Hansard Transcripts 1982-Jun-24 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all honourable members will join me today in expressing our good wishes to all French Canadians on this June 24. As we know, June 24 marks the birthday of St. Jean-Baptiste, patron saint of Quebec and of Canada according to the canons of the Catholic Church. It was on the birthday of St. Jean-Baptiste that explorer John Cabot made his historic landing in eastern Canada in 1496.

Monsieur le président, je demanderais à tous les députés de souhaiter bonne fête avec moi à tous les Canadiens français en ce 24 juin. Comme nous le savons tous, le 24 juin est la date de naissance de St-Jean-Baptiste, patron du Québec et du Canada selon le canon de l'Eglise catholique. C'est en ce jour historique que Jean Cabot arriva au Canada en 1496.

[Later]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the member for Prescott-Russell in recognition of St. Jean-Baptiste Day. Too often we do not recognize the national holidays and feasts of the French community in Canada.

I would also like as a combined point of privilege to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Legislature for assisting me with some of the costs of the immersion course I will be taking in Jonquière, Québec, in the next little while. Perhaps next year I will be able to stand and speak appropriately in the other language to celebrate St. Jean-Baptiste Day.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am a French Canadian whose family dates back to 1656 in this country, with a long tradition in French Canada.

In fact, my family hails from Levis, Quebec, and I am sure many members who are close to that part of Canada will recognize that town as an important community. St. Jean-Baptiste Day is an important day in my family and I want to join the member for Prescott-Russell in congratulating and complimenting all French Canadians on this important day in their lives.

My own family celebrates this day with a great deal of pride because Captain J. E. Bernier, as the members know, was one of Canada's famous and notorious northern explorers. He laid claim to 25 islands for Canada in northern Canada, including Ellesmere Island. So I join the member for Prescott-Russell on this important day in congratulating all those from Quebec.

Mr. Shymko: Monsieur le président, je voudrais ajouter mes félicitations à cette occasion historique de la fête de St-Jean-Baptiste et ajouter aux mots de Monsieur le député de Prescott-Russell. Comme vous le savez, moi je ne suis pas d'origine francophone; je ne suis pas Canadien français mais en reconnaissant la contribution de la nation fondatrice du Canada, je voudrais souligner les services aux francophones qui ont été mis en place pendant la dernière décennie de la part du gouvernement de ce côté-ci et en même temps souligner que nous sommes tous, Monsieur le président, participants à la fondation de notre pays du Canada.

In other words, I underline that on the historic moment of June 24, we as Canadians are all founders in the building process of this great nation, along with the contribution of the English and French founding nations.

ST. JOHN AMBULANCE

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, with respect to St. John Day I would also like to remind the House that today the organization of St. John Ambulance is beginning its centennial year celebrations for its activities within Ontario.

Next year, the first triennial convention of the Order of St. John will be held outside of London, England, here in Toronto. So St. John in that context, not only as an important souvenir of the francophone traditions within our province but also as a reminder of the service of those volunteers in St. John Ambulance and the Order of St. John as well, comes to mind on this happy day.

ONTARIO STRAWBERRIES

Mr. Nixon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to inform the House that the strawberries available in the restaurant at noon and later today, if any remain, are provided through the generosity of a farmer in the constituency of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, Joe Misuida of RR 1, St. George. They are just an example of the quality produce available in southwestern Ontario, and particularly in --

Mr. Stokes: You said you bought them. They were a courtesy.

Mr. Nixon: Well, you did not buy them.

Mr. Stokes: You said you did.

Mr. Nixon: All right. If I choose to be generous and assist you, just be grateful.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CLASS ACTIONS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to table today the three- volume report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission on class actions. The report marks the culmination of the massive project of research and scholarship that began in November 1976 when I asked the commission to look into this important and difficult topic.

In almost 900 pages, the commission has reviewed every aspect of the law relating to class actions. The report concludes that current Ontario law on this subject is inadequate and unnecessarily restrictive. In an interesting review of current cases such as that resulting from the Mississauga train derailment, the commission concludes that our legal system does not offer effective procedural mechanisms for coping with litigation arising from the mass wrongs that are a feature of today's technological society.

The commission has conducted an extensive evaluation of the experience of jurisdictions in the United States and elsewhere with class action mechanisms. It believes class actions can lead to economies in judicial time, provide increased access to the courts and, on occasion, deter wrongful or illegal behaviour. The commission's key policy recommendation is that a new and expanded class action procedure should be introduced, designed to facilitate the bringing of class actions and to enable courts to weed out inappropriate class actions on a case-by-case basis.

To weed out such cases, the commission recommends that every class action should have to undergo an initial screening or "certification" hearing by a judge to determine whether it meets certain specified criteria. These criteria are drawn from the American class action legislation and focus on such things as the number of class actions, the existence of questions of fact or law that are common to the class and the adequacy of the plaintiff who acts as representative for the absent class members.

To limit the impact of class actions on the court, the court would be authorized to refuse to certify class actions which met all other tests if it believed the adverse effect of proceedings upon the class, the court or the public at large would outweigh the benefits of the class action. This unique and important provision would enable the court to balance the impact of class litigation on the administration of justice in the province against the amount of relief likely to be secured by the action or the deterrent value of the action.

2:10 p.m.

The commission makes a number of recommendations to facilitate class actions where the claim is one for damages, which is an area where the present law is restrictive. The commission recommends that the court should be able to make aggregate awards of monetary relief in appropriate circumstances. In an appropriate case the total liability of the defendant class would be determined as a common question without resorting to individual proceedings.

Finally, the commission recommends major changes in the law of costs. The commission states that without reform of cost rules it is doubtful whether class actions will be used at all in Ontario. Thus, the commission recommends that a successful litigant in a class action normally should not be able to recover party and party costs from the unsuccessful adversary. This general rule is subject to three exceptions: at the certification hearing, if a judge believes that it would be unjust to deprive the successful party of costs; in the event of vexatious, frivolous or abusive conduct on the part of either party, and in the case of interlocutory proceedings.

The commission proposes that lawyers representing the class plaintiff should be permitted to enter into a type of court-approved fee arrangement. The lawyer would not recover in the event that the class action failed; if it succeeded he would be entitled to a fee determined by the court, with the court required to take into account what would be fair and reasonable compensation in the light of the risk assumed by the lawyer in undertaking litigation on the basis that he risked receiving no fee if the action had failed.

The report raises a very significant number of policy issues which will be of interest to members on all sides of this House. The commission's report represents a major contribution to the debate that is currently under way in legislatures round the world.

The government will be studying the report with interest. This is a subject which I am sure will generate a great deal of public discussion. The government looks forward to receiving the views of members of the public, members of concerned organizations and members of this House upon the commission's most interesting, complex and thoughtful report.

LEGAL SERVICES FOR HANDICAPPED

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have a second and briefer statement, which is important none the less.

I am pleased to be able to inform the House that Judge Rosalie Silberman Abella of the provincial court, family division, has agreed to conduct a study of the accessibility of legal services in Ontario for the handicapped.

During last year's International Year of Disabled Persons I was pleased to participate in the process by which the handicapped were given important new rights under our Human Rights Code. None the less, I remain concerned that the legal system in Ontario may still pose particular problems for those physically or mentally handicapped who seek access to legal services. I have, therefore, asked Judge Abella to undertake a comprehensive review of the difficulties experienced by the disabled in obtaining legal services, bearing in mind their particular needs and circumstances.

Judge Abella will be looking at the availability of legal services for the handicapped in Ontario, assessing the effectiveness and appropriateness of programs in Ontario and elsewhere designed to enhance the availability, and determining the special needs of the handicapped in respect of access to legal services. She will also consider the difficulties in obtaining access to legal information. Finally, she will be investigating problems which may prevent the handicapped from participating fully and effectively in the legal process.

Judge Abella's review will include access to the law, the advocacy needs of physically and mentally handicapped, interpreter services and the practical difficulties a lawyer faces in receiving and carrying out instructions from the handicapped client.

The government believes this is a very important topic which deserves serious study and investigation. I am confident that Judge Abella will provide us with a report that will command the attention and respect of all in this House. I anticipate that the report will be available by the spring of 1983.

FARM ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the Legislature on the high level of success we have had to date with the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program.

As the honourable members will recall, this $60-million financial assistance program was announced late last year and began operation early in January of this year. The flow of applications and approvals really started to build up in March, once the producers had their 1981 operating statements completed.

I am pleased to announce that more than 1,100 Ontario farmers are at this point being helped by OFAAP. This assistance is being provided by some 300 local branches of banks and other financial institutions in 49 counties throughout the province. To date, the program has deferred interest payments on loans totalling $267,768, has authorized interest rebates on eligible lines of credit totalling $226,291,384 and has guaranteed new lines of credit with a total of $21,872,637.

It is clear that OFAAP has gained widespread acceptance in the farming community and is providing much-needed assistance to Ontario farmers. Because these difficult economic times demand that farmers take advantage of all programs available to them, OFAAP is flexible enough to complement other assistance programs. For example, 20 per cent of those receiving OFAAP assistance have also been approved for the federal government's small business bond program as part of their individual restructuring package.

Attached to this statement are several tables that outline the age, commodity group and other aspects of the farmers being assisted to this point by OFAAP. These tables show that the program is of particular help to young and beginning farmers. Almost half of those receiving assistance are under 35 years of age, while more than 80 per cent are under 45. These young farmers are not only benefiting from the financial assistance, they also reap long-term benefits from the intensive business and financial management counselling which is an integral part of the program.

The counties where the greatest activity under OFAAP has taken place are: Bruce, Grey, Huron, Middlesex, Elgin, Lambton, Kent, Wellington and Perth. In each of these counties, OFAAP is aiding from 45 to over 100 farmers. Although applicants may qualify with farm production value of only $12,000, 85 per cent have an annual farm production value of $50,000 or more. Those assisted so far contribute more than $190 million to the value of our province's agricultural production and come from all sectors of the farming community. Almost half of them are in cash or specialty crops and mixed farming.

My ministry currently has some 80 staff members assigned from other duties to work full time on all aspects of this program. As well, the provincial decision committee, composed of highly skilled people from the private sector, has played a constructive role in making OFAAP work. Without the full co-operation of the lending institutions, the program would not be possible. The real strength of the program, however, lies in the farmer, the banker and the representative of my ministry working together to fashion a counselling and direct aid program that is tailored to individual needs.

The Ontario farm adjustment assistance program is proving to be of immeasurable help to Ontario farmers during these economically difficult times. The program will be in full swing all year long. I want to assure members that we will continue to do everything we can to reach as many farmers as possible with assistance that is timely, fruitful and effective.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I should say at the beginning I was somewhat confused with the order of business today because we missed prayers at 2 p.m. and I am sure the Premier (Mr. Davis) would be very upset if he heard we missed prayers.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: We had them at 10 this morning. You should have been here.

Mr. Peterson: Oh if they were at 10 a.m. then I am sure the Premier was here. I know he would not want to miss them.

Mr. Nixon: He was not here then either.

Mr. Breithaupt: We can certainly run through them again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We were praying for you last Thursday.

Hon. F. S. Miller: And it worked.

TAX ON MEALS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I am sure the Treasurer is aware of section 38 --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for the co-operation of all members in limiting their private conversations so we can not only hear the question, but the answer as well.

Mr. Peterson: Excellent point, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Treasurer. The Treasurer is no doubt aware of section 38 of the Retail Sales Tax Act, which says: "No vendor shall hold out or state to the public or to any purchaser directly or indirectly that the tax or any part thereof imposed by this act will be assumed or absorbed by such vendor."

I am sure he is also aware that some restaurants are at this point absorbing the tax for some senior citizens. They are not collecting the tax but are absorbing it, clearly in violation of section 38 of the Retail Sales Tax Act. Is it the minister's intention to send in the gendarmes to arrest these people? What is he going to do about it?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Monsieur le président, voyant qu'aujourd'hui c'est le 24 juin je crois que je dois répondre à votre première question en français. Non.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is obviously happy with the number of people violating the silly laws he has brought into effect.

Is he aware of the situation of a restaurant chain such as Pizza Pizza, which delivers a pizza and is obliged to charge tax on both the pizza and the delivery charge? It has run into a number of people who have refused to pay the tax. At that point, the delivery boy for the pizza company is left with a choice: he can take the pizza and eat it back at the restaurant; by not collecting the tax, the tax can be absorbed through the company; or perhaps he could take it home and use it as a frisbee.

The point is, these people are absorbing some of these taxes and they are in violation of the law. What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think English might be better this time.

Apart from the member's attempt to discuss pizzas as frisbees, I point out that in the definition of the applicability of tax to food in restaurants the Ministry of Revenue, and the minister can define this section, stated the price is allowed to include tax. In that case, the tax is to be stated in the price or on the menu of the place. It is possible, therefore, for a restaurant to have the tax in any price it posts in the restaurant.

As to whether one can have a variable policy, I cannot answer, but I can suggest that, in the spirit of collecting tax and recognizing that in the first few days of applicability no tax is popular, we are not about to try to drag people in during this period and make examples of them. We would rather have them work with us until the tax has become an accepted part of the scene.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer is aware there are individuals and stores that are clearly refusing to collect the retail sales tax. Is it his legal opinion -- and I am aware he has one -- that they have as of now a legal right to refuse to collect that sales tax and that the consumer has a legal right to refuse to pay that sales tax?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. The sections of the act that define collection state that if anyone refuses to collect in a knowing way a tax that is applicable, there are fines and penalties for that collector. He remains not only responsible for the tax he should have collected, but for penalties up to 25 per cent of the value of the tax collected.

Mr. Peterson: The suggestion to this House is the minister's tax should be hidden so nobody understands he is paying it and presumably that will take --

Hon. F. S. Miller: That's illegal.

Mr. Peterson: Of course that is what he is suggesting. It will take some political heat off him; that is what he is suggesting.

Conversely, he is suggesting at the same time that he does not mind violations of the law. His laws are silly and nobody understands them. He is prepared to put up with violations, inviting wholesale violation of the law. He should speak to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) about the erosion of the moral fabric of this country with silly laws like that.

We phoned the retail sales tax branch at 12:01 p.m. yesterday to ask about some regulations. As he knows, a lot of people phone between 12 o'clock and two o'clock, which is the busy lunch-time period in restaurants. They want to know how to sort out some of the complicated tax measures. We were told by the person there to phone back after three o'clock because everyone was out to lunch.

Would the minister not at least suggest that, given all this confusion and given the fact this bill is going to committee, he should have a moratorium for some reasonable period of time until the law has been struck, until the regulations are in place and until it gets through the committee? Can he not at least do that to prevent a whole country from breaking laws and becoming potential criminals, which is what the government is making them do?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I know the Leader of the Opposition aspires to the position of my Premier (Mr. Davis) some day. I am sure he will inherit, if he ever does get to that exalted position, many loyal employees of this government who have absolutely no political bias at all. I do not think the member does a service to imply that they have lunches that last from 12 to three o'clock. I want to tell the member most of the executives of that group were in my ministry all day yesterday.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister is entitled to make any speech he wants to. I quoted an employee of the ministry who said, "Phone back after three, everyone is out to lunch." Those were not my words, those were her words. Perhaps she meant the Treasurer only, I do not know.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: We would like the answer to the last question. I just want to protect the scraps of integrity that are left to the man by not allowing him to misquote me. Would the minister like to answer?

Mr. Speaker: No. A new question, please.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister is aware that his ministry put out a booklet called the Homeowner's Off-Oil Heating Conversion Decision, which analysed the various costs and benefits of off-oil programs and suggested that people should be looking at electricity, obviously.

He would be aware that in the booklet it is suggested that electricity prices would increase over the next three years by 13.9 per cent in 1983, 9.7 per cent in 1984 and 11 per cent in 1985. At the same time, Ontario Hydro applied to the Ontario Energy Board in February for increases of 13.9 per cent for 1983, 16.4 per cent in 1984 and 16.2 per cent in 1985. Why is the minister allowing Ontario Hydro to lie to people about the cost of electrical energy?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of an unfortunate twist to that question. Perhaps the record should be quite clear here that the first figure used, 13.9 per cent, happens to be the average increase which has been asked by Hydro for 1983. That matter is before the Ontario Energy Board and is being reviewed at public hearings.

There is no application from Hydro for any other year before that board. I think the facts are very important. The only application by Hydro now is for 1983.

Mr. Peterson: Clearly they had to provide the information. The minister was aware of the difference between what Hydro wants and what he was suggesting to people who are potential converters. Does that not lead him to some concern, particularly when the former Treasurer, a man known for his integrity in this House and who is now president of Union Gas, has said that the electrical industry misled consumers into switching into uneconomical electric heating?

