into the sunset and leave you people in full control of all those paintings you decided you were going to distribute according to your own likes? He certainly did not get the message, although one would think for a dinner that cost $11,000 -- which as far as I know, nobody in the opposition ever heard about -- you certainly were not well served by the expenditure of that money.

We look down this list and see that Honourable Michael Starr received a retirement dinner for $10,442. That was after he had left his former political career and had come here as chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board. I felt he did a good job, except you had retired him at a $10,000 dinner and immediately reappointed him to the liquor board. If you are going to retire somebody with that kind of panoply, you might as well leave him at home collecting his spectrum of retirement cheques that must come in at the end of every month.

I really did feel badly that I missed the International Fermentation Symposium reception. You got that for only $2,700. I want to indicate, not my personal displeasure at not being asked to all your fun feeds, but that somebody over there has somehow missed the point of including the opposition parties, their leaders or their representatives at important functions.

The one I really had in mind was when Her Majesty the Queen Mother was here last summer. It was a very fine occasion indeed. All members were able to bring their chief fund raisers and others to the Canadian Room and hear the Premier speak en français at length. It was a giveaway, I thought, to his nonpensionable future that he was talking about national unity in French for more than the usual short paragraph.

I particularly noticed there was not a single opposition member at the head table, even though it was an occasion when Her Majesty was a special guest. I believe that is a distinct departure from the procedures and customs we have known for a good long time.

There is one other thing I want to mention in passing. I notice in the briefing notes of the estimates the overseas offices come under the deputy minister. Are these the offices like Ontario House and so on?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. Nixon: They are not; just Brussels?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Brussels and Paris.

Mr. Nixon: The minister indicates Brussels and Paris. I am not sure why those offices would be separated from the other offices which evidently have a trade purpose. I wanted to express a personal opinion about the overseas offices. I have not had the opportunity to go to Brussels or Paris to inspect those offices, but that opportunity might come at some later date.

I have always felt in our system of Confederation we should be able to make use of the facilities established on behalf of all the citizens of Canada by the government of Canada. I believe by making use of those facilities we would not necessarily have to approve or support every initiative taken by the ambassador or the high commissioner, as the case might be.

I think in many respects these overseas offices have simply turned into travel agencies for the ministers with a special hot line, an open line to the booking agency for the Concorde so the trade minister can get back and forth to Europe without wasting any of his valuable time.

I have been to Ontario House. As a matter of fact, the former leader of the NDP, the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) and myself were asked by the former Premier to accompany him on a celebration of the one hundredth anniversary of Ontario House. The fact we attended at the request of the Premier does not really mean I support the concept of the facility. It is somewhat similar to the establishment of new facilities in Paris and Brussels.

I do not know why we should get the idea we are a sovereign state within a sovereign state. I do not believe we should always presume that the initiatives of the government of Canada are inimical, if that is the word, to those of the government of Ontario. Surely there would be a saving of personnel and dollars if we would undertake a process of co-operation rather than competition.

5:50 p.m.

The ministers inform me that these offices are financed under at least two ministries and perhaps three. I just want to express my opposition to the proliferation of these facilities outside of Ontario when I believe we can be represented by the government of Canada and we can even ask for an independent position if we want to sell Leamington tomato paste in opposition to eastern township tomato paste. It is quite possible for us to do that without insisting on the more or less independent position that has been an earmark of the Conservative years with all of its adjuncts of gracious travel by the cabinet ministers and which I feel is really a substantial waste of public dollars.

Mr. Stokes: I have listened with great interest to what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has had to say with regard to the expenditure of funds associated with this ministry.

Having been in a position to know how important it is that we maintain a relationship with not only people within the Commonwealth but other countries that are less fortunate than ourselves, I think it is absolutely essential that we keep an open door policy for people who for a variety of reasons choose to visit Canada, Ontario and Toronto. Because while I will not say we are world leaders in a lot of fields, I think Ontario, particularly this assembly, is seen as taking a very important leadership role in the promotion of parliamentary democracy, in being willing to share our experience over the last 114 years with those nations who are coming off a system of government of the extreme right or the extreme left. I can think particularly of countries like Ghana, and other African states which for a variety of reasons have expressed a desire to visit us here in Ontario.

