Hansard Transcripts 1984-Jun-25 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to remind all members that tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of the official opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Utilizing the St. Lawrence River, the Great Lakes and connecting channels and canals, the system measures some 3,800 kilometres from the mouth of the St. Lawrence to Thunder Bay. In complexity of engineering and in sheer size, the seaway exceeds both the Panama and Suez canals.

Throughout its brief history the Great Lakes seaway has become one of the main transportation networks linking Canada's industrial and agricultural centres to the rest of the world. Averaging more than 50 million metric tons of cargo per year -- I am not sure whether that is a short or a long ton -- the seaway plays a major role in the economic life of the Great Lakes basin. Indeed, the total value of commodities shipped through the system this year will be in excess of $10 billion. These shipments are made possible in part by the efforts of the 17,000 persons who are directly employed by the marine industry in this province.

Thus Ontarians may look back upon the first 25 years of seaway operations with pride and satisfaction. As competition between trading nations intensifies, this vital route will assume an even greater importance to the economic wellbeing of our province.

On behalf of the government and members of the House, I extend congratulations on this silver anniversary and best wishes for continued success to all those associated with the St. Lawrence Seaway.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement today concerning children's mental health services in Metropolitan Toronto, the regions of Peel and Halton, and Dufferin county.

In line with this responsibility, my ministry is starting up new children's mental health centres to be run by community agencies and boards in Etobicoke and Peel, and will enhance the services currently available in the region of Halton and the county of Dufferin. These are growth areas to the west and northwest of Metropolitan Toronto. I have included Etobicoke, an area geographically within Metro, because, like Peel, Halton and Dufferin, it is becoming increasingly subjected to the pressures and stress of urban influence.

In order to carry out fully our responsibility to the children and families living in these areas, my ministry has been examining carefully the best way to co-ordinate, streamline and, where necessary, augment these services.

These increased resources for the provision of children's mental health services in our ministry's central region have been made urgent by the changing population in suburban areas. The child population in these areas has increased by 17 per cent in recent years and it continues to grow.

Over the last seven years, since 1977, my ministry has been dedicated to the provision of services for children with emotional difficulties. Since 1977, we have increased the 55 centres to 81. For the 1984-85 fiscal year, my ministry projects an expenditure of approximately $115 million for these services.

Let me give the House a brief indication of the new and augmented services that will be coming into effect.

As I have stated many times before, we in my ministry firmly believe that community care is the ideal alternative to residential care where humanly possible. Indeed, for many of the people for whom my ministry has responsibility, it may be the best alternative, providing a more satisfactory way of life for these people themselves and an advantage to the community. Following this principle, we believe that children who need these services should be able to receive them from services available in the community and from services provided through locally based community boards.

In most instances, the expertise is already out there in the community. My ministry's job is to help redirect that professional knowledge into areas where children need it most.

Our commitment is to ensure that existing services to children and their families are continued as we move towards the consolidation and co-ordination of existing services. Staff in the programs involved in this initiative will be informed of the plans that affect them and they will be encouraged to participate in the transition process to ensure services are maintained.

In the west end of Metropolitan Toronto, we are creating a brand new children's agency, the Etobicoke Children's Centre. This new centre will be operated by a local community board with an annual operating budget of $3 million. Its work will be enhanced by the divestment of some of the services from the Thistletown Regional Centre and the reorganization of the former Aldergrove Centre, both run by my ministry.

It is with great satisfaction that I am able to tell you now that Dr. Clive Chamberlain, one of our most renowned and respected child psychiatrists, will be associated with the new centre.

The services of the new Etobicoke Children's Centre are being expanded to include a range of community programs, along with day treatment and residential services. I would like to mention briefly some of the services that children and young people can expect through the new Etobicoke Children's Centre in each of two locations, in Rexdale and in the southern part of Etobicoke.

Assessment and treatment services will provide psychological and developmental assessments. These services will also include family, individual and group treatment. Other services include day programs and treatment and school support, therapeutic day programs, a home care program, and residential services in both the Rexdale and southern part of Etobicoke for hard-to-serve adolescents in crisis. A group of child psychiatrists will work out of the new Etobicoke centre and will provide consultation and clinical services.

Continuing this expansion, a new Peel Children's Centre will be set up in the region of Peel. It will consolidate existing children's mental health services within the region, including those services currently provided by the ministry's facility, Thistletown, to the region of Peel and also new services to enhance the capabilities within the region. The responsibility for the organization and operation of the new centre will be in the hands of a local board who are in the best position to know the needs of their children and their community.

The new Peel centre will have a consolidated budget of approximately $2.25 million with a broad range of services, including residential services, outreach services, a family court clinic and other specialized services.

The Peel Children's Centre will serve children and families throughout Caledon, Brampton and Mississauga. In addition, the community in Dufferin county will have access to the services of the centre through its outreach programs.

2:10 p.m.

Let me return for a moment to the subject of divestment of staff from Thistletown and associated services, which I have just mentioned. My ministry recognizes the important caring contribution the staff has made and is making. Every effort will be made to ensure they will continue to assist us in the provision of services to children.

Turning now to Halton region, I am able to tell members services there will be enhanced by the infusion of $150,000 additional funding. Funding for programs in Halton during the 1984-85 fiscal year will be approximately $1.1 million. Services will be available through the present centres in Burlington and Milton and a new service in Oakville. New assessment and counselling services, including psychologist and social worker services, will be available and the existing residential day treatment and prevention programs will be enhanced.

My ministry will work with service providers and other professionals in Halton to ensure that new and expanded programs provide real help for the region's children where and when it is needed, a joint effort we plan to continue for many years.

The ministry's Thistletown Regional Centre in Rexdale, with an allocation of some $12.7 million a year, will retain its role as a regionally oriented centre. It will continue to focus on the emotional, behavioural and developmental disturbances of children and youth from age three to 19 years. Thistletown offers psychiatric treatment for adolescents and their families through outpatient, day care and residential programs. It provides treatment, prevention services, research and evaluation for children and adolescents with developmental disorders, including autism.

Through Interface, Thistletown's integrated resources for family assessment, consultation and education program, children and families in the region of York will continue to receive services. Thistletown will also maintain its secure treatment and secure care services at the Syl Apps Youth Centre in Oakville.

Thistletown maintains its role as one of Canada's foremost facilities for research and prevention for children with emotional disorders and developmental disturbances, in association with the University of Toronto. This centre will continue to be a major resource place in the ministry's central region not only for its residential and outreach work but also for the knowledge it possesses for the wellbeing and benefit of children in this province.

Our goal is to maintain and expand services for children with emotional disorders and developmental disturbances throughout the province. This new thrust, the joint initiative I have just outlined between my ministry and the communities involved, is proof of our commitment to the children of Ontario.

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the reappointment of the chairman of the Ontario Waste Management Corp., Dr. Donald A. Chant, and the other six members of the board of directors of the corporation for a further three-year term.

I am also appointing a new director to the board, Graham W. S. Scott. Members will recall Mr. Scott as a very able Deputy Minister of Health, and prior to that, as Deputy Minister of the Environment. Mr. Scott is now a partner in a leading Toronto law firm. We are pleased to have his valued experience in the fields of environment, health and law to serve the corporation.

The Ontario Waste Management Corp. was established as a crown agency in July 1981 to find an appropriate site, or sites, and then to design, construct and operate a province-wide facility for the treatment and disposal of liquid industrial and hazardous wastes.

Since its appointment, the corporation has been engaged in its first challenge, to identify a site, or sites, for the establishment of a needed industrial waste treatment facility for the province. After carrying out extensive hydrogeological and other environmental studies in southwestern Ontario, the corporation concentrated its search for the required facilities within the Golden Horseshoe, a heavily industrialized area in which more than 70 per cent of Ontario's liquid industrial wastes are generated.

In 1983, the corporation identified 150 potential sites within 20 specific areas. Last March, the OWMC announced it had narrowed its search to eight candidate sites. During the past three years, the corporation has conducted an effective public consultation program. It has held numerous workshops, seminars and public meetings that have been attended by thousands of our residents.