The minister is familiar with his quotation. Would he not agree that the former Treasurer, a man renowned in this House and in this province, was very correct in his assertion?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think the former Treasurer of this province and the former Minister of Energy is a man of integrity and was an outstanding public servant during his time. I want the member to understand that if he were to read that particular speech to which he has made reference he would see it had nothing to do with the pamphlet or booklet in question. The comments and observations were about a trade association and its promotional campaign. He is entitled to have an opinion. This is a democracy, this is a free country.

All I am pointing out to the Leader of the Opposition is that to stand in this place and try to point out some contradiction between the application of Ontario Hydro and that book is a bit irresponsible.

I want to suggest to the member, under the circumstances, that it is a good publication that is being sought after by many people. It is very objective and it tries to be helpful to people wanting to make some decision in getting off oil, and getting off oil is part of the energy policy of this province and this country.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister not agree, however, that although there is only one application by Ontario Hydro before the Ontario Energy Board, in the testimony justifying that application, Hydro indicated the rates it would seek in future, to take into account its necessary revenues, amounted to 54 per cent?

Given that, does the minister not think the publication referred to in the previous question is somewhat misleading? It encourages people to use electricity, whereas the figures the government put into that publication do not take into account Hydro's latest figures and the amounts that will be bumped up as the costs of the new nuclear stations are built into the rate increase.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the public utility, they were asked as part of the information for this current application to make some estimates. If the member can tell Hydro what the interest rates and the rate of inflation will be in 1984 and 1985, and be specific with respect to a number of other very important matters, perhaps they could change them from estimates and be a little more firm.

At the moment, having had this information requested of them, they have done the best they could with estimates. I think it should be said once more there are no formal applications before the Ontario Energy Board for 1984 and 1985 rates. We are dealing only with 1983.

Mr. L A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not contributing to the decline in the credibility of Ontario Hydro? We look back at the history and see that advertising was taken off television because it was called misleading and it was accepted by officials in his ministry as being misleading. Now they have a publication that does the same thing. It is misleading. Is this not destroying the credibility of Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I do not think it is misleading.

I do not think the honourable member has taken the time to read the material to which the Leader of the Opposition made reference. Members will understand that the energy policy of this province is to support the Canadian objective of crude oil self-sufficiency by the end of this decade. Part of that program is a very aggressive off-oil program. People who are using oil for home heating are invited to consider the options -- natural gas, electricity, wood or combinations of same.

The consumer is entitled to have some information upon which he can make a balanced and objective judgement. That is what we are trying to do to be helpful. Electricity is certainly a very viable option in that choice.

TAX RELIEF FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Since it is Senior Citizens' Week and the Treasurer was strangely silent in his budget about relief for senior citizens during the economic crunch, why did his government not take steps to eliminate the $13.80 per diem on chronic care beds for seniors?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the record of Ontario in its treatment of senior citizens and the support the senior citizens give this government, one will find they have indicated a high level of program support for them in Ontario. Most senior citizens, particularly those who move here from other provinces, are very impressed with the payment of their property taxes, the payment of their sales taxes and the programs of assistance such as the guaranteed annual income supplement.

They are able to differentiate between costs of living in society in their own homes and costs of living in a hospital bed where they are not only getting all that support but the total support within the system. Therefore the treatment of a person in a chronic hospital bed was identical to the treatment of a person in a nursing home. We charged just for their basic support.

Mr. Foulds: Can the Treasurer tell me how in this still very rich province he can justify what in effect is taking away the gains from a hospitalized spouse by charging copayment fees when the active spouse goes on pension? How does he justify that?

Is he prepared to say the willingness of this government to tax the elderly and the poor knows no limits and that in this kind of economic crisis he is unwilling specifically to remedy this situation with regard to chronically ill senior citizens? If he is not willing to abolish the fee, will he at least stop raising the chronic care fees every time their old age pensions go up? Is it not about time he stopped being the grinch who steals senior citizens' pensions?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Not at all. I am sure anyone who has been within the hospital system and who has visited people who are chronically ill realizes that prior to our doing this, sometimes the only visit they got each month from the family was when they came in to collect the old age security cheque at the end of the month. That was a fact. The OAS cheque was meant at that time to support them outside of the hospital system in society, and all we did was charge them the cost they could have been expected to pay had they stayed at home. We pay very high costs per diem on the medical side. We charge the same costs on the accommodation side as if they were in a home for the aged or a nursing home.

Mr. Roy: Merci, Monsieur le président. J'ai pensé d'adresser une question en français au trésorier qui tout à l'heure vantait le traitement de la province envers les personnes d'âge d'or, nos citoyens aînés ici. Je veux lui demander, à part du fait de la question qui a été demandée par mon collègue du NPD à propos du traitement des chroniques, est-ce que vous pensez que c'est une bonne façon de traiter les personnes d'âge d'or en imposant une taxe de sept pour cent sur les repas qu'ils vont avoir ces gens-là, souvent qui n'avaient pas les moyens d'aller dans les gros restaurants, souvent avaient des repas en bas de $6. Maintenant vous imposez une taxe de six pour cent sur les repas; vous croyez que c'est une bonne façon de traiter nos personnes d'âge d'or ici dans la province.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Je crois, Monsieur le président, que ce n'est pas vraiment une question qui suit l'autre.

Mr. Breithaupt: C'est une bonne question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Pas du tout, pas du tout. N'est-ce pas?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Ce n'est pas supplémentaire, vraiment. Mais Monsieur le président je crois que toutes les taxes que nous avons imposées sont très justes.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will ask a question on which you can rule whether or not it is supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Wrye: Maybe not next year.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Maybe not next year. We will see.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Whether it was a supplementary or not really is not that relevant. His defence of the budget in French is no more effective than in English.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am sure that is absolutely true.

The Treasurer's present system of chronic care payments goes as follows: A spouse who is a chronic care patient and is 64 years of age or younger has an exemption of $15,000 in income before having to pay anything towards the cost of that chronic care. But the over-65 spouse of a chronic care patient, the two together earning the $12,042 that would be available as senior citizens, would lose $5,028 a year. He or she would have to pay that back to the Treasurer and the government for the care of the spouse.

Does the Treasurer not think that is grossly unfair? Does he not recognize there has not been one successful appeal to the Social Assistance Review Board for cases of hardship in this province since he brought in this chronic care copayment? At the same time he has not increased the comfort allowance since 1980 for those patients.

Mr. Ruston: Question.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member for Essex North should know my question from the beginning was whether or not the Treasurer thinks that is grossly unfair.

Mr. Ruston: Thank you.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I do not, Mr. Speaker.

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer. On Tuesday I brought to his attention the fact that 40,000 families in Ontario are playing mortgage-renewal roulette because they are in danger of losing their homes. This is because mortgage renewals this year will be in excess of 30 per cent of their income.

Does the Treasurer feel absolutely no responsibility for a couple like Mr. and Mrs. Gagnon of 9 Broadway Avenue in Welland? They have been notified by Guaranty Trust that even though they are not in arrears and Mr. Gagnon has a steady job, they have to pay their mortgage in full by July 4, 1982, or face legal action. Does he realize that this family, with a steady income but with a $28,500 mortgage, simply cannot get it renewed? Does he not feel the Ontario government has a responsibility to help such a couple?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) or the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) should have the case put before him. The one thing I have learned in this world is that very often there are circumstances relating to a specific case that are not necessarily brought to the House by the person posing the question. I assume that if these people have a normal credit rating and a good credit history, there would not be too much difficulty in placing a mortgage for that amount.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer not realize that with this gentleman's income, which is in the $18,000-a-year range, and with the mortgage rate increase at 20 per cent, the proportion of his income going towards retiring the mortgage climbs from 21 per cent to 32 per cent?

The Treasurer and his government have obviously failed to monitor the federal government's mortgage renewal program. No one, including Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., told these people it was possible to get that. We still do not know if it is. With the federal government failing to take responsibility, does the Treasurer not feel he has a responsibility to bring in a supplementary program that will assist people like the Gagnons? They have a steady job and a steady income and simply wish to keep their home.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would think the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) would have given them some advice or even assistance in making out the forms. If the facts are as given to me, whether they have equity in their home or not, they should be eligible for the assistance of the federal program.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan has put into effect a plan across the board for everyone with mortgages above 13 per cent, for amounts between 13 and 20 per cent. They will be taken care of by the government of Saskatchewan. There is a $53-million fund. Why could the government not be short $50 million in its next payment to Suncor and do something for the mortgaged people of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If my friend checked the number and value of the mortgages in Ontario, and the cost of subsidy for each interest rate point, he would discover that $50 million would not go very far.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, judging from what the Treasurer said, he must be out of touch with the realities of trying to renew mortgages. He ought to be aware that many mortgage companies have set up arbitrary eligibility procedures -- such as payments not over 30 per cent of income, job security, family status -- so that thousands of people in the province will be unable to obtain new mortgages or renew their old ones. They are losing or will lose their homes, even though they are willing to scrimp to meet payments to save them.

The government has not done a single, solitary thing on behalf of those who have mortgages, to subsidize or in any way protect them against foreclosure. They have intimated they are not going to do it now. Will the government set up a mortgage guarantee program and fund to apply to mortgages for a wide range of people who may not technically qualify, but who have the desire and there is some reason to believe may be able to meet the increased payments that will be required?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My colleague seems to believe that somehow we can create money out of nowhere. There are all kinds of people today suffering from high interest rates. The fact remains there is not enough money in society to subsidy everyone we would like to. The answer, whether my friend likes it or not, is a lower interest rate in general. That depends very much on what our friends in the federal government do on Monday night.

DIOXIN IN HUMAN TISSUE

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The news today must have affected him as it has the parties on this side. We have learned that, for the first time ever in North America, the 2,3,7,8-TCDD form of dioxin has been detected in a human tissue sample obtained from a Kingston hospital.

Can the minister advise us how the dioxin could have entered the body, other than through the consumption of Lake Ontario fish that were contaminated by dioxin leaking from a number of chemical dumps along the US side of the Niagara River? Is he now prepared to take my advice and see if we cannot convince our American friends that we should be monitoring all those dump sites to be sure dioxin is not leaking into the Niagara River?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would answer the latter part of the member's question first. He knows, and I have indicated in the House, that we are convinced dioxin is reaching the Niagara River from the American side. We have indicated one of the most likely sources and there may well be others.

In response to the first part of the question, I just recently became aware of that information. The information to which he refers is a result of work done by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The indications were that in one out of eight tissue samples used, a very low level of dioxin was detected. It is apparently the first time that has been found in human tissue in Canada.

I am not sure whether that is accurate with respect to all of North America. I understand research in the United States has indicated there are some residual levels being detected in some human tissue.

Where does it come from? I do not know the answer to that, nor does National Health and Welfare at the moment. Little is known by me at this point. We will be requesting a meeting with National Health and Welfare staff to get as much information as they are able to provide. We do know the tissue sample in which the trace of dioxin was found was from an 80-year-old individual who had died from other causes not related to the presence of dioxin in the tissue.

The information we do not have, and I doubt they have it at this point, is what eating habits the individual had and what possible sources might have existed within the food chain from which he might have had access to this.

There is something else which cannot be ruled out, given the timing when this tissue was provided to National Health and Welfare. The member should bear in mind that until 1979 there were certain pesticides and herbicides on the market which contained traces of dioxin. It was my predecessor who banned the last of those in an announcement in this Legislature.

It is altogether possible that the individual, through domestic use of a pesticide or herbicide, might have been exposed to it in that way. There is nothing to indicate at this point it likely came through Lake Ontario. There is no clear answer at this point.

Something else we have to bear in mind, and there is no clear answer to it at this point, is that prior to the mid or late 1970s --

Mr. Di Santo: Speech, speech.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is an important question. If the member is not interested in a full answer he should just tune out for a moment.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There should have been a statement.

Mr. Mackenzie: You are getting to be the longest in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Tests done on samples preserved from an earlier time indicate that prior to the discovery of dioxin in some fish in Lake Ontario, the levels of dioxin in fish appear to have been higher earlier than they are at present.

If the dioxin came from that source -- given the age of the individual and if he had access to or relied upon something from the food chain within his diet -- it is possible he might have got it at a time when levels were higher. I simply do not know the answer to that. I may have more information following our meeting with National Health and Welfare.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: I concur with the minister that the findings have been minuscule. However, considering that dioxin is so powerful that experts say one ounce in Metro's water supply would be enough to kill the entire population of Metro, does that not indicate to what extent we have to be concerned about it? The International Joint Commission warned two years ago that dioxin should be absent from our environment for the protection of all life forms.

Given the ministry's lack of intervention in hearings regarding the cleanup of Hooker Chemical's Hyde Park dump, which is known to contain 2,000 pounds of dioxin, what steps will the ministry take in the future to ensure that dioxin is absent from the environment? Would the minister not agree we have a real cause for concern if we find dioxin in the fish?

There are those who would protect some chemical companies by saying there is no need to worry, because the human element is not in danger. How can we accept that kind of assessment when we have experts telling us the parts per trillion in one of the greatest sources of fresh water in all the world are dangerous to all of us?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I concur with the comments the member made in the early part of his question that we must strive to eliminate dioxin from our environment.

I want to emphasize, in case someone gets the wrong impression, that at no time has dioxin been found present in the water and I think there is a logical explanation for that. It is not, I think, that it is below detectable levels, necessarily, but because dioxin has a very short half-life when exposed to light or to the sun. It would appear likely that it is getting into the fish through the food chain: through the sediment but not through the water. I think that is important because I do not want people unnecessarily becoming concerned that the water they are drinking contains dioxin at undetectable levels.

With respect to our efforts, I think I can say with some confidence that any known sources in Ontario have been eliminated through, in some instances, the banning of certain products from the market. I do not believe there are any landfill sites or storage sites with concentrations in Ontario.

We are aware of the situation in New York state. We have been communicating with the officials in New York state constantly. We have filed an intervention in the case with regard to the Niagara Falls, New York, waste water treatment plant. We have indicated we are and will be reviewing, and will intervene in, if necessary, every state pollution discharge elimination system permit as it comes up for review.

I think it is important that in New York state we in Ontario are given a considerable amount of credit for the pressure we have brought to bear on the national government in the United States for some of the funding New York state is now getting to engage in cleanup. We are not going to relax our efforts. In a recent discussion I had with the Honourable Robert Flacke, who is the commissioner of environmental conservation in New York, he pledged his full co-operation -- and I have done so in return -- in an effort to do anything we can to speed up the cleanup.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: May I have the permission of the House to interrupt question period? Thank you.

I would ask all members of the Legislature to join with me in welcoming guests in the Speaker's gallery from the Bundesrat in West Germany who are visiting Canada. I would like to introduce them individually, if I may.

The delegation is led by Johann-Wilhelm Gaddum, Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, representing Rhineland-Pfalz; Dr. Gunther Czichon, Senator for Intergovernmental Affairs, Bremen; Professor Dr. Franz Becker, Minister for Justice and Intergovernmental Affairs, Saar; Dr. Gebhard Ziller, Director of the Bundesrat; Albrecht Hassmann, Deputy Director of Protocol.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding Irwin Toy and the use of methyl ethyl ketone. The minister will recall I asked in April that he send his inspectors to this plant. As a result of that inspection, 22 orders were issued concerning such minor things as the use of appropriate footwear, protective clothing, proper storage of this substance, the elimination of floor hazards and so on.

Is the minister aware of a letter submitted to the employees by the company, which makes the following two statements: "You will receive all necessary equipment for work you do, such as smocks, gloves, including the vest." By the way, the rubber gloves were forced on them by the ministry. The second statement is, "Your active health and safety committee has the full support of Arnold Irwin and all of the managers." Was that not nice to learn?

This letter also goes on: "Government inspections highlight the examples of safety standards better than required by law." Is it true the Ministry of Labour has stated that the standards at Irwin Toy are better than those required by law, in view of the 22 orders issued by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I did not exactly catch the last part of the honourable member's comments. Perhaps I might ask him a question. Was the member suggesting that one of our inspectors had given that --

Mr. Martel: No, I am asking.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member is asking me --

Mr. Martel: Did the minister's inspectors do that?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: To the best of my knowledge, they did not.

Mr. Martel: "Your... safety committee has the full support of Arnold Irwin..." Is the minister aware we asked for a second inspection and that the health and safety committee in place was appointed by the company? The workers had no say as to who their representatives would be. The company did not advise the workers who their health and safety representatives were. These are both clear violations of the act.