The kinds of dollars that are spent either through the sessional requirements of the Office of the Assembly, or indeed in co-operation with the protocol office of this ministry, I think are dollars extremely well spent. While I agree with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that we should not perceive ourselves as a sovereign state, I do not see this minister and this ministry approaching our relationship with other countries in that light. I see this as a willingness by this minister and this ministry to be of assistance to those people who are crying out for that kind of leadership, looking for the way in which they would set up their parliamentary structures in such a way that they can truly have a parliamentary, democratic institution. I would not quarrel with any dollars that are being spent in that regard at all.

The member who has just spoken read some figures from the public accounts. One would question whether or not it was money well spent to put on an $11,000 dinner for somebody who happened to have made a contribution several years ago towards art and culture in this province. I do not really think that is the best way to spend money, but I do subscribe to the idea of assisting those nations in the Third World, particularly in the Cari-Com community, where I know Canada and Ontario are held in very high regard.

An hon. member: Where is that?

Mr. Stokes: That is the economic union of Caribbean countries.

When we had an opportunity to visit Barbados, I had the privilege of seeing the way in which Canadian International Development Agency money is being spent to build a new international airport; to see ways in which they have put up one of the most modern flour mills anywhere in the world as a result of federal government assistance; to see the way in which Canadian dollars are being used in those emerging countries to give them the wherewithal to improve their economies so that eventually they would be in a better position to purchase a lot of the things we are able to produce so far in excess of our ability to consume.

I think it is not only a question of us being our brother's keeper, but our brother's brother. We know the economic situation that Canada, the United States and the world community finds themselves in at this time. If we do not want to do that kind of thing for strictly moral reasons, if we want to look at it from a selfish perspective, the only way that Canada is going to continue to grow and prosper is by being competitive in world markets, by making it possible for those nations in the Third World to develop their own resources to the extent that they have the financial resources to buy what we can produce so far in excess of our ability to consume.

Any dollars that are being spent within this ministry to foster that kind of understanding, that kind of co-operation, I am all for. I do not think it is a matter of sovereignty at all. I think it is a matter of Ontario, as one of the most affluent jurisdictions in the richest country on the face of the earth, having a moral obligation to do that.

The minister spoke about ways in which this ministry and this government through this ministry are assisting Third World countries by way of providing educational expertise and human resources to assist those people who so badly need the kind of education and the kind of skilled labour that is essential for them to compete in world markets. I had a conversation with the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) during those estimates and found out that a substantial amount of dollars were being made available for that purpose.

I just want to share with the minister and other members of the House my impressions of a conference that was held in the South Indian Ocean in 1976, in Mauritius, where one of the items on the agenda -- apart from peace and security in the Indian Ocean, the commodities market -- was the brain drain from the have-not countries to the developed countries, like the United Kingdom, like many countries in western Europe, Canada and the United States.

Of course, we look at the percentage of our gross national product that we allocate to helping Third World and developing countries. On a dollar basis, if one looks at the total Canada dedicates to that, and if, in return, one makes a comparison with the loss to those countries as a result of their spending very precious financial resources to educate doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers and all sorts of professional people, only to find that after a few years they have migrated to all of the developed countries, they can make a very convincing case in that exchange between our sending those aid dollars to those developing countries. If one compares our dollars with their loss of their most precious resource, that is their educated people, to countries such as Canada, it is clear that we are the beneficiaries of that exchange.

Anybody in Canada who feels that we as a nation are assisting to the extent that we should must keep in mind that in the total exchange of human resources from the developing countries to the developed countries they can make an excellent case that we are the beneficiaries of that exchange. So if the minister thinks everything Canada and Ontario are doing is commensurate with the responsibility we really and truly have to those countries, he is deluding himself.

6 p.m.

If the minister looks at some of the speeches made by Sonny Ramphale, the secretary general of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I think he will have all the proof he needs to come to this assembly and ask for more dollars to assist those people in the way he has indicated he is doing with the kind of funds he is asking for in these estimates. I applaud anything in that regard because we do have that responsibility, and I urge the minister not only to continue it but to add to it. It is so badly needed.

The Deputy Chairman: There are 14 minutes left in committee, and it being six of the clock I do now leave the chair until 8 o'clock tonight.

Mr. Nixon: We are prepared to discharge the estimate if you want to.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other speakers?

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to forgo the 14 minutes; it is very hard to divide that between two opposition parties anyway. But I would like to express my regret that so little time was spent on the actual estimates of the ministry because so much time was spent on the constitution. I think we have to debate the constitution, but I think this was the wrong vehicle for it.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall we proceed with the votes? Agreed.

Vote 601 agreed to.

Vote 602 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: This completes the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.

The House recessed at 6:03 p.m.

December 7, 1981