As I have said on numerous occasions, the site or sites ultimately proposed by the corporation will be submitted to a Hearing Panel on Industrial Waste Management. The panel will then convene public hearings to ensure that the ultimate site is a safe place for the facility, that the proposed facility is technologically sound and that it will be operated in an environmentally safe manner.

I am pleased to announce today that Denis M. Coolican of Ottawa will serve as chairman of the panel and Dr. O. Harold Warwick of London, Ontario, will continue as one of the hearing officers. Mr. Coolican, a chemical engineer, is a member of the Environmental Assessment Board. He has a distinguished record of public service, including 10 years as chairman of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and he is currently president of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society. Dr. Warwick practised medicine in London for many years and is a former professor --

Mr. Martel: Warwick, you said?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Warwick; that is what I said.

Mr. Martel: "Enough Tories;" that is what Mulroney said yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Dr. Warwick practised medicine in London for many years and is a former professor and dean of medicine of the University of Western Ontario. He has served as executive director of the National Cancer Institute of Canada and the Canadian Cancer Society.

Today I am announcing the appointment of three new members of the panel: A. H. Bert Weeks, who will serve as vice-chairman.

Mr. Breaugh: There is one good one.

Mr. Ruston: Former New Democrat, now a Tory.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What thunderous applause from across the floor.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I noted there were at least two who were taking an active interest in that particular appointment.

Mr. Weeks is currently chairman of the Windsor Utilities Commission and was mayor of that fine city in southwestern Ontario for about eight years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Where is that?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Windsor, Ontario, a fine community.

He is also a former vice-president of that distinguished organization known as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

Dr. George M. Delgrosso is another appointment to this hearing panel. Dr. Delgrosso served as president of Lambton Community College in Sarnia for 12 years from 1967 to 1979.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Where is he from?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: He is originally, I believe, from somewhere outside Sarnia, but he now resides in Sarnia and is now a private consultant in human relations.

Harry M. Smith is another appointment to the hearing panel. Mr. Smith has served as a councillor, a deputy reeve and a mayor of the town of Ajax. He has just recently completed a term as a member of the Environmental Assessment Board.

I am pleased to report that the panel now will begin developing its rules of procedure as well as planning for the forthcoming public hearings.

My personal commitment and the prime objective of the Ontario government is to ensure the safety and health of Ontario residents. This was clearly established by the government when it created the Ontario Waste Management Corp. and the hearing panel, and set in motion the important process of finding a site and developing a facility for the safe treatment and disposal of the wastes that are generated by Ontario industry. The corporation and the panel will reflect this commitment as they proceed with their very important work.

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to advise the House that the proclamation order for the Health Protection and Promotion Act, 1983, has been approved by cabinet and the act will be proclaimed to come into force on July 1, 1984. I believe it is the most progressive public health legislation in North America and, as such, has great significance for the health and wellbeing of all Ontario residents.

The act focuses on the promotion of healthy lifestyles and the prevention of illness. In this respect it reflects a growing interest on the part of the general public in learning more about what contributes to wellbeing and good health. The act and its regulations are therefore designed to help people exercise greater responsibility in personal and family health by providing them with the necessary support services.

This focus on preventive health care is strongly endorsed by Ontario's health professionals. In fact, at the series of planning conferences, Health Care in the '80s and Beyond, that was held throughout the province last year, health promotion was identified as Ontario's number one health care priority.

2:20 p.m.

Until today, the organization and delivery of public health programs in the province was controlled by the Public Health Act of 1882. While this act had been amended several times in the past century, it no longer reflected our modern-day social environment or the role and scope of public health services. A major review and revision of the Public Health Act was therefore undertaken.

One of the distinguishing features of this legislation is that it represents several years of consultation with numerous committees and individuals from local health boards. The universities, the related health care professions, the general public and other ministries were also involved. Since it received third reading in February 1983, additional consultations took place to develop the regulations and guidelines that accompany the act.

The new act clarifies the roles of the 43 boards of health and medical officers of health who are responsible for ensuring the provision of public health services. It eliminates outdated and unnecessary provisions of the old act and has been designed as a concise statute that can be easily understood.

However, what sets the act apart from previous public health legislation is the requirement that throughout the province a basic core of seven standard health services will now be available. Required services include community sanitation, communicable disease control, preventive dentistry, family health, home care, nutrition and health education.

The wording of the act -- that every board "shall superintend, provide or ensure the provision of" the designated services -- is intended to encourage boards to work with local agencies in the planning and delivery of these services and, where appropriate, to play a co-ordinating role.

To ensure more effective control of communicable diseases, for example, boards of health now have strengthened responsibilities with respect to immunization. They will make available information about immunization and ensure its provision through regular clinics and family physicians.

Hearing and vision testing and a health assessment are to be made available for each child before or upon entry to school. For our growing elderly population, services will be available to assess their mental and physical wellbeing, and particular attention will be directed to high-risk seniors. Preventive dentistry programs include fluoride therapy and instruction in oral hygiene for elementary school children. A nutrition information and advisory service will be made available to communities.

Some of these services and programs are already available through some of the 43 boards of health. However, in certain instances, programs will have to be developed and the required resources found. In recognition of this, the mandatory programs will be implemented in phases. The first phase should be operational within a year or so, with subsequent phases introduced over the next several years, according to local needs.

While the act establishes standard levels of services for all boards of health, each board is free to introduce additional programs in response to local needs. Thus, individual boards will continue to exercise the creativity they have shown in the past and which has been fundamental as input to this legislation.

The creation of the position of chief medical officer of health for the province will also help to ensure effective accountability in the delivery of services. For the first time in legislation, the role that boards of health play in occupational and environmental health is recognized. Medical officers of health are required to keep informed of occupational and environmental health issues and to work closely with officials in the ministries of Labour and Environment with respect to these matters.

We can be justly proud of this new Health Protection and Promotion Act. It represents the collective wisdom of Ontario's health professionals, numerous health-related interest groups, members of the general public, ministry personnel and members of this House. It breaks new ground in public health service and standards, and it reflects our society's growing awareness about personal responsibility for health and wellbeing.

Therefore, I am confident that the Health Protection and Promotion Act will lead to better health and better health protection for all residents of Ontario.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would like to raise a matter of personal privilege arising out of a story appearing in today's Globe and Mail. I am sorry the leader of the third party is not present for this; I suppose it is because he is suffering from a severe case of puzzlement and outrage. In any event, it relates to the allegation that --

Mr. Martel: Wrong again. When have you ever been right?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- I have expended in the past year something like $2.7 million in the operation of my office.

The information is clearly there and the members are well aware --

Mr. Martel: We tried to get that information and the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) would not give it to us.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- of the fact that they have something in excess of 20 hours in which to question me during estimates on such matters as this.

For the benefit of the members who may have some concern about my spending habits, the total portion of that $2.7 million that is spent on my office operation is some $168,000. This is attributable to such matters as travel, telephone, telegraph, conferences, related expenses, equipment rentals, repairs, etc., for the operation of our office.

Other expenses are included in the $2.7 million, and this may have misled some of the members and deterred them from inquiring further. All the statutory committees and boards which my ministry is responsible for are also paid out of that same item but are not paid for as part of the budget for my office.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health should have been here on Friday to hear the question posed to the Chairman of Management Board. He would have noted that the leader of this party took those costs which were shown in the sheets prepared by the Office of the Assembly and put them against those figures in the Public Accounts of Ontario. This showed it is impossible for us to reach any conclusion as to what is spent by cabinet ministers.

We have been trying to get those figures for some time. It appears to me the minister is stonewalling. The only thing my leader could suggest is that it could be either one or the other. If the Chairman of Management Board was not going to give us the other facts, then we were justified in suggesting that the costs were what my leader has said.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: If the minister wants to put his figures on the table, minister by minister, we would be delighted to see them.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would like to point out that I was in the House on Friday. In fact, I was here until I had to leave to attend a meeting with members --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the minister resume his seat, please?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Can I complete my response, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Ms. Copps: I have a point of privilege relating to a different matter.