Is it not about time the minister started to lay charges? The act came in four years ago and here we have a company that does not even allow its health and safety committee to be chosen as is required under the act.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Not only have we sent inspectors in to that operation on several occasions but we also sent in a special adviser to try to bring the company and the workers together in the interest of proper occupational health and safety. I think we have come a long way in that respect with that company.

I am not aware of the allegations the honour- able member has brought forward today. I will certainly be fully prepared to look into them again.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food in connection with the Holland Marsh. On Tuesday afternoon a severe rainstorm and hailstorm hit that area. In several areas their crops of head lettuce, onions and carrots were wiped out completely. What plans does the minister have to help those farmers whose crops have been entirely wiped out?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, at this time we do not have final reports from the ministry's crop specialists and those responsible for the crop insurance program, who have been investigating that site and a couple of others around the province. A similar, if not the same, storm also dropped on a couple of other parts of the province, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and others might know.

Once we know the extent of the damage, and how much of it is irreparable, then we will know the extent to which we can assist through the crop insurance program.

3 p.m.

Last night, there was a meeting, to which I sent several representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, involving the growers on the Bradford marsh. I will be meeting with a delegation from that organization today to get its firsthand accounts as well. But essentially, at this point I have asked for, and will have within a few days, accurate and complete reports on the extent of the damage, especially irreparable damage, which I take it is the member's concern, and ours too.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider a designation of the area that has been devastated by hail as a disaster area under the program that is usually administered by his colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells)? This would make it possible, even though insurance is available to the farmers, that since there was such widespread devastation of the crops, there could be the provision of some assistance.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it is premature to say one way or the other. I know that inspections in the last 24 to 48 hours made by representatives of the tobacco marketing board indicated that the extent of the damage was nowhere near as great as indicated in some of the media. I would rather wait until I have definite reports before deciding on an absolute course of action.

NIAGARA NURSES' DISPUTE

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The strike by public health nurses in Niagara is approaching two months in length and elderly, handicapped and often low-income people have been deprived of essential services provided by this dedicated group of individuals, who are certainly not very happy about having to withdraw their services. Would the minister be prepared to have his officials recommend arbitration as a method of solving this dispute? The nurses have requested arbitration and this request has been endorsed by the council of the regional municipality of Niagara.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honour- able member has been in touch with me on several occasions about this problem, as have two of my colleagues on this side of the House, the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) and the member for Lincoln, the Honourable Mr. Andrewes -- I am sorry, Mr. Andrewes.

Mr. Wrye: Not yet.

Mr. Breithaupt: Doesn't it have a nice ring to it, though?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: He is quite honourable, in my opinion at least. They have expressed similar concerns to the ones the member is expressing today.

Also, I have a little bit of background in this particular area in that I was a member of the health unit in Sault Ste. Marie and district for some time. So I am very aware of the important role the public health nurses play, particularly as medicine is practised today with the heavy emphasis on prevention. The officers of my ministry have been attempting mediation for some time now. The parties seem to be pretty well entrenched in their positions and they are a fair distance apart. It is my understanding that in 1976, the Ontario public health nurses were judged to be nonessential; therefore, compulsory arbitration does not apply in their particular case.

Mr. Bradley: Would the minister not agree with me that the negotiating process is not assisted by comments such as those from the chairman of the Niagara Regional Area Health Unit, Mr. Bob Arkell? He is quoted as saying about the people who normally get those services: "If they were really suffering there would be a lot more flak at myself, my community, the board and the Niagara regional council. I do not think other members in council are getting any flak, except from people with a special interest, like strikers." He also said, "People who need nursing service can go to the hospital, the Victorian Order of Nurses or another private nursing service, which they could pay for with welfare money."

Does the minister feel that comments of this kind from one of the principal players in this game, namely the chairman of the Niagara Regional Area Health Unit, assist the negotiating process? Would he undertake to get the assistance of the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) to provide information to the chairman of the Niagara regional health unit on the essential service that is normally provided by public health nurses in Niagara and across the province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I think I partially responded to that question in my initial comments when I pointed out that I fully recognize the value of the public health nurses, and I have no hesitation in saying that whatsoever.

Incidentally, this morning my parliamentary assistant, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) -- and he is also very honourable in my opinion as well -- met with the delegation of nurses from the Niagara region. I have had a chance to talk to him only very briefly, but later today he is planning to brief me completely on his conversation with them. He did indicate that they were very reasonable in their approach, which is what we fully expected them to be.

In response to the last portion of the honour- able member's question, I will certainly be happy to enter into discussions with the Minister of Health.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, in view of the deplorable leadership he is being given by the chairman of the health unit, who says that people can use their welfare cheques to get nursing service and that there are no poor in the community, does he not think it is very unlikely this health unit will be willing to settle in the near future?

In view of the fact that they are among the lowest-paid health nurses in Ontario, if not the lowest-paid, and that the turnover of nurses in that unit is now 50 per cent a year, at least partly because of those low wages, would the minister not think that those things should combine to force a sensitive government, a sensitive minister such as he is, and the Minister of Health, to intervene and commit themselves to paying the normal 75 per cent of a fair settlement? At least that would be a settlement equal to those of health nurses in other parts of this province.

And does the minister not think he should tell the health unit that the minister and the government do not share its lack of concern about the fact that there is no public health service now in the Niagara region?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add anything to what I have said in response to the two previous questions. It is a very serious matter, and we are trying to work it out through the normal mediation services.

I am hearing for the first time the comments that the honourable member has attributed to the chairman, although I must admit I did read one newspaper clipping that was sent to me by the nurses a week or so ago, which quoted some of the things the member has said today.

NATIVE RIGHTS

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. What plans are under way for the conference of first ministers which, under the Constitution, is required to be held before April 17, 1983? And what is the agenda of matters respecting the constitutional rights of the aboriginal peoples that is being developed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Premier -- Mr. Speaker, rather -- I --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, he would be very good. He would be an improvement over most of the members over there. I was trying to listen to two conversations at once.

No date has been set. My understanding is that representatives of the native peoples have been meeting with some officials or ministers of the government of Canada. I met with a group of native leaders two or three weeks ago. As part of the discussion, they were suggesting to us that they were communicating to the government of Canada their interest in putting their position, not without the participation of the provinces but perhaps seeking to identify some more formal role.

I just made it clear to the native leaders that our position on it was very simple: We are committed within the terms of the Constitution; second, it would be our intent, speaking personally for Ontario, to involve the native leaders within Ontario in any discussions, not necessarily before the formalization of the agenda but before any documentation or any material representing Ontario's point of view was presented to any federal-provincial first ministers' meeting.

3:10 p.m.

I cannot tell the member now, but perhaps next week I will have an opportunity to see just what the possible timing may be. In my own view, the earliest now would be some time in the fall, perhaps the late fall. If I do get some information I shall inform the member the moment I have it.

Mr. Renwick: I hope that before this House recesses for the summer the Premier will make some definitive statement about it.

Specifically, who are the representatives of the aboriginal peoples in Ontario whom he will consider suggesting to the Prime Minister of Canada should be invited to participate in that conference? What specifically is the agenda of constitutional matters affecting the government of Ontario that will be put on the table at that conference for consideration?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot answer the latter part of the question at this point. In terms of the first part of the question, I can give to the member for Riverdale the names of the native leaders who have been in discussion with us. They change, because they are, in many cases, chiefs of the local bands and they go through an election process, so there is some change in the makeup of that group. I will certainly get him the list of names of those who were at our most recent meeting.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not accept the contention that all members of the Legislature have some responsibility to support and assist him in establishing the position of Ontario with regard to native rights when he goes to the first ministers' conference?

Would he not think it appropriate there should be some forum in which the members of the Legislature -- if not all of them, at least a significant number of them, particularly those representing the Indian communities -- would have an opportunity to sit down in a committee room here or perhaps travel to some of the Indian councils and get the views of the Indians directly before Ontario takes a position at the first ministers' conference?

Would he not think we have some responsibility to support him in the undertaking he took, in signing the constitutional agreement, that we are going to move on broadening and establishing native rights without delay?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as has been the case over the years, judgements were obviously made at meetings of first ministers where the first ministers there had to make decisions, sometimes overnight, sometimes over breakfast or who knows when or where. I think it is fair to state that by and large there was a fairly general understanding of the position being presented by Ontario at the constitutional meetings.

I would have no objection, but I do not know whether a committee is the right forum. I do not know whether it need be that formal, but if the member is saying he would like to express some points of view or make a contribution in terms of a position that Ontario would be presenting, I would have no objection to that whatsoever.

As we go down the road a bit, perhaps we can develop some forum where we can do this. Certainly, we can have a discussion here in the House. I think all the members are interested but some have a more particular interest because, quite obviously, they represent some of the native people and probably have something more to contribute in terms of knowledge of the local situation.

I am not saying to the member there should be a committee travelling, etc., but in terms of some involvement as the position is developed, not only do I not have any objection but I would be delighted to have any constructive contributions.

SKF CANADA LTD.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding the York University research study by Paul Grayson on the shutdown of SKF Canada in Scarborough. As the minister knows, the study paper was delivered earlier this month. Since the matter was raised earlier with the Premier (Mr. Davis), I am sure the minister is by now fully familiar with the contents of the study.

Let me remind the minister by reading the last paragraph from the conclusion of that study by Mr. Grayson and others: "By all accounts, the product and labour force at SKF were superior. By some accounts, the market, particularly for aircraft bearings, was certainly large enough. These factors notwithstanding, in view of SKF's worldwide rationalization plan, and in the absence of effective regulatory legislation, SKF Canada Ltd. closed the doors to its manufacturing operation. The consequence will be hardship for Canadian workers who lost their jobs, the export of at least a fraction of these jobs to somewhere else in the SKF empire, and increased profits for SKF."

Add to that the fact that in March of this year the legislative library research staff published a paper on foreign ownership and employment in Ontario in which they conclude, "Provinces must assume some responsibility for the economic activities and thus the effects of foreign subsidiaries operating within their borders."

Will the minister tell us now if he is prepared to act on these conclusions by introducing some kind of performance requirements, or legislation that limits the circumstances in which a plant can close? Is the minister prepared to take action in that area?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no.

Mr. Wrye: The minister was a member of the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment. Now he is the Minister of Labour. Given the fact that studies such as this are drawing very startling conclusions, startling certainly to the minister, does he intend to recommend to the Premier that a select committee be reconstituted to conclude the work --

Mr. Martel: That is what I asked yesterday.

Mr. Wrye: I hear my friend the member for Sudbury East saying that he has asked that before, and I wish to join him. Does the minister intend to reconstitute that committee? Will he at least, as was suggested on the weekend by my leader, introduce legislation to further protect the workers by amending the Employment Standards Act and by granting wage protection in situations of bankruptcies or insolvencies?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member is correct; I was a member of that select committee. As I said in this House not too long ago, having been a member of that committee, while that committee was worth while, I cannot see it coming into effect again and bringing anything new to us. It was a very complete report; it was a very complete hearing. I do not have to have another committee to convince me of the problems we have in the work place today. Therefore, I cannot see any useful purpose for putting that committee back into operation at this time.

As for the second part of the question on changes to the Employment Standards Act, we are constantly looking at changes in that respect, particularly in the case of protection for severance pay. Our severance pay regulations in Ontario are superior to those of any other jurisdiction on the North American continent. We are looking for ways to protect the severance pay in cases such as bankruptcies, but we have to work in co-operation with the federal government, which I have been told is very close to bringing forward some changes in the Bankruptcy Act that might permit us in Ontario to take some positive steps.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have question for the minister.

In view of the fact he thinks the select committee is not necessary; and in view of the fact he does not realize that in Canada the legislation on plant shutdowns is the worst possible, enabling multinational companies come to Canada because this is the easiest place in the world to shut down a plant and leave the country without penalty; and in view of the fact we have here guests from a country where the legislation is very tough, would he at least talk to the members of the Bundesrat and ask them how the legislation in West Germany works? When a company there wants to shut down, it must have the authorization of the government.

Will he try to bring the same kind of legislation into Ontario to protect those workers who are penalized because of the lack of legislation in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, certainly this government, my ministry and I have a responsibility to protect the workers. But we also have another responsibility of which I think some of the members opposite are losing sight; that is, we have to create an atmosphere to create jobs. We have to encourage investment in this province and that is what we are trying to do. There is a fine line that has to be followed between protection of the workers and the creation of jobs and the right environment for investment in this province.

3:20 p.m.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could draw to your attention the presence under the Speaker's gallery of the former Liberal member of the provincial parliament, Mr. Donald Deacon.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions. Reports. Motions.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BOILERS AND PRESSURE VESSELS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 157, An Act to amend the Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing for first reading, amendments to the Boiler and Pressure Vessels Act aimed at eliminating unnecessary slowdowns when boilers, pressure vessels and plants need repairs.

Section 32 of the act now requires that when a boiler, pressure vessel or plant is found to be unsafe, it must be examined by a ministry inspector both before and after being repaired. Since most boilers, pressure vessels and plants are insured, they are inspected by government-certified inspectors.

Clearly, the function performed by our inspectors can be performed by government-certified personnel from insurance companies. The bill would make this permissible but not mandatory. Officials from my ministry have reached agreement with the appropriate insurance companies that their certified personnel will supervise and approve repair work done to the boilers and pressure vessels they insure.

In addition, subsection 32(3) authorizes the government chief inspector to exempt owners of plants operated around the clock from having major repairs approved by either a government or insurance inspector when the chief inspector is satisfied that the repairs will be performed safely and properly by qualified personnel.

Current provisions represent a hardship for refineries, petrochemical plants and similar operations having their own trained staff. There seems to be little point in making them shut down while the government inspector checks their work. The terms and conditions of the exemption will be set out in regulations.

Amendments to section 2 will extend the definition of "employer" for the purposes of section 36 of the act and eliminate unnecessary testing of welders changing jobs but who are still employed members of the trade association.

COLLECTION AGENCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 158, An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing for first reading, an amendment to the Collection Agencies Act.

By way of background: We now have in place a set of guidelines outlining the kinds of methods that should not be used to collect debts. The registrar of the act ensures that all collection agencies are aware of these guidelines which have been in effect for many years, but the industry itself feels it would be to everyone's best interest to have the guidelines clearly spelled out in the act so that all agencies are following a set of rules enforceable by law. This would also give the public a clearer understanding of what collection agencies can and cannot do.

At present, the Collection Agencies Act only allows us to draft regulations governing collection methods. What we are planning to formalize in the regulations is collection practices. The difference between a method and a practice is not clearly defined so we decided our best approach was to amend the act to enable us to draft regulations governing both practices and methods.

Amendments to the regulations will include prohibitions on, for example, trying to collect money from someone who says he or she is not responsible for the debt, without checking all the facts; phoning a debtor before he or she has been informed by letter that the account has been turned over to a collection agency; demanding payment of a debt without first identifying the collection agency, individual collector and the creditor; and, finally, launching legal action without first telling the debtor.

GASOLINE HANDLING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 160, An Act to amend the Gasoline Handling Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed would provide legislative authority to make a regulation requiring an application fee for a facility licence and a contractor's registration. Processing applications is a costly operation. The proposed regulation would identify a separate application fee, in addition to the licence fee, permitting recovery of costs where they occur.

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, first reading of Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the city of Kitchener.

Motion agreed to.

SOLICITORS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Welch, first reading of Bill 161, An Act to amend the Solicitors Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this bill prescribes an interest rate on overdue legal accounts which cannot exceed the prime rate. This is consistent with the rate of interest which has currently been awarded by the Supreme Court. In addition, the bill provides that, for the first time, a lawyer's client will have a corresponding right to interest when, on review of the lawyer's account, it is determined that the client has overpaid his lawyer.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT AC!

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, first reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) here.

The purpose of the bill is to authorize the apportionment of school rates between public and separate schools in the case of a mixed marriage where the husband and wife own or lease rateable property jointly.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not believe I heard you call for petitions today.

Mr. Speaker: I think I did, but if I missed one, do we have the permission of the House to revert to petitions?

Agreed to.

PETITIONS

TAX ON MEALS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable members for giving unanimous consent to read into the record this petition from 263 patrons of Barney's Restaurant and Tavern at 44 Bond Street West in Oshawa, protesting the government's sales tax on food.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions here supporting the resolution I am debating later today, one from Flesherton and the other from Cobourg. They are signed by numerous people. The resolution concerns putting greater emphasis on religious education in the schools.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Samis moved second reading of Bill 126, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill rather cognizant of the reaction across the House. One of my colleagues has suggested to me that maybe the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) and I could get our bills passed today if we were to combine them into one. That might have a little more appeal to the open minds across the way. However, we will see what happens.

This is a bill I have been introducing since 1974; it has almost become an annual rite to introduce this bill. I think it is an interesting bill for the members opposite because it gives them a fairly clear choice between free enterprise and monopoly control. That is the fundamental choice they have to make when voting on this bill, if they are allowed to vote.

I know the government likes to pride itself on how it is the supposed friend of small business and the private sector. This bill will be an interesting test for the government members to see how dedicated they really are to the concept of free enterprise and small business in Ontario. I know some people out there who believe in the private sector are wondering these days. When they vote Conservative they get rent control; when they vote Conservative they get the $650-million Suncor fiasco, they get an all-time record $2-billion deficit and they get an ever-growing family of crown corporations.

This bill will allow especially the back-bench members over there to prove to the people of Ontario that they really are the friends of small business and that they have not forgotten their so-called private enterprise origins. So we will see which side government members take on this bill -- that of the monopolists or that of small business in Ontario. That, essentially, is the choice they have to make.

If we look at the current economic situation -- interest rates which are staggering, exorbitant and obscene, the fact that we are coping with record bankruptcies in Ontario, if not in every other province in Canada, slumping consumer demand, wavering consumer confidence and the fact that small businesses everywhere are in deep difficulty today -- I would suggest a bill like this makes some sense.

The whole question of the independent retail stores in Ontario is what this bill is all about. Let us look at what has happened to independent retail stores over the last 10 years. In 1971, the independents had a 35.6 per cent share of retail market sales by stores, versus 64.4 per cent for the chain stores. In 1981, 10 years later, the independents had dipped from 35.6 per cent to 24.9 per cent, whereas the chain stores had increased their proportion from 64.4 per cent to 75.1 per cent. What is happening in the Ontario retail market is pretty clear. The big boys are getting bigger and the small ones are disappearing or just hanging on for sheer survival.

Let us look at the Ontario situation in the context of the national scene. As I said, the figures in Ontario are 75.1 per cent for the chains and 24.9 per cent for the independents. If we compare that with our neighbour to the east, Quebec, there the chain stores receive only 37.6 per cent of the retail market versus 62.4 per cent for the independents. In the Atlantic provinces, the figures are 50.7 per cent for the chains and 49.3 per cent for the independents. If we go west, they are 66 per cent for the chains and 33 per cent for the independents.

In Saskatchewan, it is 59 per cent for the chains and 40 per cent for the independents; in Alberta, 66 per cent for the chains and 33 per cent for the independents, and in British Columbia, 60 per cent for the chains and 39 per cent for the independents. The national average is 59 per cent of the retail market controlled by the chains and 40 per cent controlled by the independents.

I would suggest the two salient figures are that in Quebec the independents control 62 per cent of the market when the national figure is 40 per cent, whereas in Ontario it is a measly 24.9 per cent, the lowest in all of Canada.

Obviously, there is a problem in this province. The retail market, in terms of small business, is the most difficult in this province of any province in Canada, and in Quebec the figures are almost reversed. There has been a steady decline in Ontario over the last 10 years. Things have not improved; they have worsened. During the last 10 years in my own community, I would guess the mortality rate of the independent stores is over 50 per cent.

I realize that not all people of all faiths and persuasions think of the idea in the context of business and common sense. There are some reservations about the idea of selling beer outside of the Brewers Retail stores because many people in this province have never lived under another system. They have never visited another province. They have never seen another system in operation. I had the privilege of being able to live under another system for 21 years and so I am able to compare Ontario's system to others and to have some sense of perspective.

But things are changing in Ontario. I want to cite a few examples of the changing mentality in Ontario. First of all, being a part-time resident of the city of Toronto enables me to receive in my mail twice a year a stirring piece of literature called, "Larry Grossman, MPP, Keeping in Touch." Great stuff. It is beautiful blue stuff with wall-to-wall pictures of the Minister of Health, the Premier-in-waiting.

On page 4 of his report there is a little questionnaire. Question 3 was kind of interesting for someone like me. "Do you agree with the proposal to allow wine and/or beer to be sold in the corner grocery store?" The minister's constituents can be faulted for re-electing someone of his political persuasion, but they do show some common sense in other matters.

The answer to the question was, "Yes, 69.02 per cent; no, 29.56 per cent; undecided, 1.41 per cent." By a margin of more than two to one, the good citizens of the member's riding want a change. I would suggest that is a pretty decisive margin.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business did a survey of its members in 1979 and asked, "Would you be in favour of selling beer in independent grocery stores?" The replies: 69.5 per cent replied yes, 27.7 per cent replied no, and 4.8 per cent were undecided. Again, there was more than a two-to-one margin in favour.

3:40 p.m.

Let us look at another one. There was a report done by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in 1979. Their figures showed that 53 per cent were in favour of beer being sold in the corner grocery stores.

I notice there are various organizations in favour of it. The Ontario Retail Merchants Association of Canada is in favour of this type of initiative. I concede that they would put a greater priority on the wine question, but even today I received a letter from the president, John Gillespie. He says:

"The RMA has long supported the principle that consumers will benefit from a healthy independent retail sector. Your bill would help many small grocers compete more effectively in the marketplace, give the consumer greater opportunities for choice, and stop the growing concentration of market share in the hands of a few large supermarket chains. You and your party are to be commended for your support of the independent retailer in this area."

The members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Ontario Retail Merchants Association and the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers have shown support. I noticed on the weekend that in Sudbury, the Ontario Liberal Party again showed support for the idea of beer in the corner grocery store. We have the small business sector, as manifested in three different organizations, either officially or through their membership, saying they are in favour.

Obviously, the Minister of Health's constituent are overwhelmingly in favour. In a survey done in my own riding, I think the figure was over 80 per cent in favour. The official opposition is in favour. A survey done by the ministry saw the majority of the people in favour.

Some people ask, "What would you replace it with?" I would suggest there are two models from which we can choose. The most obvious one is the one in Quebec, where it has been in effect for more than 30 years and has achieved tremendous popularity among the government, the small business sector and, most important of all, the consumers of that province. Essentially, they limit it to small independent grocery stores. I notice in the regulations of the Quebec official gazette they specify a certain inventory. This is a model we could adapt to our province.

They specify the weekly turnover and say three basic types of foodstuffs must be carried: fruit and vegetables, grocery and meat, etc. They specify exactly what they want and it has worked extremely well in Quebec and is extremely popular. Their system has evolved and there are some recent developments which, frankly, I would not want to see in Ontario, but the basic system has worked. The fact is that small business is prospering in Quebec, to the extent that Steinberg's is crying the blues and trying to get it into its chain of supermarkets. That is the exact opposite of Ontario.

Another model we could look at is the one in Newfoundland, which also has opted for selling beer in independent stores. Talking to the president of their liquor commission, I was rather intrigued by some of the things they do. They allow independent stores no more than two stores under the same ownership. That is where they draw the line. Unlike my bill and unlike Quebec, they make no restriction on whether it is a convenience store or anything as long as it is two.

There is an interesting aspect to their system. It does not even have to be a food store as long as it is a legitimate retail operation. It could be a hardware store or a sporting goods store. As long as it is legitimate and recognized by their inspectors, beer can be sold.

I would suggest the good burghers of the good island of Newfoundland have no lower morals or standards than the residents of this province. They are all good white Anglo-Saxon Protestants at that. It is interesting to note that the president of the liquor commission pointed out that beer consumption in that province has actually declined in the past two years.

We have two examples to work from, either one of which could be adapted to the system in Ontario. What we have in Ontario is essentially a clear-cut monopoly for three companies: Molson's, Labatt's and Carling O'Keefe. Why do we tolerate a private monopoly on this one particular product? Why can the private sector not compete at the retail end? What other products do we have where the manufacturer controls the retail end of it and has a complete monopoly? Nobody else is allowed to compete. Why do we perpetuate this type of system?

I want to make it clear to those who may have misconceptions or fears, that my bill would not apply to milk stores. No Mac's Milk, no Becker's, no Pinto would be allowed to sell beer under this bill. No variety store would be allowed to sell beer, nor would any chain store; no Loblaws, no Dominion, no Miracle Mart, no A and P. There would be no private liquor stores under this bill. I am not advocating the American system.

Interjection.

Mr. Samis: If the member will listen he may learn something.

There would be no American-style private liquor stores. The bill relates only to the sale of beer. It does not extend to wine.

I look at the hypocrites on that side who talk about opposing this type of bill but who have established approximately 60 wine stores in supermarkets in this province. That is totally geared to helping the chains. No small business can get that concession, only the supermarkets. So this bill will not cause broad, expansive vending, as some people may think it will.

To add a personal view, I would go so far as to say we should take a long, hard look at our regulations on advertising beer in this province. I think the current regulations are a farce and make no sense at all. They are not being enforced. I would like to see a much tougher set of regulations applied, even to the point of considering the possibility of a ban on beer advertising on TV.

I do not want to use up all my time. I just want to end with a few ideas. First of all, there are clear-cut statistics that the consumption of beer is on the decline. It is not growing, it is on the decline. Liquor consumption is up, wine consumption is up but beer consumption is actually down. One only has to read the report of the brewers of Ontario. They have all the statistics, which I will not recite today.

Secondly, the whole beer market features the development of light beers, which have a lower alcoholic content, and they are catching on with considerable popularity. The projections are that they will increase their share of the market.

We are in a province that has a drinking age which was recently increased to 19. I would really want to see the adoption of this bill with the "Who" card being enforced as a basic criterion for young people. I would want to see strict enforcement of the licensing system.

I do not think the bill would mean a loss of jobs. I would point out that Quebec, which has a prospering small business sector, has created 60,000 jobs in its retail sector, which is five times more than the number in the Steinberg's operation in that province. It can be an efficient system of distribution. It can serve the consumer. If necessary, we can adopt some type of uniform store hours similar to Quebec.

My fundamental point is that we are talking about a monopoly and I am opposed to monopolies. I would think a free enterpriser would be opposed to monopolies. The Quebec system works for small business. It is time for Ontario to do the same thing for its small retailers. If they really believed in private enterprise, they would give private enterprise a chance and pass this bill.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member for Cornwall very intently and I noticed he said he was not talking about Mac's Milk, he was not talking about Becker's, he was not talking about the Pintos, he was not talking about the variety stores and he was not talking about this or that store. I really do not know what stores he is talking about putting beer in.

Mr. Samis: Walk out on the street and see.

Mr. Mitchell: By the way, the member is talking against Labatt's and Carling O'Keefe and all of the others, and now he wants it in the stores, which is going to help those companies. The two things seem contradictory.

Members who have followed the issue of the sale of alcoholic beverages in grocery stores will know this is an issue which has arisen periodically but, despite representations by lobbyists, has not progressed much beyond the discussion phase.

We have heard reasons that beer and, on other occasions, wine should be sold in grocery stores. The 1979 Canadian Facts market survey found it was the heavier drinkers who wanted beer in grocery stores while the more moderate drinkers tended to disagree. That same survey also showed a greater preference for wine in grocery stores than for beer.

Of course, it is not just the heavy drinkers who support the sale of beer in grocery stores. I am sure many owners of small grocery stores see this as one way of boosting profits, especially if they are facing competition from larger chain stores. However, I hope the member is not trying to counter the volume-buying power of supermarket chains by allowing the independent grocers to sell beer. In my view it is really no solution to that particular problem.

If the survival of the independent grocery store owner in the competitive world of volume discounts really is the intent of this bill, then I would suggest the member had better spend his time lobbying for more effective federal combines legislation, instead of selling beer in small stores, which would create new and expensive problems.

3:50 p.m.

Neither can we accept the argument that this bill is necessary in order for grocery store owners to break even. The very idea of promoting drinking to prop up stores otherwise not economically viable is unacceptable in my mind and unacceptable to the majority of people in this province.

I suppose it could also be argued that the present distribution of stores is not adequate to properly serve Ontario, and that the addition of approximately 4,700 independent, unaffiliated stores would solve many distribution problems. Even this argument has its own problems and pitfalls.

First, I cannot remember hearing on any occasion that people --

Mr. Boudria: Who wrote that thing?

Mr. Kerr: Jean Chrétien.

Mr. Mitchell: I cannot remember hearing of any occasion of people experiencing difficulties in reaching a beer store. There just does not appear to be any need for a drastic increase in the number of off-premise outlets for beer. If there was such a need, I am sure we would have heard of it by now.

Another problem of adding all or even a portion of the 4,700 independent grocery stores as beer outlets would be in the area of distribution. Two problems arise. The first is quite simple. If we triple or quadruple the number of outlets providing beer, the existing distribution system would be overloaded. Not only that, but for storage reasons, grocery store owners would be able to handle only a very limited selection of beer. Therefore, the cost of delivering each bottle or case would be much higher than it is now for Brewers Warehousing.

This is important, because the member appears to have overlooked section 31 of the Liquor Control Act which requires that the price of any one brand of beer be the same in all stores. If he checks with the definitions in section 1 of the act the member will see that this is indeed the case. As a result, it can be expected that beer prices across the province would have to go up to pay for the increased cost of delivery.

It is also possible, of course, that beer will be delivered not by Brewers Warehousing but by the grocers. This would keep the delivery cost down for the brewers but it is tied into another problem.

Take as an example a small town with a Brewers Retail store. If this bill is passed it is likely that five, six or even seven grocery stores will start selling beer. In a short time, sales at that Brewers Retail store will have dropped to a level where it is no longer practical to keep that outlet open. As a result, workers at that store would lose their jobs, as would the delivery drivers for that store.

I am sure the union representing the workers is not too pleased with the prospect of seeing beer in grocery stores. I have no statement from them to say so, but I suspect they would be the first to try to defend their jobs and, of course, the member is always trying to defend people in their jobs.

In short, we are really faced with the prospect of seeing some jobs disappear as a result of adopting this bill. Additional jobs would be created not in the smaller communities but in the big urban centres where the breweries are located, as the breweries would have to deal with an increased demand. Even that would not likely help because the increase in beer sales might be offset by a corresponding decrease in the consumption of other beverages such as milk or juice, which people normally buy in grocery stores.

Admittedly, evidence on this is rather scarce, but I do recall --

Mr. Boudria: Oh, you are really something.

Mr. Mitchell: I listened to the member for Prescott-Russell when he spoke and never made a fuss. Perhaps he can tell me how well the promotion of milk went in the schools over in France a few years back.

Admittedly, evidence on this is rather scarce, but it would certainly not be at all surprising if beer did replace other beverages sold in the same stores. If this happened, grocery store owners would not make as much profit as they had perhaps hoped they would through the sale of beer.

Store owners would also have another issue to deal with. Under current regulations of the Liquor Licence Act -- here is a good thing -- persons under the age of 18 cannot sell or even remain on premises where the sale of alcohol is authorized. A fair number of changes would have to be made to avoid the prospects of a store owner not being allowed to have his children run the store for a while. Say he wants to go off and have a coffee; his kids would not be able to run it by law.

Even the age of store customers would have to be checked. But this problem of regulation is not so serious as the increased potential for underage youth to have access to beer. Under the system as it currently exists, there is a good degree of control over the age of people purchasing beer. I am afraid that if the sale of beer were extended to grocery stores, the level of control would slacken. I do not think the majority of grocery store owners would start selling beer to 16-year-olds, but I am sure the temptation would be there for some.

Grocery store owners who are open on Sunday could also, and would also, be constrained by the provisions of the Retail Business Holidays Act. Virtually all those stores meet the requirements for Sunday openings now, but if beer were introduced it would have to be removed for that store to open.

Approaching the issue from another angle, we have sufficient proof prepared by the Addiction Research Foundation that an increase in off-premise outlets will increase consumption and also the number of problem drinkers our society has to deal with. The Addiction Research Foundation estimated that the increased consumption per capita would range from 0.6 per cent to 3.2 per cent. That study was made on the basis of wine sales, and current thought at the ARF is that for beer the increase would be greater. The number of heavy drinkers would likely increase by almost 15,000.

Other evidence also exists to show a direct relationship between alcohol consumption and the number of outlets. In 1979, Michigan conducted a survey for the Highway Safety Research Institute and reported a relationship between aggregate monthly frequency of licensing activities and alcohol sales between 1970 and 1977. In the United States, statistics show that consumption is consistently higher in those states with higher rates of off-premise outlets.