I am happy to see the minister is not a million-dollar man, he is a $168,000 man; and that is double the highest expenditure of any ordinary member of this Legislature. I wish that all --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton Centre will please resume her seat.

Ms. Copps: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You do have a point of privilege?

REPORT ON EMERGENCY SHELTER

Ms. Copps: I have a point of privilege on an issue arising from the emergency food demand, which I am sure would not interest the Premier (Mr. Davis). None the less, it may interest the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Wonderful; clever.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: -- to know that we attempted today to receive a copy of a public report developed by his ministry and published in May 1984, called the Emergency Shelter and Assistance Program Project Report. We were denied access to that public report by the people in his ministry. They said that as a result of the Toronto Star article on Saturday this issue was too politically hot and they were not going to give us the report.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member can have the report any time she wants, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know the person the member spoke to. Does she want that report?

Ms. Copps: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Then she can go over to my office tomorrow morning and she can have it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources with respect to the private use of government aircraft.

No doubt he is aware of the article in the Sunday Sun with respect to the private use for fishing trips of Ministry of Natural Resources aircraft. It suggested that MPPs, cabinet ministers, senior bureaucrats and dignitaries use government aircraft, I gather, to fly in to some remote lake with a cabin owned by his ministry for private fishing trips.

What is the minister's policy with respect to the use of government aircraft for those private fishing trips? Are the expenses billed back to anyone and, if so, to whom? Does he have records? Who has access to those remote cabins owned by his ministry? Is there a bill-back? Who provides those facilities?

Clearly, the aircraft and the lodge are part of the minister's responsibility, so I would like to know from him what the government's policy is in that regard.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Natural Resources has many hundreds of buildings across this province. Many are located in parks and many are located on other public lands beyond park boundaries. They are used by Ministry of Natural Resources employees and they are used by Junior Rangers. We house 1,716 every summer. They are also used to house students working in the Experience program.

Mr. Haggerty: They are not bureaucrats.

Hon. Mr. Pope: They are employees of the Ministry of Natural Resources during the summer months. As I indicated through my staff last week when this question arose, I have been in four such facilities in the three years I have been minister. One was for half a day in a facility at Pinery Park while I was doing a park tour of the southern part of the province. Quite frankly, we used the facilities to change my son's diapers.

Mr. Nixon: I do not know whether that is in the Manual of Administration.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Where is that covered in the Manual of Administration?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I do not think that is covered in the manual.

Mr. Peterson: Your son is 17.

Hon. Mr. Pope: That is not very nice. I am going to tell him the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) said that. He is named after him.

The second facility that I have been in --

Mr. Peterson: Why do you not take Larry's nanny?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I didn't know you had a son named Turkey.

Hon. Mr. Pope: It is getting worse over here.

The second facility was --

Mr. Speaker: Having regard to the time available, I think we had better get on to the supplementary question.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I just wanted to indicate to the member that I have personally been at Hawley Lake twice in the three years I have been minister. Once was as a result of a four-hour trip to Moosonee. I went to the James Bay Education Centre, and then on up to Hawley Lake. We landed in a snowstorm.

Mr. Peterson: What did the minister have for lunch? That is not my question and I will rephrase it if it will be helpful. I am not interested in his particular itinerary. I know as minister he is busy and travels around the north a great deal in government planes. I congratulate him for having time to change his son's diapers. He could change a few more over there while he is at it.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: That is not the question. There is a very clear suggestion in this article that there has been an abuse of government aircraft, not by the minister on business -- that is not the issue -- but by ministers of the crown and MPPs of this House on pure pleasure for fishing, and by senior bureaucrats and other dignitaries who have been flown in at government expense, using government facilities. That is my question; it is not what the minister did personally.

What is the minister's policy in that regard? Does he have records? Has there been abuse of that privilege by individuals, by members of this government or others? What is his policy in that regard? Will he table the records in this House?

Hon. Mr. Pope: First, as to whether there has been abuse, I do not believe there has been. I am not aware of any request for the use of the Hawley Lake facility this summer. I am only aware of one request last summer by one other member of cabinet.

The policy we have is that, when there is a request to use a Ministry of Natural Resources facility or aircraft, we first see whether the facility is available; and it is the same with the aircraft. It is up to the individual requesting the service to determine that he is following the Manual of Administration. That is the same answer I gave the Leader of the Opposition with respect to aircraft. There is nothing unusual in that.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could confirm, for the information of the House, a statement that was made to me some months ago by the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) that he and other members of the government, as well as individuals who had associations with the Progressive Conservative Party, were flown on a fishing trip by a Natural Resources aircraft. I am prepared to swear an affidavit to that information which was given to me by the member for Northumberland.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I do not know to what the member is referring. If she can give me a date, I will try to find out from the member for Northumberland.

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. It refers to some of the phantom budget programs to create employment in this province in his budget of almost six weeks ago now, where we looked for action and found none.

Let me be very specific. A particular gentleman of Niagara Falls, some 49 years old, read or heard in the Treasurer's budget about a proposal to provide a $2,000 incentive to employers to hire and train laid-off workers over the age of 45. He was eligible, so he went about inquiring how he could be part of that program. The local community college was unable to help him. He contacted the office of one of the responsive members of the Legislature in that regard.

Why is it that the colleges still, and Niagara College in this particular case, were told last Thursday it would be at least a month before any new information would be provided before the program gets going, if there is a real program? Again, my question is this: is this another one of the Treasurer's phantom programs? Why is it not going at this date after the budget? When is he going to do something substantial to address the problems of training, retraining and unemployment in this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because we want to do something substantial, not something knee-jerk as the member suggested, that it takes a period of weeks to get these programs running. In the case of the program to which the member is referring, a submission has been done by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities with regard to the precise shape of that program.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: At the very next meeting of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, I believe, the ministry will be bringing its submission. Therefore, I expect the program will be in effect in the next six to eight weeks.

Mr. Peterson: What does the Treasurer do? Does he make up the numbers and the names and then get the other people to work out the program for him and go out to advertise it?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: This is what the Treasurer is doing. This delay is incredible, as is the fact there has not been more thought put in these programs.

With respect to the whole Ontario training incentive program, which was announced a year or so ago, there are still no guidelines. The only thing that is happening is a $1,000 bonus for a 10-week familiarization period with new employees. However, in reality, it is going to be months more before the Treasurer has the regulations or the program in place to offer real programs and real retraining in that regard.

I ask the Treasurer again: Why does it take him so long to get off his duff and do something? Did he not think this out ahead of time in his budget? Was renaming and reshuffling the deck the only process he went through, rather than having really specific ideas in his own mind?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The way the system goes -- and I understand the member's unfamiliarity with the way government operates -- we met with our colleagues at some length. We determined what programs might be appropriate. We then determined with our colleagues a fairly accurate estimate of the financial resources necessary to fund those programs. We then agreed to those programs at the Treasury level.

We asked our colleagues to refine the precise operation of those programs for us by way of a subsequent submission to BILD, to make sure the programs were thought through, with the community colleges in this case, in order that the delivery mechanisms would be properly in place. We also wanted to make sure the funding levels were accurate.

I would tell the member right now that a couple of the programs appear as though they will cost a little more and some look as if they will cost a little less than I originally anticipated. However, this is the way we anticipated the program would go.

Therefore, it is precisely because we have developed programs that are complicated but well thought out and carefully structured that it takes more time than just pressing a switch and saying: "Let us spend $60 million, $70 million or $80 million to hire some kids. Then, after we have them on government payroll, let us figure out what papers they will shuffle."

Instead, we have rejected that capital L-Liberal approach and gone with a very thoughtful, carefully planned and carefully organized program that will help hundreds of thousands of young people.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have been attempting to obtain information on the details of those programs, so I could pass them on to the students, small businessmen and others who have approached me. Can the minister tell me when the detailed information on how people apply will be made available, so we can pass it on to the people who have made inquiries of us?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the budget contains so many initiatives -- I have four pages of them -- and they have various dates for implementation. The estimated startup dates range from early July for the next group, some are already in place, through to early autumn. As those programs come into place --

Mr. Martel: When do we get the details?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will not have the details for the member until we finalize them, and I have just told him that is an ongoing process that will be completed by mid-autumn. I understand the member would like the traditional knee-jerk stuff. We do not have it here.

Mr. Peterson: Does the Treasurer realize that not only has he done nothing new of substance, but also he has actually suspended a number of programs that were working and working well? He has retarded progress. The Ontario training incentive program, for example, was suspended on April 1. It was working modestly, but it was working. The Treasurer suspended the operation of that program for three, four or five months pending new guidelines.

The government is doing nothing. Why does the Treasurer not let the existing programs, the ones that are making a contribution, go ahead rather than wait for him, Camp and Atkins, his public relations people and everybody else to get out the advertising program? Surely the problem is still sufficiently critical, particularly in the category of older workers over 45 who need retraining, to allow the old programs to proceed until he can think of something new to replace them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to be very clear for the Leader of the Opposition. The old programs are proceeding. There is a gradual phasing from those programs into the new programs, precisely what he suggested we should not do a moment ago. He suggested the new programs should have started the day of the budget.

We will leave aside that contradiction for a moment. In this case once again, the member is uninformed or misinformed. Whatever the circumstance, he is totally wrong when he suggests those programs were stopped dead in their tracks. He is dead wrong; more dead perhaps than wrong, but dead wrong.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, if I can get his attention. The minister will recall that several weeks ago I raised a question with respect to the differential cost between leaded and unleaded gasoline. I indicated it was a spread of 11 cents a gallon. The minister responded to this just 10 days ago with the most nonsensical and immature answer I have heard in this House in a long time.

Environment Canada indicates through its studies that there is only a four tenths of a cent per litre difference in the cost of production of unleaded gasoline as opposed to leaded gasoline. The minister's answer, which is in four parts, gives us as one reason such a silly thing as the fact that unleaded gasoline costs more to manufacture than leaded gasoline, without any breakdown in figures as to what those increased costs are. In addition, more crude oil is required. Whoop-de-do.

Yet the price is 2.4 cents a litre difference. If Environment Canada says it is only four tenths of a cent per litre, will the minister provide for me the figures that make up that 11 cents a gallon or 2.4 cents a litre difference? Why has the ministry allowed the oil companies to rip off the consumers of Ontario to the tune of $82 million in the past year?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to provide the honourable member with the figures. I thought that was included in the response to his question, but in rereading that response, I see those details were not included.

Once again, I think the matter of the price differential between unleaded and leaded gasoline has been discussed in this House before. As I pointed out in my response to the honourable member, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) did take up this issue with his federal counterpart in December 1982. He asked his counterpart to investigate, in the light of Environment Canada's studies, whether or not the anti-trust legislation was being violated. His federal counterpart wrote back to him on December 29, 1982, suggesting that such was not the case. He said they were not prepared to pursue that issue any further at this time.

I have conferred with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and certainly we are prepared to pursue this matter once again with the "new" Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: This government does not seem prepared to investigate this matter very carefully. Is part of the reason that out of the $82 million or $83 million I speak about, this government is grabbing about $16 million for itself through the ad valorem tax? Will the minister put aside the government's own self-interest and investigate whether that 11 cents -- which has crept up from five cents -- is justified or not?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I think it is unfair to suggest we have any self-interest in this whole debate at all, other than to serve the constituency of the province properly. The fact that the differential does exist is due to the method by which the tax is collected. It is collected on an ad valorem basis and I pointed that out in my response to the member.

I would say the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and I are quite prepared to pursue this issue with the federal department that has the jurisdiction under the anti-trust legislation.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he does not have an interest in it but he certainly does, with all the income the government gets from this tax. The people of this province, and likely the rest of Canada, are fed up with these fluctuating gas prices.

The minister says he is ready to co-operate and pursue this matter. Would he make public how he is prepared to pursue it so gas prices will come down or at least be stabilized? People should not be getting it one day at 20-some cents a litre and the next day at 50-some cents a litre. What is he prepared to do to pursue this further, not only with the federal minister but also with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations?

Hon Mr. Andrewes: I think I responded to that question. The honourable member suggested the people of the province are fed up with fluctuating gas prices. I have not sensed any aversion on their part to taking advantage of the lower prices offered periodically when gas wars occur.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Martel: I do not know who starts the gas wars and causes the unrest. The minister tries to make it the responsibility of the federal government but I wonder if he recalls when on July 3, 1975, the Premier (Mr. Davis) made the following statement in the Legislature: "Today the government proposes to introduce an Act to be known as the Gasoline and Fuel Oil Price Freeze Act, 1975."

If the minister had the authority in 1975 to freeze prices, then what in God's name is preventing him today from acting to protect the consumers of Ontario from the gouging that is going on? Those beggars have raised the price between leaded and unleaded from five cents to 11 cents a gallon, ripping us off to the tune of $80-odd million in the last year. If it could be frozen in 1975, according to the Premier's statement, why does the minister not have the power to do so today?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I was not here in 1975 nor do I recall the statement the member is alluding to.

Mr. Martel: I will send him a copy.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I would appreciate it very much if he would send me a copy of the statement. I would think, if memory serves me somewhat correctly, that at that particular time there was a rather difficult situation facing this province in that there was an apparent lack of supply throughout Canada of these particular petroleum products.

Perhaps the Premier's statement more correctly alluded to the concern that we might have faced a crisis in supply rather than price and that under those circumstances certain less reputable firms may have taken advantage of that situation to price their product beyond its probable natural return.

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION BILL

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning Bill 142, the Barrie-Vespra Annexation Act. I wanted to put it to the Premier, but he is not here. I thought I would put it to the government House leader and he is not here. I thought I would put it to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and he is not here. I guess I will have to settle for the Deputy Premier.

Mr. Nixon: Ask Bette. She knows the answer.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not sure I would talk, if I were you.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Breaugh: I am trying. These people keep interrupting me, Mr. Speaker, and I am so sensitive.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier why the government does not simply adjourn this House this afternoon and set up a team of negotiators from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to go to the people at Vespra, Barrie and Simcoe county and negotiate the very important financial transaction that will surround Bill 142. They will probably know that is normally the way this type of annexation procedure would be resolved.

Can the minister provide us with an explanation as to why we have on the Orders and Notices a closure motion around a boundary dispute? As far as I can determine, it is the first time in the history of a parliament anywhere in the world that a government has used a closure motion to resolve a boundary dispute.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it seems to be in accordance with the proper orders. There is a government notice of motion. There will be ample opportunity during the debate of that motion to make the record quite clear with respect to the long period of negotiation that has in fact transpired and the very full debate that has already gone on in this House on this particular issue in the democratic process. Obviously, it becomes part of the democratic process that eventually the House is given the right to vote.

What we are really saying is that in the democratic process against the whole rule of accountability, ultimately to the larger electorate, we should indeed bring this particular matter to some point of resolution and allow the members of this House to stand in their places and vote on this issue. However, I think there will be ample opportunity during the course of the debate to review all these matters which have preceded us with respect to negotiation, I understand for over 10 years, and other matters that have been part of the negotiation and discussion for a fairly lengthy period of time.

I would reiterate that the principle is that when matters come before the House by way of resolution, surely we have some obligation ultimately to let the elected representatives of the Legislature vote on the issue.

Mr. Martel: It is called confiscation. That is what you are doing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: I notice the minister has been joined by some of his colleagues and he may wish to refer the question.

In the name of all common sense, would it not be a more logical process, given the four-month recess, simply to have people from Municipal Affairs and Housing go to Vespra, Barrie and Simcoe and sit around a table and negotiate the financial aspects of this particular dispute? It is conceivable; it is possible; it has been done time and time again. Why in the world would this government move closure on a bill of this nature?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has returned to the House, and indeed the honourable member made some reference to representatives of his ministry carrying on some negotiations, the matter should now be referred to him to expand on that particular point.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the question is well placed in today's environment. The fact remains that the dispute that has gone on between Barrie and Vespra has been going on for well nigh 10 years. As the member knows, there have been a number of court cases and Ontario Municipal Board hearings; there have been other negotiations between me and, indeed, preceding ministers representing Municipal Affairs.