If a bill such as Bill 126 were adopted, a responsible government would have to ensure grocery stores introduced beer gradually. The only way this could be done would be by restricting the number of stores allowed to sell beer. This, of course, would create resentment on the part of grocers not permitted to carry beer.

Anyone who has visited the United States will know that many states allow beer and alcohol to be sold in grocery stores. What I would also like to point out is these stores in particular are singled out for holdups and robberies because of the presence of alcoholic beverages, and often because these stores are perceived by the robbers to have more cash. Store owners there have taken to carrying handguns and even shotguns under the counter. I for one do not want to see this sort of behaviour carried over into Ontario.

I hope I have been able to point out a few of the problem areas I see in this bill. I know it would be very nice on occasion to be able to go down to the local corner store and to come home with a six-pack. Unfortunately, because some people would make more than just the occasional trip and for all the other reasons, I urge members to vote against the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Prescott-Russell.

Mr. Mitchell: I'm going to listen to you.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Carleton is going to listen to me. I must say it was hard to hold back as much as I did when I heard some of his remarks, such as how it would cause people to drink too much and things like that.

I would like to remind the member that Quebeckers are not drunks all the time. They do not sprawl all over the place in the street because they can buy a six-pack at the corner store. What kind of ridiculous nonsense is this? We are not asking the government to promote the sale of beer. We are asking it to assist small business. It is hypocrisy for a government living off the avails of liquor and beer sales, with the taxes, to tell us it is of this Moral Majority group that does not want to change a thing.

There is a constituent of mine who told me once that the only way to convince this government to change anything is by assuring it that, once it is changed, it will be the same as before it changed it. That is so accurate. This government does not want to change anything. If it does, it changes something and tells the majority it is the same as before and convinces everybody else it has not done a thing. It is against the very principles of this government to change anything. That word is evil in the eyes of this government.

4 p.m.

I am beginning to think that helping small business is equally evil for the government. The same honourable member said that if small enterprises sold beer the price would go up. Then why does the government not monopolize everything under the sun by regulated monopolies and give that business to the rest of its friends, the way beer is sold? I know small businesses are probably not large supporters of the government, but that is a very poor way of treating them.

In eastern Ontario -- that is the same region the member for Carleton comes from -- he should know that having beer in grocery stores is a very popular issue. The people of our area would like that. If the people of the great city of Nepean did not want that, they could have a local option and not sell beer at all. Of course they would all go and buy it in Ottawa but they could tell themselves they are not drinking it, whatever good that would do. Or they could do as they do now -- cross the bridge to Hull and buy it on Sunday.

Yet the government can still make the same hypocritical statement saying it disallows it. The only thing it is disallowing is the small independent grocery stores -- and that answers the question of the member for Cornwall -- from making a decent living in Ontario. At the same time it is encouraging the same stores across the bridge in Hull to make a very hefty profit on Ontario beer that should be sold in this province.

The member talked about the very deep problem there would be in selling beer on Sunday. I am not going to talk about whether beer should or should not be sold on Sunday. Again, in our area people just cross the bridge and buy it. If they do not want beer sold on Sunday they should do as they do in certain areas of Florida, for instance. There people do not buy it. There is a little sticker on the cash register that says. "We do not sell beer on Sunday."

That is very complicated. It would require at least 30 seconds with a pencil to write a note to stick on the cash register saying they cannot sell beer on Sunday. It is very deep stuff, a very big issue and very complicated to regulate. I am sure it completely surpasses the ability and comprehension of the member for Carleton to administer such a major issue as the sale of beer.

We are not asking the government to be as innovative as it is in Quebec in these things, because we do not expect that. It would be too much to ask this government to be innovative. Maybe it could be half as innovative as Newfoundland. That is a very innovative place, and the government should always compare itself to that area to make sure it is as avant-garde as those people.

The sale of Ontario wine in Ontario stores should also be included. Of course that would be such a drastic change that even at the thought of such a thing all members across the way would probably fall on their faces in this Legislature. Rather than purchasing imported products, which is an issue I have raised on many occasions, we should encourage Ontario and Canadian businesses. This would be an effective mechanism for doing that as well, I would not see any problem either in having Ontario wines sold in small grocery stores.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Shame

Mr. Boudria: The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel says, "Shame," because he can go back to his riding and say, "I am against people being drunk in the streets." That sounds very good, although it is completely meaningless. It is like "Are you against motherhood?" That question would be equivalent. It has totally no relevance to the subject at hand.

We are not discussing whether we are for or against liquor. Remember, Mr. Speaker, it is this government that lives off the avails of the sales of such products, and it does so very well. It gets many of its tax dollars from that. If it is so much against the sale of liquor, and if it does not think it is moral to live off the sale of liquor, why does it not remove the tax from it? Does it not think it is immoral to accept such funds? But it would not do that. It is pure hypocrisy on the government's part. It is very much for the sale of liquor and beer and everything else.

Mr. Mitchell: What is a variety store then? They carry groceries, and you know it.

Mr. Boudria: They want only to give the business to their big corporate friends instead of the small independent grocery stores of this province.

I will get to some of the specifics of the bill. It is not my bill, but I would like to comment very favourably on some parts of it.

The member for Carleton was asking, "Which store does that mean directly?" I suggest he did not read section 1 of the bill, because it says small "independent grocery store owner." That means a small independent grocery store that owns fewer than four stores. That is quite well defined in there, if the member had read it.

This means that if Mac's Milk owns a whole bunch of stores, it would not qualify, but a small family type of operation would. I would suggest there should be a square footage requirement, perhaps in the regulations, and I am sure the member for Cornwall agrees that one does not want a large Honest Ed type of store to be able to have the benefits of selling beer. I do not think that is what we are trying to achieve with this bill. We want to be able to help the little guy, the small business person in this province, and I think this bill would do that very well in its present form.

The member for Cornwall has mentioned that the Retail Merchants Association of Canada Inc., the Canadian Organization of Small Business and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business are all for it. Maybe it is because the Canadian association of big business is not for it that the government is against it. That is probably the deep-down reason. They will use other rationales, of course, but it goes back to the same premise: They want liquor sold, they want beer sold and they want their friends to do it. And that is the reason.

The member voiced concern about the people employed by Brewers Retail in Ontario who would all be thrown on the street overnight if this happened, and all this kind of thing. I would suggest this member is not concerned about those people; he is concerned about the corporation that owns Brewers Retail.

Mr. Kolyn: Who is the corporation? All of the brewers in Ontario and the Brewers Warehousing Co.

Mr. Boudria: They would still probably be in charge of distributing the beer to the independent grocery stores. That could accommodate much of the employment; they would still be kept busy doing those things. But as for the actual retail outlet, maybe instead of working as cashiers in the beer store they could go and work for Mr. So-and-so's corner store. That is, provided it is not against the member's morals to have somebody work for a small business.

Mr. Mitchell: You talk about the mom and pop operations. How about the kids who cannot work in the stores now?

Mr. Boudria: Oh, there is this great concern about the people under 18 who could not work in certain grocery stores and all this kind of thing. There is nothing in that small issue that cannot be addressed in some way by the regulations. The members opposite are obviously picking on small technicalities they can use to change the very good idea proposed in the bill by the member for Cornwall.

The principle of the bill is very sound. It is a pro-small-business bill. It has nothing to do with having people drunk all over the place --

The Deputy Speaker: Time.

Mr. Boudria: The people of eastern Ontario who go to Quebec to buy their beer are not drunk all over the place, nor are our counterparts in that province.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I was listening with great interest to the speech that was written for the member for Carleton -- I do not know by whom -- and I was amazed. I think the member is probably right in taking the position he took, because he probably has been buried in Carleton all his life and does not understand the reality of the world.

But as the member for Prescott-Russell said, there are other jurisdictions where people have different habits. Perhaps the member for Carleton would be better advised if he undertook the task of visiting other places in the world.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: I have.

Mr. Di Santo: If he has, then we are faced with an even more serious problem, because obviously he did not learn anything. That is even worse. It is bad for the people he represents in this Legislature.

I come from another country where the legislation is totally liberalized and the rate of alcoholism is no higher than in Canada. If one goes to other countries, such as West Germany -- and we could ask the visiting members of the Bundesrat -- if one goes to the Rhine valley on a summer day there are hundreds of small outlets, grocery stores, where one can buy a sandwich and drink a beer under the beautiful sun. The problem of alcoholism is neither better nor worse than in Ontario.

The argument the member made in order to oppose this bill is most foolish. On one hand he wants to prove from an economic point of view this bill will be detrimental to Ontario. He did not prove it.

Mr. Boudria: It is detrimental to his party.

Mr. Di Santo: Yes. The member for Carleton, with his closed mind, supposes it is legitimate to think the interests of the people of Ontario coincide with the interests of the Conservative Party, even though only 25 per cent of all the eligible voters voted for his party in the last election. But that is beside the point.

The member did not give us any argument to prove that allowing the sale of beer in grocery stores will be detrimental to the economy of the province. The member for Cornwall and the member for Prescott-Russell told us the government is really protecting a monopoly. It cannot deny that. This is the only place where a government legitimizes a double monopoly, the monopoly of the producer and the monopoly of the retailer. If it allows grocery stores to sell beer it breaks that monopoly and creates the conditions for competition. There is nothing wrong with that concept if the government really believes competition is an important aspect of the economy of a modern nation. It cannot be serious.

The member for Cornwall pointed out that while the government is preaching every day about free enterprise, when it is convenient it hypocritically does all the things attributed to us as Socialists. We take pride in recognizing that we believe in the intervention of the public sector in selected areas of the economy. But the government does that while denying it. That is hypocritical, as is also the second part of its argument against the outlet.

Mr. Mitchell: How do you differentiate between a guy who has one grocery store totally owned by him and another who, because he happens to be in IGA, is not going to be allowed in? How do you justify that?

Mr. Di Santo: I have only 10 minutes. I do not know the profession of the member for Carleton but probably he does not understand the elements of economics.

I want to get to the second argument he made, which was a moral one. He said if we allow the sale of beer in the grocery stores we will be doing something extremely obnoxious to our people because we will increase alcoholism and promote drinking.

If they are serious over there, perhaps the member for Carleton should tell us why in the last budget this government increased taxes on liquor, beer and tobacco -- all sinful things. They should be banned from our society if they promote sin. That is the utmost hypocrisy. Beer, alcohol and tobacco are sinful but we make money out of them by taxing the people who use them. Is that not fantastic? When my colleague proposes to sell these same products in grocery stores they become sinful -- I suppose we are promoting drinking, creating alcoholism and creating the conditions for the decay of our society and civilization.

It has been proved by history that whenever freedom prevails and people have freedom of choice they will decide what is dangerous for themselves and what is not. The member for Carleton mentioned a study by the Addiction Research Foundation. It showed that when the sale of wine is less restricted, as is the case in countries like the one I come from, abuse is not as great as in countries where there is moral compulsion not to use these products -- in fact the rate of alcoholism is much lower.

The moral argument is ludicrous and preposterous, coming from a member of a government that imposes taxes on people in order to get revenues. They want us to believe the use of alcohol and tobacco is the result of the machinations of the devil.

I want to say, for I have only a little time left, that by allowing the sale of beer in grocery stores we will not destroy the economy of this province. The member knows very well that small business in this province is what creates more jobs. Family outlets are the ones that need to be helped at a time when they are being crucified by high interest rates and the total ineptitude of this government to help or relieve them in any way.

I hope some people on the other side of the House will be open-minded and will try to understand that this is not a bill which will undermine our society. It is only a modest attempt to diversify what is now a monopoly that should be broken.

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the member for Downsview by saying that the members on this side will not only have open minds but fair minds.

The member for Cornwall has suggested two main reasons for passing this bill: The first is for the convenience of the beer-buying public, and the second is to help the small independent grocers. He states that he has introduced this since 1974 and therefore has heard much reiteration of the same arguments, both pro and con.

4:20 p.m.

I have today some information I wish to share with him from the county of Oxford. But first I would say I am a little puzzled with what I would call the technical deficiency of his bill. He stated no Mac's Milk or Becker's stores, and so on. That is plain enough; but then he said no variety stores.

In the county of Oxford, and I believe in the counties of Elgin, Grey and any others around there, most of the variety stores we have would fall within the definition of an independent grocery store owner as defined in the act because they would have as their principal business the sale of foodstuffs. I suspect, when he states there would be no variety stores, he is quite incorrect. If he wants to take variety stores out of there he must redefine "independent grocery store owner."

That is the first reason I submit the bill should be voted down. Second, I would like to refer to a 1981 brief from the Addiction Research Foundation which was submitted to the Minister of Health and various other ministries at that time. It discussed the impact --

Mr. Shymko: Let's hear it.

Mr. Treleaven: I thank you for your invitation. I would not have otherwise, my friend.

The brief discusses the impact of allowing 1,700 grocery stores to sell wine. That is wine, not beer, and I will get to the distinction. I am submitting that these findings can certainly be applied to beer at those same 1,700 grocery stores, only more so. The average person in southwestern Ontario who is averse to wine, even Ontario wine, in those stores is more opposed to beer in the same stores.

"The study shows that "alcohol consumption definitely increases as the number of places selling alcohol increases." It further shows that "health problems associated with alcohol increase as availability and consumption increase." My friend the member for Carleton referred to nondrinkers, light drinkers and so on. The brief of the Addiction Research Foundation shows, "While consumption might not increase significantly among nondrinkers and light drinkers, the number of heavy drinkers increases dramatically."

It states various things, but the summary is that "The trend in Ontario over the last 30 years has been as the number of places selling alcohol increased, so do (a) per capita consumption, (b) cirrhosis of the liver leading to death, (c) driving offences called impaired driving."

Last January, the government of British Columbia decided not to allow the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores. At that time the minister said, "In my view, liquor policy should be a reflection of the balance of reasoned community consensus." I certainly agree with that minister and I ask, what is reasoned community consensus in this province? As it happens and by coincidence --

Mr. Samis: What minister said that?

Mr. Treleaven: His name is Peter Hyndman, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Coincidentally with this bill, there was the return of my newsletter with a questionnaire on the back, not dealing with beer but dealing with Ontario wine in independent community grocery stores. That is very close to what the member is referring to.

As of last Thursday -- this is from the county of Oxford and our good postal service also delivers to that small portion of Oxford which my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) calls his riding. In portions of Oxford county, some refer to him as a carpetbagger or a parachutist, but I would not say that. However, I would say --

An hon. member: He holds you in contempt.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: A Nixon has represented that part of Oxford county since before you were born.

Mr. Breaugh: As a matter of fact, there is a rumour.

Mr. Nixon: Parachuted! Parachuted from heaven.

Mr. Treleaven: Yes, I am the parachutist -- only 40 some years in the good county of Oxford. But I might point out to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that these statistics would certainly be as relevant for the township of Blandford-Blenheim as the rest of Oxford county.

Mr. Nixon: Do you mean that nobody drinks in Blandford-Blenheim?

Mr. Treleaven: No. There are people who drink but they certainly would be opposed to the sale of beer in independent grocery stores.

The statistics of the Minister of Health might indicate 69 per cent are in favour of beer and wine but in Oxford County there is even a split on Ontario wine. It would be more than that who were opposed. At the point where they were counted, 112 agreed to put it in the stores and 107 were against. A sizeable number of the 112 who agreed to put the wine in the stores said, "But only Ontario wine." Therefore it is very obvious beer would have fallen below the 50 per cent.

May I refer to a few of the quotations from the people of Oxford when they answered some of the questions on the poll.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, you Tories have polls for everything.

Mr. Treleaven: Thank you. I have one for Oxford.

When they refer to my questionnaire, they say -- listen to this:

Mr. Shymko: Let's hear it.

Mr. Treleaven: This is what the people are saying against having wine in small stores: "This will result in the greater use of alcohol, especially by the young." Another said, "The excessive use of alcohol is the cancer of our society." Another said, "There are enough outlets now." Another said, "Liquor is too accessible now. Canada has a very high alcoholism. .

Another one said, "We have both a brewers' warehouse and a liquor store in Norwich which are sufficient outlets for the purchase of alcohol." Another one said, "My children agree that it would make it harder to control under-age drinking." "It would be too difficult to control and too easy for minors to obtain." Here is one: "If restricted to Ontario wines" they might be in favour. And again," . . . contributing to impaired driving."

On the same questionnaire, I had a question on the matter of censorship. I asked if the people were in favour of censorship as it now exists in Ontario, which includes editing, or if they favoured simply a classification system. I have not added up the replies. They are not all in. I hurried that question on beer and wine in stores for this debate today.