I made it very clear back in December of last year when I introduced the bill that we were prepared to sit down and negotiate the financial settlements relating to the boundary adjustment with Vespra. That offer has been on the table. Indeed, Mr. Eric Fleming, the assistant deputy minister, whom the member happens to know, has made the trip to Vespra, has spoken to the clerk of Vespra and has spoken to other members in that particular community in a sincere effort to try to bring Vespra at least to sit down and do some negotiations concerning the financial obligations that both we and the city of Barrie would have in relation to the boundary settlement.

I say very sincerely that we said to Vespra at that time what our intentions were with regard to legislation; I am going back to December 5 when we introduced the bill. We said at the time that we were open for negotiations. We are still open for negotiations, but we have not succeeded in getting Vespra to sit down and put its position clearly and distinctly before us.

Vespra is of the opinion -- with some justification, I guess, because of the way things have gone in relation to this bill -- that it will never happen. I only want to suggest we have made it very clear to Vespra that I took the zoning order off after we had introduced this bill to facilitate the further development of the shopping centre to allow for some opportunity for commercial development in that area and to allow for some further employment in a time and in an economy in which things were a little depressed.

I made it very clear that this was the system we were working under. We want Vespra to come to the table; they have not, and I suggest very strongly in this House today that until this bill is passed, the chances of having Vespra come and sit with us appear to be very remote.

Mr. Martel: Sounds like blackmail.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, it is not blackmail.

Mr. Martel: Sure it is. If you do not get the bill through, they --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, how in all conscience, in all fairness, in all reasonableness can the minister get up in the House and say he has asked Vespra to come to the table to negotiate with him when not one single time has he put anything before Vespra to negotiate with? He has never in all these months put --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Do not be stupid.

Mr. Epp: Why do you not pay attention?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: He has never put a package before Vespra that it could accept or partially accept. All he has said from time to time is, "Come to the negotiating table and we will treat you fairly." He has never put a package there and said, "Look, we will give you $10 million," "We will give you $5 million," "We will extend the period of implementation" or anything else.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Epp: He has just said: "We are great guys. Why do you not accept what we want to give you? But we will go behind closed doors and kick you in the shins there so nobody can see us."

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that when you ask somebody to come forward, he comes forward with his particular case. We went to Barrie and Vespra, the member will recall. He will recall this distinctly, I hope, because he defended Vespra's case; at times we thought he might have been the legal counsel for Vespra in the hearings.

Frankly, we have gone there. We have negotiated the boundaries down from what we originally proposed in the bill. Indeed, we said at the time it would be open-ended so there would be some opportunity for Vespra and others to participate in trying to establish a new boundary line. That boundary line has now been established because of the committee hearings, which I believe we generally accept. The fact remains that I have said to Vespra to come forward with its proposal. It believes it has been done ill by from a dollar and cent point of view. I have said, "Come forward and put your case very clearly to us." At that time we will then negotiate the position.

3 p.m.

Whether they want it behind closed doors or open doors I do not care a tinker's darn at all. We are prepared to negotiate with Vespra at any time it comes forward with its package, the same as we have dealt with Innisfil and with Brantford. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) can tell members very honestly that we have negotiated it time and time again in a fair and honest way from this government's point of view. At the very hearings we are talking about, Innisfil came forward to speak in glowing terms about the fairness, equity and honesty dealt to it by this government in relation to the boundary adjustment between Innisfil and Barrie. I challenge the member to remember that.

To answer one other question about the insufficient time, there have been 10 years, and since December 1983 to the current date, for Vespra to come forward. It has not been a confined period by any stretch of the imagination. There has been a lot of time and many opportunities and a willingness on our side to sit down with Barrie and Vespra to find a financial solution to the problem.

Mr. Breaugh: It is very difficult to find on the record when this government has negotiated with Vespra township, save for one occasion between December and now. On one occasion this government attended a meeting for purposes of negotiating.

The reeve of Vespra township is sitting in the gallery with his council, as he has on most afternoons during the course of the debate. Would it not be a more sensible proposition for the minister or some of his staff to agree to a set of negotiations to resolve these financial problems, rather than have this House go through a long procedural wrangle, which will happen this afternoon over the debate?

Would it not be a more sensible procedure to have the ministry staff visit with the reeve and his council, set up negotiations for the course of the summer and resume debate on this bill in the fall? If it would make the minister feel any better, I guarantee I will conclude my portion of my brief introductory remarks within 30 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I can only repeat what I have said already. On December 5, I made it very clear we are prepared to negotiate with Vespra. I do not know where the member gets the idea we have made only one approach. The offer has been open. It has been there on the table. We have invited them to come in.

Mr. Breaugh: There was only one meeting, and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The opportunity has been there for Vespra. They know very well it has been. There is no debating that point. The offer has been there on the table. They have had the opportunity to come in and present their case to the ministry. That position will remain even at the passing of this bill. The opportunity for Vespra council to put its case and get a fair and equitable hearing remains, both at the hearing and with respect to the financial settlement.

The member asked whether it had been in a public forum. All these negotiations through the committee, court hearings or the Ontario Municipal Board have been in public forums. Vespra has had a fair and legitimate hearing. We asked Vespra to come. We are prepared to negotiate with them as we did with Innisfil and in other settlements we have made in relation to boundary disputes in the past.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, last week the leader of the third party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), asked about a rough telephone survey the ministry had conducted. We shared the information that was developed as a result of that survey with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation on June 8 this year. I shall be pleased to share the general findings with the House today.

Of the school boards contacted, 51 reported an anticipated decline in total enrolment in 1984, 27 boards anticipated an increase in enrolment and a further 31 anticipated little or no change; 53 boards indicated they would have no redundant teachers in 1984; 36 boards indicated they were at this time -- I repeat "at this time" -- identifying 673 teachers who might be declared redundant for all reasons, and 22 boards were uncertain.

It should be noted that in our rough survey we did not request any information regarding the anticipated hiring needs of any of the boards. There is only one reason for teacher layoffs, and it is outside our control. That is the declining enrolment within the school system. As of September 1983, in Ontario there were 595,209 students and 34,435 full-time equivalent teachers employed in the secondary schools and in grades 9 and 10 of the separate schools of this province.

For September 1984, we anticipate a further decline in enrolment of approximately 8,000 students, which in turn will call for the employment of fewer teachers. How many of those teachers will not be employed is not known at this time, nor has it ever been known at this time of year.

The reason is that most boards, under their collective agreements, must notify their teachers by May 31 whether their services will or will not, or may or may not, be required in September. I believe that is a very prudent exercise, as stated clearly in most of the collective agreements. There are usually significant changes in teacher staffing needs that are identified between May 31 and the first school day in September.

For example, at this time last year two large boards in Ontario, one in the south and one in the north, declared teachers redundant. The first declared 27 teachers redundant and the second 40.5 teachers redundant. On September 1, the first board that had declared 27 teachers redundant laid off six, and the second that declared 40.5 teachers redundant laid off 13.

In addition, we have learned that up to the end of last week 693 teachers have applied to the Teachers' Superannuation Commission for retirement this spring. Other applications are still coming in. I believe when the regulations are released at the end of this week we will have a significant increase in the number of applications for retirement. I remind the members that 693 is 20 higher than the number of teachers declared redundant by declining enrolment.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment regarding the International Minerals and Chemical Corp. plant in Dunnville. Will the minister please correct a couple of incorrect statements he made on June 21 when answering my question regarding radiation at the plant?

First, in regard to drinking water, the minister stated, "The level of contamination in the water at that site at the moment does not exceed the drinking water standard guideline established by the province."

My understanding is that the drinking water guideline for radium is one becquerel, which is equivalent to 27 picocuries per litre. However, ministry officials tell me that radium levels in the IMC waste lagoons are between 20 and 45 picocuries per litre. Surely this indicates that some levels are well above the drinking water guideline. To give a further perspective, it is miles above the United States drinking water guideline of three picocuries.

Second, the minister stated, "The front line of defence in connection with this whole environmental question is the federal government."

That was a weak attempt by the minister to renege on what is clearly his responsibility. Is it not correct that the IMC waste containing the radiation has primarily been the responsibility of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, not the federal government? The federal government is primarily responsible for radiation management in the nuclear fuel cycle, not for incidental radioactive waste such as we have at IMC.

I understand the Ministry of the Environment may be negotiating the whole matter of radioactive waste management with the federal government, but that should not obscure the fact that IMC has been primarily Ontario's responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, there are two questions there. I will review the answer to the first one for the honourable member and get back to him. My understanding, and I shared it with the member at the time he raised the question, was that the drinking water standards were not being exceeded as a consequence of the wastes from that site. I will check into that further.

With respect to the second part of the question, the member is absolutely wrong. The reality is that low-level radioactive waste is, will continue to be for the foreseeable future and always has been a federal responsibility. I call the member's attention to the Malvern soil problem where the federal government has taken the lead position with respect to the radioactivity levels in that soil.

3:10 p.m.

We co-operate with the federal government, where possible and when we are able to, in cleaning up a site, monitoring a site or assisting with the information. I have indicated, both publicly in this House and outside this chamber in private conversation with the member, that my staff will continue to monitor that situation to make absolutely certain that if a cleanup is necessary the company will be held responsible for the cleanup.

The member is aware there is going to continue to be a transfer station on that site, at least for the foreseeable future. The company indicates it may well want to reopen the site for future use.

Having said all of that, the reality is that once again I have to point out that with our cooperation, the responsibility for radioactive waste right across this country, and there are no lines of delineation, no points of separation as to low- or high-level radioactive waste, is a federal responsibility.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I still say it is the minister's responsibility. He has been policing the waste lagoon site. I feel that in order to protect the people --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. G. I. Miller: -- and the water quality in that area, he does have responsibility.

Why is the minister dodging my questions and why is he stonewalling on the issue? I will repeat my questions in the hope that I can get a straight answer from the minister. Will he table all studies and reports on the IMC waste lagoon and radiation problems done by the ministry, a consultant for the ministry or by the company at the request of the ministry? Has there been any contamination of the Grand River from the IMC lagoon radioactive waste? Were radioactive hot spots found in the plant, and what were the effects on the workers?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: That is a whole series of questions from the honourable member. I do not know which one of three or four he wishes me to answer, but I have to take very strong exception to the member suggesting I am stonewalling, dodging his questions or not responding to him in a direct fashion.

I have shared with him all the information I have. When I do not have the answer, I have indicated that once my staff provides me with the details of the condition of that site I will share that with the member, either on a direct basis from my office to his office or here in the House, but in no way am I withholding any information from him.

I have not been advised of any hot spots on the site. I do not have an epidemiological study on the health of the workers. That may be a question he will want to address to some other minister, but it is not my responsibility. I do not make health studies.

Let us be sure of the role I play. The member is already confused as to the role of the federal government in low-level radioactive waste. There seems to be some confusion on his part and I have been trying desperately to explain this question on a number of occasions. I will try to explain it again today. Low-level radioactive waste is a federal responsibility. Health studies are not the responsibility of my ministry.

USE OF DEREGISTERED PESTICIDE

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It relates to spraying at Hostess Food Products farms in Tiny township and to a study recently released by the federal government. I assume the minister is aware of the cancer study done by the federal government, a limited study which looked only at cancer deaths in Tiny township. The minister should be aware it showed significantly elevated levels of death from lymphoid cancer in males, a disease which in a number of other studies has been related to pesticide use.

As a result of this, so we can provide the maximum protection to the people of Tiny township, is the minister prepared for this summer and for the future, at least until we can get this issue resolved absolutely, to stop the aerial spraying at Hostess and to restrict spraying on those Hostess farms to ground spraying as opposed to aerial spraying?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, not at this time. In my view, the conclusions arrived at in that study are not as conclusive as the honourable member would like to suggest. It is a very small and limited study that does not really reflect -- and I think he agrees with that; I am not trying to take issue with the detail of the study, but it does not give an accurate reflection of the true impact of the spray on that area.

The pesticides or herbicides used in this area are approved by the federal government and reviewed by my own Pesticides Advisory Committee, and at this point it has indicated to me that it does not have a concern about it. I am concerned, however, about the drift of the spray offsite to neighbouring farms, which has occurred in some areas in the past, and I do not mind at all tightening up the procedure with respect to that concern.

At this point it would appear, from all the information I have and from the best scientific minds I have put on this problem, that the product being used is totally safe.

Mr. Charlton: Would the minister be prepared at least to do some follow-up on this study -- and he is correct, it is a limited study -- which was done; first of all, by investigating some indications of cancer problems among Hostess employees; and to do a survey of the residents of Tiny township so we can know factually whether there are enough incidents of particular kinds of cancer or patterns emerging that might warrant a full health study?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I certainly appreciate the suggestion of the member. I will review that study with my staff in more detail to determine whether or not any follow-up is necessary.

I have also been advised that one of the pesticides that was used in this area was Temik -- I believe that was the brand name -- and it was one of the ones under some suspicion. The Hostess potato chip company has voluntarily agreed to withdraw use of that chemical for this year, 1984.

In addition to that -- and this is in part as a result of its wanting to be perceived to be, as I believe it is, a good corporate citizen -- it has held a number of meetings with the neighbours surrounding its area of immediate interest. In fact, it has not, to the best of my knowledge, even had a complaint since 1982.

The reality of the situation is that I believe the company is bringing it under control, but I will certainly follow through on what the member suggests and look into the matter further, particularly in the context of the health study he has brought to my attention.

RELEASE OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The minister is probably aware that last week during estimates I asked for the management by results abstracts, and he indicated at the time that these abstracts were confidential cabinet documents.

The minister may be aware that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) has made his abstracts available to our party and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) has indicated that the abstracts for his ministry are available.

What is it about the abstracts of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that distinguishes them from the those of other ministries and makes the minister feel they are confidential cabinet documents?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I expressed at the time of the estimates last week that I thought they were confidential documents, they were internal documents of the ministry and I was not prepared to release them. That is my opinion.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Carman, the Secretary of the Management Board, has indicated that each minister is at liberty to make these available to the opposition parties and that they are not confidential documents. Why does the minister insist they are confidential cabinet documents when the secretary and other ministries say they are not confidential documents? What is he trying to hide from the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have already answered that in the answer to the first question.

3:20 p.m.

SUNCOR MARKETING PRACTICES

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. How does the minister justify his government's financial involvement in Suncor when the corporation is now in the process of putting out of business an independent operator who operates four stations employing 16 people in Manchester, Brooklin, Raglan and Orillia, and who is now, in the middle of a gas price war, faced with absolutely no suppliers because Suncor, and the other villain in the piece, Petro-Canada, refuse to provide him with any kind of price support system at all?

The effect of this is that a company such as Suncor, which has a large share of government funding, is functioning in the marketplace just like any other energy bandit. How does the minister justify that?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the situation the member for Oshawa has alluded to, but I will only caution him that this government's involvement in Suncor does not pre-empt it from operating in a way that is compatible with the community it serves, and certainly in taking normal business decisions it is not separate and apart from any other organization in that respect.

Mr. Breaugh: The minister may be aware that Imperial Oil, for example, in a recent court decision under the Combines Investigation Act, was found guilty and fined. This practice was contrary to the Combines Investigation Act. It would appear that in this instance an independent operator, Ron Davidson is his name, who operates these four service stations, is in precisely the same set of circumstances as those which led to that previously upheld violation of the Combines Investigation Act.

How can the minister justify using our tax dollars to go into a company such as Suncor when it continues to operate in the marketplace in a manner that is in violation of federal combines legislation? How does he justify that?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: If they are indeed in violation of federal statute, they will no doubt in the fullness of time suffer the consequences of that violation.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. The minister will recall that on November 15 and December 8 this past session, I raised questions in this House with respect to further bed allocations to the Kitchener-Waterloo area. He will recall that this request and the number of beds needed had come as a result of a local health council study. The minister rejected that request. As a result, at that time and continuing today, people are being sent home because they cannot have the surgery they need done at the time.