However, I would say there is a direct parallel between the people answering the question on censorship and those dealing with alcohol and beer in the stores. They feel the society in which we live in southwestern Ontario is already too permissive and they do not want any loosening of the liquor laws or the censorship laws. That is quite clear in Oxford.

The member for Cornwall has a laudable aim in helping small grocery stores but on balance he is creating a worse menace to our society than he is curing. Small business has other things to help it. There is a tax holiday in our recent budget and I would ask the member to wait --

Mr. Shymko: It is a good budget.

Mr. Treleaven: Good budget, certainly. An excellent budget; 97 per cent good and three per cent annoying.

The bill should be opposed and we should wait until Monday night to see what the federal government has for the small businessmen.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to point out to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that this debate concludes at 4:41 p.m. The honourable member who has put forward his bill has reserved four minutes of time, so with quick calculation I am sure you will be able to figure out how long you have to talk. In addition to that, I do not know about you, but with all of this talk, I am getting thirsty.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: I rely on your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as always. Normally, I am pretty convinced by the member for Oxford when he gets up to speak, but in this instance I feel he has overlooked two or three important and salient facts.

When he expresses his concern about the level of alcoholism, it is something with which we must all agree. But if we look at the budget that just came down a few weeks ago, we find the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) intends to make a clear profit of $530 million from the liquor stores alone and an additional $185 million profit on the sale of permits and other licences for the sale of liquor, for a total of $715 million profit that goes into the consolidated revenue of the province and is used, among other things, to pay the honourable members' salaries, travelling expenses, apartments, etc.

Mr. Shymko: Including your own.

Mr. Nixon: They even paid the member's way to Dakar, for goshsakes, which is something else we ought to be looking at.

The point is that surely all of us are concerned about the terrible effects of alcohol in the community. If we could eliminate alcohol right off the face of the earth, I for one, and I am sure the honourable member too, would do so. Neither of us is a known teetotaller, but just as men of moderation. But we understand it is a big problem. The problems the member raised of cirrhosis of the liver and driving accidents are terrible problems, but I cannot see the relevance to the matter before us, because the law does permit the legal sale of beer and other alcoholic beverages and the government taxes it mightily.

As a matter of fact, the government has a monopoly on the sale of liquor. It buys the raw material cheap, waters it down and sells it dear in its own stores. In the town of Paris, in my constituency, the very finest buildings in the whole community are the new liquor store, which is like the Bastille with a modern design, and the new beer store. Frankly, the only problem I have is that the people who live in my rural community of St. George and South Dumfries have to drive 12 to 15 miles to get the beer. I am sure it would be a better thing if none of them ever bought any beer but, Mr. Speaker, you know that some people, just like the people in your community, have been known to buy beer. There may even be some in your own refrigerator, but I am not prepared to state that as an absolute fact.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Nixon: But let us face it, people drink beer and if they want to drink beer, they are going to drink beer. The law permits it and the government taxes it.

In my own community, which is rural, it is only in recent years, certainly since my entry into politics, that it has been legal to buy liquor in the township. We do not have any outlets except for one or two small roadside restaurants. Certainly from the stories in our family, we go back to the time when the Canada Temperance Act simply cleaned the whole thing out of the township. The Methodist Church, to which all my forbears owed allegiance, was very strong indeed in cleaning up what it considered to be one of the greatest menaces in the early community.

In the village of St. George there were three distilleries. The farmers all went up with their horses and buggies to take the kids to school and bring home several honey pails full of raw booze, which they simply drank as we would now drink Kool-Aid, out in the hay fields. It did not do them any harm, I suppose, but by our standards most of those farmers before 1860 were alcoholics. They did not think it was doing them any damage, but I am sure it was.

My sainted great-grandfather, who was one of the leaders in the community -- a well-known Conservative, if members will permit me that aside -- was certainly one of the ones with a honey pail in each hand. Members will be glad to know he celebrated his 50th wedding anniversary with his second wife. So it did not do him any great definite harm. But I was raised in the traditions of Methodism and in the United Church. Certainly it was brought home to me in those days that drinking was a sin. Most of the people in the community definitely accepted it that way. But there has been a considerable broadening --

Mr. Shymko: Liberalizing.

Mr. Nixon: I hesitate to say "liberalizing" -- of the view of the community. It is much more along the lines of that accepted by the ancestors of the honourable gentleman who is so keen to help me in my remarks. That is, they accept alcoholic beverage in moderation, they know that it can be extremely damaging but they also know that in some instances it is a part of the life that we are living.

Things have changed quite dramatically and in our township among the hard-working farmers, who work just as hard as farmers did in the 1860s, and the townspeople, there is no place that one can buy beer anywhere unless one gets in a car and drives to the government store. Certainly the government does not hesitate to spend a lot of money in those fine buildings.

Frankly, I have no hesitation in supporting the bill that my honourable friend the member for Cornwall has put forward. I know that some of the people in my community would not support it for the reasons put forward by the member for Oxford. I really feel, though, that the community has changed, and that each person is his or her own liquor control board -- as the government has spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars in its advertising campaign to put forward.

I believe that is so. The churches continue to teach moderation and temperance, as they should. In our community it is considered the responsibility of the church and the community not only to inculcate those standards in the young people to the best of our ability by teaching and by our own example, but we feel that is a responsibility that lies in the home and in the church, not in the school. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe it is a good thing.

On another personal note: My wife and I have been known to go to Florida on a brief holiday. One can go into a store there -- not every little shanty by the side of the road, but one can go into a store -- and there in a nice cooler are several brands of beer, competitively priced. One can buy a few bottles if one wants to, and I would suggest that no serious damage is caused by that.

I feel that the member is to be congratulated. It may be that his bill will not win this time, but I feel that the community is moving more and more to the acceptance of moderation and reasonableness in this matter, which has been such a problem for so many years.

Mr. Samis: First of all I want to say that I always appreciate the support of such men of moderation as my good friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, and I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the other members. Most of the remarks of the member for Carleton were so asinine that I do not think they deserve comment, but the member from Oxford made some interesting comments and raised some questions that I think were valid.

The one thing I noticed in both of the speakers who opposed the bill was that they did not address the question of the monopoly, a private monopoly enjoyed by Labatt's, by Molson and by Carling O'Keefe, which is owned by South African interests, the Rothmans. They did not address that. They thought of all the potential problems, but the bottom line is: "Let us keep the monopoly in Ontario. Let us protect our friends, the big three. Let us not allow small business to get in on this. Let us keep it in the hands of the brewers."

Can one think of any other province or any other jurisdiction in North America where the sale of a product is monopolized by the manufacturer and it is sanctioned by government and protected by government, which says to small business, "You cannot sell it. It is against the law for you to sell it"? One can conjure up all sorts of images about morality and all of that, but the simple fact is that the government is protecting a monopoly and is working against small business and even against public opinion in this province.

There may be some quibbling about the definition of "variety store" versus "grocery store." I think that could be worked out quite easily. I would omit the term "variety store" and perhaps just say "grocery store." The point is, we would not allow jug-milk stores -- Mac's Milk stores, or any of those so-called franchised convenience stores -- to sell this sort of thing.

The simple fact is, if one looks at the report of Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd., beer consumption in this province has been in decline since 1974. Per capita consumption is down, and I quote: "The trend in consumption is most strongly marked when considered on the basis of adults 15 years and over who choose to drink."

They have all sorts of figures in here. In actual rates of consumption, Ontario ranks 15th among the countries in the world. If one compares consumption of beer versus hard liquor and versus wine, we find the consumption of alcohol spirits is up 40 per cent since 1955, alcohol 127 per cent since 1955 and the share of total drinks consumed in the form of beer has declined 27.7 per cent.

4:40 p.m.

The simple fact is that we are not trying to conjure up social problems; we are not talking about a major problem. And I would challenge the members opposite -- if they are even allowed to vote on this -- to go to one jurisdiction in North America, be it Quebec, or Newfoundland, or New York State, or any state in the USA, and ask if they would want to go back to the old system of control via monopoly.

Even if you are going to have a monopoly, you would think the government would have the monopoly, not the Big Three; but not in Ontario, not in Toryland. It is the private preserve of the select few: the Big Three.

That is what we want to break, Mr. Speaker. We want to see a system of real, free enterprise; a real, free market. I am sure all good men and women of moderation realize that the system works well, and as Ontario moves into the 1980s they would want Ontario to have such a system for themselves and for their children.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr. McKessock moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, resolution 23:

That, in the belief that every child should have the opportunity of learning the Judaeo-Christian beliefs on which this country was founded, and recognizing that the religious convictions of those other than Christian are fully protected under the act and regulations, section 50 of the Education Act and regulations pertaining to religious education should be strictly adhered to in the province, particularly recognizing that only 30 per cent of Canadians presently attend church regularly, so that it is doubly important that students be exposed to biblical truths and the reasons for our moral standards; and to this end that section 28, subsection 15 of O. Reg. 262, RRO 1980, which allows the Ministry of Education to grant exemptions to boards, be repealed, as it is in conflict with the Education Act, section 235, subsection 1(c) which requires a teacher to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I remind the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion thereof for windup.

Mr. McKessock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to save four or five minutes for the windup.

I welcome everyone who is here to participate in this debate and also those who are here to listen. I feel it is a privilege and a duty for me to introduce for debate this resolution pertaining to the Education Act and, more specifically, the part that refers to religious education.

It is a privilege because I live in a country that is free from the war, persecution and strife found in many other countries. I do not believe it is any coincidence that we live in such a blessed country. I believe this country was built on the strong Judaeo-Christian faith and beliefs of our ancestors and that God has blessed us for it.

I feel it is my duty to bring forth this resolution not only as a Christian but as a Canadian who believes that we need to make sure our children learn the same basic truths and get the same knowledge of the faith their ancestors had, which allowed them to overcome adversities and conquer the many trials and hardships encountered while they developed this great land.

The resolution simply says that we should be doing what the Education Act and regulations allow, which is to give religious instruction to our students, both elementary and secondary, for one hour per week, and that the part of the regulations which allows a school board to request an exemption from religious instruction be repealed.

We all know that at present some schools are giving religious instruction and others are not, whether or not they have asked the minister for exemption. I realize this is a simplistic explanation of this resolution and is not enough, but I want to encourage the government and school boards to put greater emphasis on religious education.

First, we might ask ourselves why we have dropped away from religious education in the schools. When I was in public school we had scripture reading, sang hymns and repeated the Lord's Prayer; now very few schools, if any, are doing all three. There are, I suppose, many reasons for this.

The first reason is that we have changed to larger school systems and larger school boards; and it seems that when the little school went, so did some of the community spirit. Then we had the migration of many people to our country from different cultures and different religions, and some in positions of authority got the idea that it should not look as if we were imposing our faith and beliefs on them.

Third, our country was starting to do well. Jobs, money and worldly possessions were available to most and people began to drift away from the church and to think they could get by without God. These people were also being elected to school boards and graduating from teachers' colleges.

There are many reasons we have drifted away from God and from giving religious instruction in our schools. Some say the church is the place to present and teach religion. That is a perfectly good suggestion but we have to face the facts that things have changed. This is 1982. When people said, 40 years ago, that the church was the place to teach religion they would have been right because 85 per cent of the people were going to church then. But in 1982, only 30 per cent attend church regularly.

If we do not present at least the basic biblical truths and read the scriptures in the schools, 70 per cent of our young people will never get the chance to learn what is meant by Judaeo-Christian morals and standards and why they should adopt them. I believe it will be disastrous for our society if we do not face up to our responsibilities and see that our children get the proper instruction so that they will have respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality.

Why do people not go to church? Some blame the churches but we need not put the blame on any one segment of society. We can all take part of the blame. We as MPPs should be able to sympathize with ministers of the church who, like us, have seen their constituencies grow. There are now fewer churches and ministers and more ground to cover. If we were twice as many ministers or MPPs, we could cover more ground and see more people. But things have changed and we have to face the facts.

Today, we often find that when young couples start to raise a family they go back to the church they left for some reason during their teen-age years. Now they want to give their children the right upbringing. They want them to be raised with the right moral standards, and they want them to have a faith they can hang on to. These couples come back to church today because they had a basic training and education in religion when they were young.

Those 70 per cent who are not attending a place of worship today will have nothing to come back to when they get married within the next 20 years unless we give them some basic religious teaching in the schools today. If we do not, our moral standards and our religious convictions will continue to deteriorate. Then, I wonder, how long will God continue to bless this land which was based on the faith of our forefathers?

In the resolution I did not get into how religion should be presented in the schools. I say "presented" because I hesitate to say "teach." Some people get hung up when they hear talk of teaching religion. I heard a Catholic priest say, "Religion cannot be taught, it must be caught." I agree. But for it to be caught it must be presented in some form.

There are dozens of ways in which religion can be presented in the schools. For example, scriptures could be read each day. If these scriptures were read from the living Bible, or from one of the modern translations, the students would find religion understandable and needing very little extra commentary. If the students had questions they could file them until a minister, approved by the board, came in once a month for a question-and-answer session. This monthly talk could be shared by the ministerial association of the area so that it would not overwork any one minister.

The teachers and parents would not have to be concerned about what was presented if the Bible only were read. I do not like the present regulations talking about different denominations meeting in different parts of the school. I feel it should be a course where all students could meet together and where no exemptions from the class would be necessary. I think all should be in attendance. I do not know how one could call himself educated without a knowledge of the Bible whether he or she takes it literally, spiritually or historically.

In discussing my resolution with a couple of directors of education, they informed me that they would like the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) to issue curriculum guidelines for religious education in the same way as she would issue guidelines for mathematics or science. The fact is, guidelines are there in the schools. They were put out by the minister many years ago. I have a copy here. They are very good, but somehow they got shelved. There is an approved list of prayers which are good. It also says above all that the Old Testament stories chosen are about men and women to whom God was a supreme reality. These guidelines are only for grade 8, whereas the act calls for religious education in the secondary schools as well.

4:50 p.m.

In this document called Program of Religious Education in the Public Schools, it states: "The religious and spiritual phase of education is a factor of great importance in the formation of individual character, thus contributing to a finer citizenship and a better world. The strength of a nation is the strength of the religious convictions of its people."

With solid statements like that, it makes me wonder why this document was set aside. It certainly could not have been because of its content or the lack of commitment by the writer. It must have been the lackadaisical attitude taken on the subject by those of us in command.

I was told by Dr. Ron Watts, general secretary of the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, who spent some time in Communist China recently, that there is very little difference between the way we treat religion in Canada and the way it is treated in Communist China. We treat it lightly, set it on the shelf and do not give it any prominence. If we said to people on the street that we treat religion in this country quite similarly to the way they treat it in Communist China, most people would get upset with us, because even within this country we are looked on as a strong, religious country. That is not true any more because we have allowed religion to deteriorate for various reasons that have been mentioned.

Sometimes, principles do not have much of a chance these days because public pressure comes on so strong; therefore, we must try to make sure the public is always aware of principles. We must start by bringing back the respect and dedication we once had for religion and present it in our schools.

Romans 10:13 says, "God is there for everyone." Verse 14 says, "How can they believe in Him if they have never heard about Him, and how can they hear about Him unless someone tells them?"

The Bible tells us to tell others. If we believe in God, surely we want to do what he requests. Surely we believe in God or why do we pray to him each day at the opening of this Legislature?

Whether we present religion in the schools to help children find God or to have them learn Judaeo-Christian beliefs and moral standards, whatever the reason, we will be setting an example and instilling a respect for religion. Either way, the spinoff to our people, to our country and to society will be tremendously rewarding in attitude, stability and peace of mind of our people.

In stressful economic times, during sickness and the numerous other hardships we all face during our lifetime, we all need a strength beyond our own to help us succeed. We, in our day, had greater opportunities in this area than the children at present. It is up to us to turn around the erosion of the religious education in our school system and see that the other 70 per cent who do not attend church get some of the same opportunities as those who do.

There are many reasons we should put greater emphasis on religion and bring it back to the schools, but I have not much time to elaborate. I would like to mention one more reason.

Last week, an article in the Globe and Mail stated teenage suicides were up by 400 per cent in the last 15 years. There were 1,300 reported teenage suicides in Canada last year. Of course, there were many other unreported suicides.

Mrs. Syer, head of the 12-member study group, said the increased teenage suicides can be partly attributed to the increasing breakdown of the traditional family, the increase in divorce and single-parent families. More than half the suicides were from single-parent families. Something is happening to the family unit.

As a farmer, when I buy a tractor or a piece of equipment, I am given a manual by the manufacturer to consult so I can keep it running smoothly. The family was God's idea, his creation. He left us a manual, the Bible, to consult, to try to keep his creation running smoothly.

If by presenting religion in the schools we can encourage the student to read the Bible and attend a place of worship, we would be doing something.

Mr. Andrew Kniewasser, president of the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada, who was guest speaker at this year's annual Ontario Prayer Breakfast, said: "The bottom line in Canada's balance sheet is surely the quality of Canadians and our ability and opportunity to live constructively. Investments in the quality of our people -- investments in encouraging Canadians to live constructively, humanely and meaningfully -- are the best investments we can possibly make. The Bible clearly tells us how to become people of quality."

If one thinks the church is the only place to present religion, let us remember that only 30 per cent attend church today. Maybe we can bring it back to the 85 per cent the way it was when religion had a higher priority in the school system.

In preparing for this debate today, I have corresponded with, talked on the telephone with and met with the heads of many different religious groups here in Toronto and elsewhere. I have met with Father Fogarty and Rev. Ernie Johns of the Ecumenical Study Commission, who have been studying religion in public education since 1969 and who have made several presentations to the Minister of Education.

They are all supportive. I feel we need to help those in places of worship and full-time ministers by having respect for religion and encouraging the students to attend the place of worship of their choice, creating some desire within the child to learn more about his spiritual life rather than taking a passive "It's someone else's job" attitude.

As Canadians who love our country, we all should do our part to get our religion back on track. It is now time we moved forward and ensured that religious education is a priority in our schools. Enough studies have been done; action should be taken. I am convinced, if our morals and spiritual values are in place, we are capable and ready to handle everything else that confronts us.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Grey and I understand why he introduced this resolution in the House. I enjoy discussing the Bible with him quite often and thoroughly. As a matter of fact, just last night we had quite a lengthy discussion. It is a great pleasure. He often organizes meetings in the morning down in the dining room, giving an opportunity to the members, civil servants and other people to participate in reading the Bible. I commend him and I commend the religious fervour he showed when he was discussing his resolution.

However, I cannot support the resolution because, if one looks at the resolution, the very first line says "every child should have the opportunity of learning the Judaeo-Christian beliefs on which this country was founded."

This is probably unacceptable in a society such as ours where we have a pluralistic mix of people who do not belong to that tradition. Also, if we took that approach, we would deny a long tradition in modern society that goes back almost two and a half centuries to the Age of Reason with such eminent people as de Montesquieu, Diderot, Voltaire and John Locke.

I am sure the member for Grey has read that important booklet on tolerance, written by John Locke, in which he posits the foundations for what is a modern pluralistic society. Those people had to fight against a society in which religion and state were one thing, and the fact that the states were religious was the cause of immense conflicts and war in Europe. There was the Thirty Years War, the war between Spain and England and the war between Germany and Spain, all caused by the fact that one country was of one religious belief and the other country was of another religious belief. It was also a fact of life that religion was the main factor influencing the behaviour of the citizens when they were acting as individuals in their societies.

5 p.m.

For this reason, the initiators of what became the l'Encyclopédie were the people who put down the foundations of what is now accepted, that state and religion must be separated. People in their private spheres can adhere to one or other religion, but as citizens of a country they cannot impose on other citizens their religious beliefs. I think this is fundamental to the point. I am sure the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) will agree with me, that he will not accept what is happening in Iran where the Ayatollah Khomaini, on the basis of the same principle that the member for Grey is proposing in his resolution, is imposing a form of religious faith in Iran that it is unacceptable to our consciences as democratic citizens. We do believe we have the right to our religious beliefs as citizens. We have some democratic rights that cannot be denied to us only because we have different religious beliefs.

Apart from that, the member for Grey will realize that if we take his resolution to its extreme consequences it means we will really force the minorities, even though he tries to make the argument that it is not an imposition on them, to accept the principles of Judaeo-Christian beliefs they do not adhere to. I hope the member who produced the resolution will understand that today we live in a society in Canada, and I do recognize that those who founded this country came from the Judaeo-Christian tradition -- but he must realize that before they came to this country there were people who lived here for many years, who do not share the same principles. Now, due to economic factors, due to the fact that Canada is a country of immigrants, as the member correctly stated, we have today in this country people of totally different religious beliefs. We have Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, and agnostics and they are very much part of the fabric of this society today. I think they are entitled to have their beliefs respected, as we are entitled to have our beliefs respected.

If we do not take this approach, we are really reneging on a very important part of the evolution that has taken place in our society. Just last week, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Ontario Human Rights Code. In this perspective the Human Rights Code would have no right to exist, because we would force all minorities to accept our religious beliefs. I am personally very active in my parish, but I do not think I can force the people of Downsview to attend my church, and I do not think that people of any other denomination can force other people to attend their churches.

The honourable member makes the point that the school is the place where behaviour is formed, because that covers the crucial age. He said only 30 per cent of the population attend church.

The Acting Speaker: One minute.

Mr. Di Santo: There are some people who come back at some point in time, but, he says, if we do not instill in their minds the beliefs that belong to the Judaeo-Christian tradition in schools, those people will be lost.

I would suggest it is also the responsibility of the families. We cannot say the failure of our society must be settled only on the school system. We cannot say that if children are not religious, if only 30 per cent of the population attend church, it is the fault of the school system. That is our fault; it is the fault of our society.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has used his time. Thank you.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today can be deemed by some to be a sensitive issue. I think it is acknowledged by all to be of fundamental importance. Most will concede that it can be controversial in nature. For this reason many politicians will sidestep the issue, applying the old adage of keeping church and state apart.

One can accept that reasoning if we are talking about a specific church or a specific religious denomination. But that argument must surely fail if we talk of religion in the generic sense. In universal terms, I suggest that politics and religion are in fact inextricably intertwined.

One cannot argue with the fact that the laws enacted in a democratic society are basically designed to accomplish two objectives: first, to ensure that our people can live at peace in an orderly society; and second, to ensure that the orderly society recognizes as paramount the personal freedoms and rights of the individual.

Personal freedoms and rights are many, but they are incomplete unless they encompass and hold as sacrosanct the worth and self-esteem of the individual. The whole worth of the individual must be measured not only by social behaviour but in the context as well of his personal beliefs and sense of values.

The vast majority of the people in this world have their morals and values shaped and moulded by religious conviction. This truism applies even to the majority of the world's population that resides in Communist-controlled nations where the state is deemed to be supreme and religion is not officially recognized.

Individual religious convictions are fed and nourished from two main sources, the church and the family. Outside the Communist world most free-world countries ensure reinforcement of individual basic morals and values founded on religious convictions through the state-supported school, where the maturing child spends a major part of his waking hours.

5:10 p.m.

The three greatest influences on the growing child within his living environment are the family, the church and his school environment. The importance of the school environment and the influence it can have on the child is not arguable, and the acknowledged need to complement the family and church teachings in the field of moral and social values is reflected in the government's present education policy.

That is what this resolution is all about. Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay before you some basic facts from which you can draw your own conclusions. The present board policy, as you know, is laid out under regulations, and subsections 28(1) and 29(1) of regulation 262 provide that a public school and a secondary school shall be opened or closed each school day with religious exercises consisting of the reading of the scriptures or other suitable readings and the repeating of the Lord's Prayer or other suitable prayers.

Section 28 provides that, in addition to religious exercises, two periods per week of one half hour each in addition to the time assigned to religious exercises at the opening or closing of a public school shall be devoted to religious education, with religious education being given immediately after the opening of a public school or immediately before the closing of the school in either the morning or the afternoon session. Instruction in religious education, as distinguished from religious exercises, shall be given by the teacher, and issues of a controversial or sectarian nature shall be avoided.

It would appear from this definition of the policy and practice of the board that technically one could suggest that section 235 is not in conflict with the basic principle as reflected in this administrative directive, because, while section 28 of the regulation deals with formal religious education, section 235 of the act deals only with the behaviour and the attitude of the teacher towards his students in inculcating by precept and example the basic values contained in the Judaeo-Christian traditions.

While that may be technically correct, we have to realize that this resolution raises a question as to just how effectively religious exercises and religious education are being applied in the public and secondary school system. Of the 112 school boards within Ontario, there are only six or seven that have asked for exemption from providing religious instruction as provided for in the controversial clause referred to in the member's resolution, which states that the minister may grant to a board an exemption from the teaching of religious education in any classroom or school if the board requests in writing the exemption and submits a reason for its request.

In view of the fact that there have been in recent times only six or seven school boards which have, for various reasons, applied to the minister for the exemption, it would seem that the basic policy of the boards and the Ministry of Education remains intact. However, while the applications seem small in number, let us examine them for a moment.

The fact is that the vast majority of the applications that have been filed are seeking exemption for all of the schools within the jurisdiction of the given board. If one reads the exemption provision, I think one could fairly conclude that the right to claim exemption would normally be applied towards a specific classroom or a specific school. That is the way the controversial subclause 15 reads. Yet 90 per cent of those boards that have applied have asked for blanket exemption.

In 1980-81 and 1981-82, two school boards within the province applied for exemption for a specific school and for specific reasons. Those were the Ottawa Board of Education, which applied on behalf of the Ecole Francojeunesse in Ottawa, and Pinard area board of education, which asked for exemption for one specific school, the Fraserdale Public School, on behalf of its teachers.

In the city of Toronto, we have the City of Toronto Board of Education and we have the North York Board of Education, which have received blanket exemption for some period of time -- the reasons for which I do not have time to go into today -- and when we put those together with the blanket exemptions that have been granted to the Brant, Bruce and Hastings boards, the number of students affected in the blanket exemption totals some 112,000 students out of the 800,000 elementary students in Ontario today. That is, one out of every eight students is not receiving the religious instruction directed under board policy.

In conclusion, I have to say on that basis that, given all of these facts, on balance I believe the principles of the resolution are indeed supportable.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, it is a common saying in our society that if you want to avoid any arguments when you are talking with your friends, neighbours and family, then the two issues you avoid are politics and religion.

It seems to be that whenever people talk about these two things they are bound to get into an argument. Therefore, I have to compliment my colleague the member for Grey for introducing the subject of religious education into this political forum. If there was any thought that it could be done peacefully, easily or without some very strong disagreement, that is a very naive thought indeed.

Yet what better place, because each of us in this forum, each of the 125 of us who sit in this Legislature, represents outside this building a broad section of the population. I am certain that within my riding, as within the riding of the member for Grey and within the riding of every other member of this Legislature, there would be those constituents who would strongly support this resolution, there would be those constituents who would equally strongly reject this resolution and there is probably, as always, a broad middle ground that really could not care much one way or the other.

This is the place and this is the time this Thursday afternoon when private members have the privilege and the right to bring on the floor of this Legislature issues such as this; not because we necessarily know or even believe that everyone is going to agree with us but because it is an issue that deserves to be discussed.

5:20 p.m.

I want to make very sure that my colleagues appreciate exactly what it is the member for Grey is asking. He is not denying the right of individual students or the parents of those students for exemption with respect to religious education in a school. That is not the issue here. That right to exempt themselves or to be exempted by their parents stands. He is not asking that the individual right of teachers to exempt themselves from having to teach religion in any public school of this province be tampered with. That is not the issue.

There is only one issue in this resolution. That is contained in the fourth last line of it and it is that the present exemption to boards be repealed. That is all we are talking about. At the present time, as the member for Oriole just pointed out, individual school boards in this province can request the right to have the entire board exempted.

I want to suggest to members that there are two kinds of tyrannies. The member for Downsview spoke to one quite eloquently. There is the tyranny of forcing students to participate. There is the tyranny of forcing teachers to teach something that is against their conscience. That is one kind, but there is another that we sometimes forget. That is the tyranny of denying them the opportunity to participate. That is what we are talking about here.

When a school board applies and gets permission in a blanket way to deny the opportunity to every student, every teacher, every school, I would say that is an equal tyranny and should not happen. We are protecting the rights of students, parents and teachers under the existing legislation for those who do not want to participate, who in conscience cannot participate, but do we also not have the responsibility to protect the rights, the equal rights of those who do wish to participate? That is what is at stake in this resolution. That is why I support my colleague the member for Grey.

Quite frankly, I think the public schools of this province have been given an absolutely impossible task because of the wide range of students they are expected to teach. The wide range of beliefs and nonbeliefs in the homes the students come from requires the public schools of this province to do a job that in my judgement simply cannot be done.

On one end of the spectrum we have those parents who are actually hostile to the teaching of religion, and that is their right. I may not agree with them but that is their right in our pluralistic democratic society.

On the other end of the spectrum we have many of the fundamentalist Christian communities that feel very strongly that religion is at the very core of their lives and they want it at the very core of their children's lives. That is equally their right, and we have everything in between.

I do not know how any school, school board or classroom teacher can possibly meet that broad range. That is why from the year 1816, when the first provision to have religious education in the schools of Ontario was brought in, we have had turmoil in the public schools of this province with respect to this issue. I suspect we are always going to have turmoil.

As a matter of fact, in the 1840s when Egerton Ryerson was the superintendent of public schools in Ontario, he pointed out that despite the fact there was already a requirement dating back to 1816, not one school in 10 and perhaps not one in 20 was actually carrying that out. In 1944, the present regulations were put into place. From the very moment they were introduced into this Legislature by the then Conservative Premier George Drew, there was reaction. There was reaction from politicians, from parents, from clergymen of all faiths as to whether it was desirable, such that in 1969 the Honourable John Keiller MacKay, who was the former Lieutenant Governor of this province, was asked to present a report dealing with the whole issue of religion in the public schools of this province.

His report is really interesting because it points out that in his mind it probably cannot be done. He gave all the reasons that have been discussed and which I have touched on myself. He pointed out that in his judgement the only thing we could do in the public schools of this province was to teach some kind of values education, values we were supposed to pull out of the minds of our students. How they were supposed to get in there in the first place, I honestly do not know.

Basically, that was the recommendation of this report. At the end there was a whole series of recommendations. The first one said we should abolish the teaching of religious education in the schools as it then existed. Second, it said the schools have a responsibility to inculcate values, principles and morals. How it was to be done, I do not know. In another recommendation, it said that if one did teach religion in the school the students should be given a credit in history for it. There is such a thing as the history of religion, but religious education is not history. That has been the problem in this province.

I should also point out that when this report was introduced in the Ontario Legislature by the then Minister of Education, the present Premier (Mr. Davis), he indicated he was impressed by the content of the report and he said, "We will undertake immediately the consideration of its proposals."

That was 13 years ago. I suggest that nothing has been done in 13 years about this report, to the best of my knowledge. If we have a problem with respect to the teaching of religious education in the schools, a lot of that problem rests right here in this Legislature. We have known it is a problem, we have known the difficulties, we have known of the broad range and even the contradictory nature of the interests of the people, and yet the government of this province, although it commissioned this report, has, as with so many other reports, done nothing about it.

It is one of those situations where it sticks there, it festers and people get angry and frustrated. Quite frankly, it is not surprising, even though I disagree with it, that many of the school boards in this province would take the route of saying: "Let us get rid of it completely. Let us get rid of that problem because even the government itself does not seem to be prepared to deal with it."

I do not know how we are going to deal with it, but I think it is a legitimate area of discussion. I think the young people in our province do need a sense of values and a sense of morality.

My colleague from Grey spoke of suicide. All of us know of the increase in turmoil and violence our young people are going through. They need some kind of assistance. Whether they are going to get it through the schools, I do not know. I do know that many of the families of this province from which these children come are in turmoil themselves and they need some support as well.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to debate this in these tough economic times, because I think it is desirable, none the less, that from time to time we look at some questions which, as the previous speaker said, the Legislature and the government have tended to put to one side in the interests of avoiding controversy.

I am going to oppose the resolution, but I speak as someone who is a regular member of my church. I have been a lay preacher. In the past year I have been a regular member of the church choir and a number of things like that. I am not unfamiliar with what happens within churches, nor am I unconcerned about the need for moral education and a familiarity with education.

I congratulate the people who have come to see this debate for it is seldom we have the pleasure of participating at a private member's hour. However, I would say to the House, to the member proposing this and also to his friends, the facts are that the question of religious education in the schools has either been dealt with in a way of exploitation by the government, or else it has tried to sweep it under the carpet in the hope that, because of the controversies connected with it, it would somehow go away.

5:30 p.m.