Is the minister aware that the most recent budget of the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital has resulted in a further reduction, not an increase, of 41 surgical beds? Is he prepared to accept that? What are the people of my area supposed to do to protect themselves? The local health council says we need more beds, and the minister's budget allocations result in a further reduction of 14 beds.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first, I do not believe it is correct to describe my having rejected the report the honourable member refers to. The fact is, since the time of the questions he refers to, I have not been in a position to make any allocations with respect to beds anywhere, other than in one instance with an allocation of extended care beds, although I have a request at the moment for an additional allocation for this year and I hope we will have a positive response on that.

With respect to the budget of the member's hospital, to be perfectly honest, I would have to review it in some detail to be sure of the specifics. To the best of my knowledge, our allocations during the course of this past year did not reduce allocations so as to require in any way the closing of beds.

It might possibly be -- and this is something I would like to check out both with respect to reviewing the hospital's budget information and also in some discussions with our area team -- that the hospital took certain initiatives on its own with respect to beds that were not anticipated or required by us, either as a result of our allocation or by any policy decision. It would not be the first time a hospital has done that. I am not making that as an allegation, but I would be very surprised, because we are not in the business these days of cutting back on budgets. Budgets are very tight, I admit, but we are not cutting back.

Mr. Sweeney: I am quite sure the minister is not deliberately setting up a budget so that this will happen, but that is the end result. I can give the minister just a couple of details which I hope will perhaps encourage him to meet with the members of our hospital board and go over these.

He will probably be aware that the total increase for our hospital is 7.8 per cent, but with that the hospital has to cover increases for medical and surgical supplies of 15.5 per cent. Increases in salary, of course, are held at five per cent. That is not what we are talking about. However, the increases in salary benefits are of this size: 12.5 per cent for Canada pension, 10.5 per cent for unemployment insurance and 31 per cent for workers' compensation.

I have one other point. The operation of the computerized axial tomography scanner at Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital is going to cost $375,000 more than the ministry is allocating for its cost --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sweeney: -- and $250,000 more than the ministry is allocating is going to have to be spent for kidney dialysis, heart pacer implants and chemotherapy for cancer.

The point I am trying to make is that to meet those necessary costs, the 7.8 per cent increase the minister is allocating is simply not enough. Equipment purchases and upgrading of the building have been eliminated for all practical purposes, and $500,000 has been taken out of reserve that was to be used to buy new equipment.

Mr. Speaker: Question now, please.

Mr. Sweeney: The obvious question is: is the minister aware of the increased costs that hospitals are necessarily facing, that his grants are simply not enabling them to meet those costs and that, therefore, they have no alternative but to close down further surgical beds?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think the member should do some careful mathematics. I am not going to refer to specific figures because I do not have them before me. If he takes five per cent for salaries and wages and looks at the fact that there is an overall increase at his hospital of seven per cent or whatever it is, then in the total spectrum that is not bad. There are hospitals in this province that get less and are coping very well under the circumstances.

Mr. Sweeney: Other than salary.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the member looks at those specific items outside of salary and wage benefits, that is not too bad.

He talked about the package of benefits. That is a problem that every hospital has to deal with. His hospital is not in any better or worse situation than any other in the province in that respect. With respect to the specific examples the member used, such as for the CAT scanner, the policy is identical across this province with respect to the costs of operating a CAT scanner -- I presume the member was talking about operating one, because we do not pay the capital costs. If his hospital's costs are that high, it should take a very careful look at why they are that high because, generally speaking, we pay 50 per cent of the cost, up to $150,000 a year.

If the member says his hospital's costs are $300-and-some thousand above that --

Mr. Sweeney: Above the $150,000.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes -- in that case, I think there is good reason to review the cost of operating that piece of equipment at the hospital.

The fact is that, in this day and age, we require of every administration in the hospitals across this province some very tough examinations of its operations and expenditures. The simplest way that some choose to pare their expenditures is by trying to close beds. That is not acceptable. Better management practices are necessary, and if the hospitals are unable to do it, we are prepared to provide them with assistance by putting in people who will give them that assistance. I hope the member's hospital, like others, will try to do it through its own administrative staff before we have to do that.

3:30 p.m.

If there are specific problems such as increases in work load or in costs of life support systems, those things are dealt with in our formula during the course of the fiscal year. That will be taken into consideration. They may be anticipating problems they have not yet experienced; I do not know. I would certainly urge that they look to areas in their budget other than beds to make their savings because that is just not acceptable.

PETITIONS

COLLEGE OF LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSES

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition which reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the registered nursing assistants of Greater Niagara General Hospital, wish to express our deep concern regarding the current undertaking of the Ontario Association of Registered Nursing Assistants to establish a separate nursing college: the College of Licensed Practical Nurses.

"It is our feeling that nursing at this time is at a critical crossroads and that a separate college will further dilute the scope and thrust of nursing.

"There are problems within the current system. We feel we can only resolve these through a continuing process of working together. Only by working together with respect for each other's ability can we achieve what should be our common goal, that is, to deliver safe and competent care to the people of Ontario."

FUNDING OF UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition which reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned members of the University of Guelph Community, oppose the under-funding of universities by the Ontario government. We are particularly opposed to the Ontario government's latest attack on quality and accessible education, the Bovey commission.

"We urge the government to instead adopt a policy of rehabilitation and development of the university system in Ontario."

It is signed by 1,300 persons from that university.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the House to present my motion 34 in Orders and Notices?

Ms. Copps: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must point out to the honourable member that that is out of order, as he well knows.

Ms. Copps: He has unanimous consent.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear unanimous consent.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, you did not hear anybody objecting, I hope.

Mr. Speaker: Yes I did, with all respect.

Mr. Renwick: There was no objection.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He did not hear unanimous consent.

Mr. Martel: Well, no one objected.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will be the one who determines that, please.

Mr. Martel: I did not hear one objection.

Mr. Speaker: But I did.

Mr. Martel: Oh, baloney. You did not hear one voice.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly parliamentary, with all respect.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this amendment to the Education Act, 1984, for first reading. The need for this legislation has been created in part by the proclamation of the Young Offenders Act, along with the repeal of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. These developments provided the Ministry of Education with the opportunity to review our policy for dealing with habitually absent pupils.

After lengthy consultation with our education client groups, we have developed a new policy for truancy which reflects the latest research and the best practices in the field. The amendments reaffirm the basic principles of compulsory education. However, truancy will no longer be an offence under the Education Act as it has been for the last 62 years.

The school board may request a school attendance proceeding in a provincial court family division, much like a child protection hearing under the Child Welfare Act. This would be to determine that the child is refusing to attend school or is habitually absent without being excused under the provisions of the Act.

A breach of the orders of the court triggers the consequences of a contempt of court proceeding with the possibility of a fine or open custody. In other words, it is not an offence to be a truant from school, but if a court issues an order which the pupil refuses to follow, there are consequences.

The amendments continue to recognize a parent's or guardian's responsibility to cause a child of compulsory school age to attend school. The sanctions against these parties have been increased and family counselling and treatment may be recommended to help remove the cause of truancy.

It is the responsibility of school board personnel, including the attendance counsellor and the supervisory officer, to decide whether to prosecute a parent or to initiate a school attendance proceeding. I believe the passage of the Education Amendment Act will constitute a historic development in our approach to compulsory education in Ontario.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I draw your attention to the standing orders of this Legislature, page 12, standing order 38: "Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and may quote the rule or authority applicable."

Try as I might, looking in the precedents of this Legislature -- save that clause two years ago, when the government was able to rewrite the standing orders without rewriting the standing orders -- there is nothing on the record in the rules of this House or in the procedure that was tolerated two years ago that allows the motion which is about to be put by the House leader for the government of Ontario.

I believe the rules cannot be rewritten in the fashion the government did two years ago and which it is attempting to use as precedent now to put a similar motion which cannot be found anywhere in our standing orders. It makes a mockery of the whole system when a government can try this and a Speaker accepts something which is not part of the rules that govern this assembly.