One of the things that sparked this debate was the edict that came from the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) a year or two ago that henceforth we would have to get back to having the Lord's Prayer said in the schools. This would be a means of ensuring that children who go through the school system somehow come out churched. I am not sure it is going to happen, given the fact that only 30 per cent of the parents are now active participants in the churches, as the member's own resolution indicates.

I would suggest if that is a failure of the school system, and perhaps it is, that we load a great deal on the school system, when what is happening has something to do with society as a whole.

I am familiar with Quebec and I have a Catholic church in my riding which 20 years ago, sharing the values of Quebec and having French Catholics participating, heard confessions from morning until night on Saturdays and had six or seven masses on Sundays. Today, the confessional is open for perhaps an hour and a half a week and there are only one or two masses on Sundays.

That is not for the lack of religious instruction because it was widespread among the people in their youth. They have fallen away because of secular realities, social changes, changes in values and the kinds of things we have to accept are there. We may deplore them but we will not change them by one simple resolution such as the one here.

My kids went to the Elgin Street School in Ottawa Centre. There, when the kids wish everybody a happy Christmas, they do it in about 33 different languages. That is a reality in Ottawa, it is a reality in Toronto and it is a reality in many other downtown schools across the province.

In North York a third or more of the population are of the Jewish faith. They do not consider themselves to have a Christian heritage because they came before it and in fact contributed to it. These are realities as well.

What I want to point out is that this foofaraw over the Lord's Prayer began not because school boards were abandoning religious observance but because of the very well-meant, well-intentioned and carefully thought-through effort of the Toronto Board of Education, two years ago, to restore religious observances in the elementary schools of the city.

Leaders of the major religious groups -- some 20 groups -- a number of social groups and representatives of student councils, were convened to advise the board. The board decided that in every school there should be the national anthem, O Canada, and an appropriate reading to be followed by a prayer which would take the form of a one-minute silent meditation.

I happen to find that a very effective form of prayer. I have used it as a lay preacher. I think probably everybody in this room who has prayed knows that silent prayer is often the best kind of prayer. But the Minister of Education deemed, without consulting any religious people, that was not enough. She was going to come along and make people say the Lord's Prayer.

I was interested to read a background paper that was distributed to senior officials within the Ministry of Education on March 4, by the Deputy Minister of Education, Mr. Fisher, in 1980. Quite specifically it said, in talking about what happened, that in the first place, prior to 1944 we did not have religious observances or religious instruction in the public schools. It only came in with George Drew in 1944, perhaps in response to some of the changes in values: people were hoping that something might get shored up.

The report said the legislation in 1944 was quickly implemented, but was in general disuse by the end of the 1950s. The bible stories were said to be Protestant and were unsatisfactory to people who did not consider themselves Protestants. The clergymen, generally, turned out to be unsuccessful as teachers. It was stigmatizing, and this is the ministry's own words, "to excuse children from participation. It was stigmatizing to make them stand outside while religious observances were held."

The member's resolution says: "Let us get back to section 50 of the Education Act." That section says, "(1) Subject to the regulations, a pupil shall be allowed to receive such religious instruction as his parent or guardian desires or, if the pupil is an adult, as he desires."

If one believes, as I do, that we should ask our children to do as we do and not just as we say, particularly when it comes to religion, it is very clear from the figures the member himself has offered that 70 per cent of the parents of children in our schools today are not keen on any kind of religious or moral education in schools, because they do not go to church themselves. That is a sad fact, but a fact.

The question we have to ask is, what are we going to do about it? I suggest that imposing religious instruction, making people listen to the Lord's Prayer, doing it by rote, which Jesus would not have accepted -- in fact, He fought against religion by rote -- is certainly not the way to do anything except to turn kids off organized religion even more decisively than they are being turned off today.

This province has suffered very seriously over the chicken-hearted approach of the Ontario government and its failure to accept -- in the spirit in which it was offered -- the Keiller Mackay report of 1969, and to put it into practice. The only part that was put into practice was the proposal for a course in world religions in grades 12 and 13 or 11 and 12. Some 4,000 students across the province were taking advantage of that as of 1977. The number has been declining.

In terms of having a sense of moral education and moral values going through every aspect of the curriculum, the government has had series after series of studies and research and that sort of thing, but it has been too chicken-hearted to try to do anything about looking at what we need. It is not the Lord's Prayer. It is to understand, among other things, how kids develop moral values. Some of the research done for the ministry itself suggests the development of moral values in children is very similar, whether the child is a Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist. It is not the brand or style of religion. The moral values taught by the great religions that are represented in our province are essentially the same.

One of the things the research done for the ministry indicates -- that I have been able to look at -- is that if schools are to inculcate moral values, the teachers must have a sense of what those moral values shall be. Obviously moral values lie at the heart of religion, however a person chooses to exercise his religious observance when he grows up. If there is confusion about moral values and a failure to include that with every aspect of the curriculum, it may well be because the teachers and the principals in the school system as a whole have not sought to think that question through.

If we want to see a reintegration of religious values in the school curriculum, which should include some study of what religious values and the religions of the world are all about, we have to start not with the kids, not with an extra half hour of religious instruction, but by looking at the system as a whole. We must look at how the teachers themselves are being formed and what kind of values they think are important. If they have no values they think are important they are not going to pass them on. It is hypocrisy to ask teachers who may not have much faith themselves -- I suspect 70 per cent of them are also nonparticipants in organized religion -- to say: "I do not go to church. I think that is a bunch of hogwash, but I want you to know about the Lord's Prayer."

The religion of Jesus was a forceful, dynamic and revolutionary religion. Jesus brought a message that in this Legislature would be extremely uncomfortable to the people on the government side. He talked about concern for the poor. He talked about equality. He talked about bringing the kingdom of heaven on this earth and not taking it away. We have a government that is moving us away from that. If we want to have the values of Jesus taught in the schools perhaps we had better go a great deal further than just uttering the Lord's Prayer from time to time. Perhaps we had better talk very fundamentally about what the values are on which we run this province. Many of those values are determined by us here in this Legislature.

Thank you.

5:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: You have approximately five and a half minutes.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution by the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), and I strongly support it because I believe in the principle the member has set out.

I am terribly disturbed at the comments of the member for Ottawa Centre, but I am not surprised.

Mr. Cassidy: Why are you disturbed?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: "Values choice." Talk about hypocritical actions. How can the member for Ottawa Centre come in here at the opening of the session on the occasions when he does attend and repeat the Lord's Prayer? We do it every day. I find it offensive that he should sit here, and yet he criticizes the use of the Lord's Prayer in the schools.

Mr. McClellan: Are you casting the first stone?

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am not sure what on earth the member is on about. I happen to come in here on occasion for the prayers and say the Lord's Prayer with other people from time to time. I have led religious services where I have led the Lord's Prayer. I am not sure what on earth the member is saying. This does not mean I believe that the Lord's Prayer --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member has had his full sufficient time. Speaking to the resolution.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Speaking to the resolution, I would like to remind the members of the Legislature and the people in the gallery of the fact that when the Toronto Board of Education a few years ago decided to drop the reading of the Lord's Prayer from their daily curriculum --

Mr. Cassidy: They had not been doing it for 20 years, and the government never raised a finger.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. Allow the member the opportunity to use his time.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Both the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) refused to allow the board to drop this practice. In September 1979 the Premier made the following statement:

"I believe the people of Ontario and the people of Canada do share some common strands of culture and identity which are not an unfair imposition on the culture, heritage and freedom of many who have come to our country as a matter of choice and who have justifiable pride in their cultural heritage. The Lord's Prayer is an important part of the values that shape our society, and it could in fact be continued in the school system without at all threatening a society which makes tolerance, freedom and cultural diversity basic tenets."

The Toronto Board of Education wished to replace the Lord's Prayer with a minute of silent meditation and reflection.

Mr. Cassidy: Are you against that?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I happen to be a member of the United Church. My son is an Anglican priest, and he is married to a Quaker. And the Quakers believe in silent meditation. She was also a teacher in the Toronto school system and was very offended when the first enactment came through that she was denied the right to repeat the Lord's Prayer in her school. She felt strongly against it. She had the benefit of both sides, and she felt that something was missing.

Those students deserve the opportunity to learn something about religion. If 70 per cent of the school children never receive any religious teaching at home surely we would be less than fair if we did not give them some opportunity to learn something about the religions of this world in the schools.

I asked the library research people to give me some information on the religious denominations in Ontario, and there are 27 different religious affiliations in this province. There is also a class called "others" and one called "no religion," so I would say there are 29. I feel that we could do a service to our society if we were to teach our young people more about the religious beliefs of others, not just our own.

I would just like to make one comment in relation to an article that appeared in the Toronto Star last Saturday. I forget the headline, but it was something like Teachers Punched Out. It mentioned that one study concluded that an average teacher only stood the chance of being beaten up once every 6.7 years. Once every seven years a teacher would receive a pounding at the hands of students. They thought that was acceptable. I find it totally offensive.

In conclusion, I would like to quote from Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members who took part in this debate. My colleague for Kitchener-Wilmot mentioned that part of the resolution was that school boards should not be able to ask for exemption. That is true, but there is one other part to the resolution and that is that we should be adhering to the present act, which calls for one hour of religious education in the schools per week.

The member for Ottawa Centre says this one resolution will not change anything so he is not going to support it. I would suggest he might decide to vote for it and show that the Legislature has some concern and really wants something done.

I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Downsview, but he talked about forcing our beliefs on others. The resolution is directed to the 70 per cent who do not attend church. On Sunday they can attend the church of their choice, so I do not feel we are forcing anyone.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the cooperation of all honourable members not to conduct their private conversations in the chamber, please.

Mr. McKessock: I agree that changes should be made to the regulations but I also agree with Dr. Robin Smith of the United Church of Canada who said to me, "You cannot separate religion from education or you are leaving the door open to other philosophies, such as atheism."

There is no reason why every student in Ontario should not become familiar with the scriptures which, more than any other factor, have influenced the development of our western government and society. Teaching of moral values is fine, but teaching moral values only, so says Dr. Ron Watts, "Is like trying to get the fruit without the root."

In a letter on June 4 to the Minister of Education supporting this resolution, Grace United Church, Thornbury, says, "Recognizing that beliefs and morals cannot be legislated, we feel, however, that well-presented exposure in schools to Judaeo-Christian beliefs can effect a considerable positive impact on the lives of the young people who might otherwise have no contact with these concepts."

A letter to the Minister of Education from Rev. Gould of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, Burlington, states, "The home has the first responsibility in the instruction of children, but today many parents openly admit they have no 'ethics' to live by, and take the approach that children should decide for themselves. The problem is more acute in light of the fact that many children are never placed in the context of a church to be exposed to the Judaeo-Christian principles. If the school board has the right to exemption, many children are deprived of ever receiving exposure to Biblical principles so that they at least have the opportunity to consider and evaluate."

I have a letter of support from school trustee, Gordon Houghton of Elgin county, where religious education takes place very enthusiastically right now. Mr. Houghton and 15 other supporters are here today.

A letter from a family in Picton says, "We have three children, all in Christian day school. We chose this route as no other option was open to us as a means of achieving the very thing your resolution seeks."

There seems to be widespread support from the public at large for religious education. The question seems to be how to do it and what is the best way? I believe there are dozens of appropriate ways we could do it and we should get on with it. I want to encourage the members to vote for this resolution and I hope steps will be taken to put more emphasis on religious education.

5:50 p.m.

I also want to thank the singing group that came here today. I hope all the members got a chance to hear them. If they did not they really missed something. I heard somebody say it would be great if they were here every day because it would really give a lift to this place.

If we put more emphasis on religious education I hope this in turn may create enough interest in students in spiritual things to lead them to the place of worship of their choice in the community, and ultimately lead them to God where they will find the blessing, wisdom and strength to help them to be good and moral citizens of this great country.

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Samis's motion for second reading of Bill 126, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bernier, Boudria, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Harris, Hennessy, Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, Renwick, Roy, Ruston, Samis, Snow, Spensieri, Wrye.

Nays

Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Birch, Brandt, Breaugh, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gregory, Haggerty, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Jones, Kells, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, Mackenzie, Martel, McCaffrey, McCague, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell;

Norton, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Scrivener, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Stokes, Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Williams, Wiseman.

Ayes 22; nays 56.

6 p.m.

Mr. Conway: A point of order, Mr. Speaker: I

thought the rule was that once the bells had ceased ringing and the doors were locked, all honourable members in the chamber had an obligation to vote "Aye" or "Nay." The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has just escaped through your chambers. I draw that to your attention.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I would like to advise the member for Renfrew North that nothing is out of order. We have disposed of ballot item No. 20 and now we shall deal with ballot item No. 21.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: It has never been made clear before --

Mr. Speaker: It is now.

Mr. Nixon: -- that any member could leave this chamber after the bells had stopped and the doors were locked. If it is now, you are setting a precedent and it should be clearly understood it is a precedent.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is out of order. The vote has been disposed of. It has been taken. The motion has been declared lost. Now we are dealing --

Mr. Nixon: For the first time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is indeed not. I have treated all private members' ballots and resolutions in exactly the same way. We will now deal with ballot item No. 21, a notice of motion standing in the name of Mr. McKessock. Any member opposed to this matter coming to a vote will please now rise. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

May I ask the concurrence of the House to assume the bells have rung and all members stay in their places?

Mr. Nixon: This is a precedent.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is.

Mr. Roy: Can I still make it out of here?

Mr. Speaker: No. Well, yes, you may because the bells really have not rung.

Mr. Conway: On that point --

Mr. Speaker: No, I will listen to you.

Mr. Conway: I want to be very clear in my mind. In my seven years here I have always operated on the principle that once these doors were locked and members were in the chamber, I did not have the right to escape a vote by virtue of departing the scene through your chamber. I do not want to leave here this evening, sir, without being clear in my mind on that point. Do I understand your earlier ruling to indicate that you are giving me the opportunity that from this day forward I can come in here and once the bells have ceased ringing, escape through your doors to avoid a vote?

Mr. Speaker: Just so there will not be any doubt or misunderstanding in the minds of any of the members, we are dealing, and I have always dealt this way, with separate ballot items for the express purpose of allowing those members who may not want to vote on a given item the chance to exit from the chambers. That is the specific reason --

Mr. Ruston: The doors are still locked.

Mr. Speaker: I asked the concurrence of the House to assume the bells had rung and we would count the number of people who are here now. That was given.

Mr. Nixon: That is the first time you have ever done that.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is, because we have always rung the bells separately.

Mr. Nixon: No way.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, we have. I am not going to argue with you. I am telling you the way it is.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to your attention that when the Attorney General came in he presumably must have come in for the first vote. Surely, if the rule is to allow somebody to leave the chamber after the first vote in private members' hour, that is not what occurred in this case. The Attorney General apparently came in and then changed his mind. Are you now ruling a member can change his mind like that?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, this is in no way to challenge your ruling, but I would draw to your attention that on a number of occasions I have arrived late for the first vote and have not been able to get in afterwards for a vote because the doors were locked. I just draw that to your attention, although I am not arguing with your ruling now.

Mr. Speaker: That is quite true, but you have always been able to come in for the second vote if you are --

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Ruston: You cannot. The doors are locked. The doors are locked now.

Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.

6:10 p.m.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

The House divided on Mr. McKessock's motion of resolution 23, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Eves, Gregory, Haggerty, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Miller, G. I., Mitchell;

Newman, Norton, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Runciman, Ruston, Scrivener, Snow, Spensieri, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Stokes, Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Williams, Wiseman.

Nays

Boudria, Breaugh, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Di Santo, Fish, Harris, Johnston, R. F., Kells, Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Nixon, Renwick, Rotenberg, Roy, Samis, Wrye.

Ayes 56; nays 22.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business of the House for Friday and next week.

Tonight, with the agreement of the opposition House leaders, we will do third readings on today's Order Paper.

Tomorrow, we will call any additional third readings appearing on tomorrow's Order Paper; we will have municipal affairs bills in the following order: 12, 13, 15, 92, 62, 11, 29 and 119.

On Monday, June 28, in the afternoon and evening we will provide time to complete second reading of Bill 127 if it is not completed tonight; then second reading and committee of the whole House on Bills 5, 21, 143 and 120; then second reading and committee of the whole House on Bills 124 and 38.

On Tuesday, June 29, in the afternoon and evening we will have second reading and committee of the whole House on Bill 105, followed by legislation not completed on Monday.

On Wednesday, June 30, in the afternoon we will have second reading of Bills 142 and 138, with committee of the whole House on Bill 142 if there is time. The House will adjourn at 6 p.m. and not sit Thursday or Friday.

House recessed at 6:15 p.m.

June 24, 1982