If the Speaker could, either through the Clerk's office or anyone else, show us where the procedure which the government is about to attempt to introduce is part of the standing orders of this Legislature, then I would be prepared to have it presented. It is not part of our rules.

The Liberal House leader, the government House leader and myself have gone through partial negotiations with respect to rule changes. This is one of the rule changes the government wants. If the Speaker allows the government to introduce this motion, he is allowing it, by motion, to make formal that which we have not been prepared to do through rule changes; that is, by the acceptance of this motion which is not part of our standing orders.

It seems to me the Speaker has a responsibility to protect this Legislature against the rewriting of the rules in such a fashion. I will save further comment until I hear what you are going to respond, but there are a number of things that verge on blackmail in what the government is attempting to do in the motion before us.

3:40 p.m.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, you have an obligation to protect the minority, the opposition in this House, in that we do not have a standing rule anywhere in this Legislature to allow this. They have in Ottawa because they rewrote the rules; they have in Westminster because it is part of the system. We do not have that rule.

Mr. Speaker, I would beg you not to allow this rule to be presented despite the fact it was put in Orders and Notices on Friday, because it is not part of our standing orders.

Nowhere can we find this procedure except in 1982 when Mr. Speaker then accepted it on Bill 179. We argued then that it should not be introduced. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to refuse to accept this until you have an opportunity to review where it is that this type of rule exists in either our procedure, in our standing orders or in our precedents, save for two years ago when, in my opinion, it should not have been accepted. I would so ask Mr. Speaker to rule.

Mr. Nixon: I have a feeling this House should have adjourned last Friday. I hate getting involved in this stuff.

I suppose the only justification you could have for accepting the motion and I hope you will not accept it, would be rule 37(a) which says, "A substantive motion is one that is not incidental to any other business of the House, but is a self-contained proposal capable of expressing a decision of the House. Examples of such motions are: the motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Budget motion, want of confidence motions in allotted sittings, Resolutions, motions for returns or addresses, and motions for the appointment of committees." There is nothing in there that calls for a time allocation motion.

Mr. Speaker, you may recall the lengthy and compelling arguments put to you and your associates when this matter was before the House a couple of years ago. It was clearly stated by the spokesman for the NDP and the spokesman for the Liberal Party that it was clearly not in the projections of those who established the standing orders of this House.

As I recall, you did listen to those arguments. You made a ruling that it was in order. The ruling was appealed and, much as I regret it, your ruling was upheld. I think, perhaps, that is the reference the honourable member is making; there is absolutely nothing in our standing orders that provides for this except that little aberration a couple of years ago based upon your ruling and your ruling appeal.

I regret very much that because of the inadequacies of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and a couple of other little items, this House is finding itself, after the reasonable date of adjournment, beginning a debate which is going to be something that is not going to be one of our finest times.

Having said that, I hope you will not accept the motion.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this motion. I do not pretend to have followed the debate in detail in connection with the bill with reference to which this motion has been put on the order paper, Bill 142, an Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Vespra.

I do want to ask, as my House leader has done, for your opinion under standing order 38, "Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the Rules and Privileges of Parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and may quote the rule or authority applicable."

I want you to take a couple of matters under very serious consideration. One I need not elucidate because the two members who have already spoken have dealt with that question; there is nothing in our rules with respect to the allocation of time, nothing in our rules with respect to the closure of debate, nothing to lead one to believe that one can analogize to what has taken place in the House of Commons at Ottawa or Westminster whereby, in the orderly processes of the procedural changes in the rules of those assemblies, time allocation of one kind or another is part of the rules of those assemblies.

I want to say to you, sir, at the time you made your ruling on the motion with respect to Bill 179, when the government moved a time allocation motion with respect to the process under that bill in this assembly, you could not have known the consequences of the decision you made with respect to the effect of that bill on the people of the province and what has happened since that time.

In that case, we were asked to pass a bill that was arbitrary in nature. That is similar to the bill before the House and that has led the government to introduce this motion. It is an arbitrary bill. Bill 179 was arbitrary, simply because it overruled the collective arrangements, the contracts, if you will, between certain employees and their employers. As I say, you could not have known what would happen to that bill and how correct the position of the opposition was when we placed before this assembly, time and time again, the question of the arbitrary nature and the unconstitutionality of that bill.

The rights of people under collective bargaining agreements are still up in the air. You may not be aware, sir, but I am quite certain it is available to you in your consideration of this matter, that the case of Service Employees International Union versus Broadway Manor Nursing Home was decided in the Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario adverse to the government in substantial aspects on matters that were argued in this House when the debate on those matters was cut off by a government motion of closure and of allocation of time.

In that instance we in the opposition were trying to protect the rights of people under contractual arrangements against the arbitrary action of a government that had gone a little bit crazy in its interpretation of the economic life of the province. The Service Employees International Union case is only now being argued in the Ontario Court of Appeal on the very questions where substantial parts of it were declared unconstitutional.

We were standing in our place to try to make this assembly understand, so the laws we would pass would not be tinged with that arbitrariness which is being dealt with at present in the courts. When the rights of people under contractual arrangements in the province have been in abeyance for something more than three years, or close to three years, and it will be well over three years by the time this constitutional matter is decided in the courts, you should not, in making your decision on the motion in front of us, take that ruling which you made, and for which you could not foresee the consequences, as a precedent of any kind.

I am asking you to abolish that precedent from your mind, simply because it has been shown that when a legislative assembly, under a closure motion, passes an arbitrary act, people's rights are in abeyance for a long period of time because of the arbitrariness of that act. That is what was wrong with it. A contractual arrangement was being severed and renegotiated by an act of this assembly and we said that was wrong.

3:50 p.m.

I want to analogize and say that in the field of property, which is near and dear to the hearts of the Conservative Party that governs this province, far more so than the rights of working people under collective agreements, the rights of property are what are being dealt with in this bill by the arbitrary act of the bill proposed by the government. Again, sir, you cannot foresee the consequences of that arbitrary action, but the lack of wisdom of it, the lack of foresight in connection with this kind of matter is what we should be dealing with.

It has been a part of the fundamental nature of this province that matters between two municipalities, regardless of the overriding authority of this assembly, should not be dealt with in any way by the arbitrary action of the government coming down on one side of that issue. Let us not pretend it is not an arbitrary action, because we have this unbelievable statement in section 2 of the bill: "On the first day of July 1984 the portion of the township of Vespra described in the schedule is annexed to the city of Barrie."

Mr. Martel: Confiscation.

Mr. Renwick: It is just an arbitrary act of the government with respect to that matter.

Let me point out what the government has said in section 4: "The city shall not apply for the annexation of any further lands in the township of Vespra before the first day of January 2012 unless the township agrees to such annexation." Saying that somehow or other this will not happen again until 2012 is supposed to make it palatable now to take an arbitrary action with respect to the annexation of that property to Barrie.

All I can say is that the members of the government sitting for the areas that are affected by this bill, and you, Mr. Speaker, cannot in good faith allow the government to act contrary to the rules of this assembly.

It cannot be argued that it is in accordance with the rules of the assembly because, with the illusory precedent of that other occasion, no subsequent change has been made, and there has been ample time to change the rules if this assembly had decided to do so. If the government had wanted to change the rules, it had the power to do so. It did not do that; the process was ignored.

I am simply saying that, in my submission, it is not in the rules of the assembly; that although there has been ample time, the fatuous so-called precedent the government is relying on, of making it within the rules and privileges of this parliament three years ago, has not in any way come forward in an orderly process to be included in the rules of the assembly; and that you, Mr. Speaker, could not have foreseen the disastrous consequences to the rights of people in the province because the law the government passed under the closure rule last time was unconstitutional, was arbitrary and destroyed those relationships

This bill touches real property, transfers the title of it from the township of Vespra to the city of Barrie, and that is an arbitrary act. These are matters that should be negotiated by Vespra township with the city of Barrie, and if there is any necessary approval to be given by legislation, it should follow after that kind of negotiation.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can say in support of a ruling on your behalf that this motion, which the government House leader will be putting before us, is anything other than in contravention of the rules of this parliament.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. In addressing myself to the point of order that was raised, which had been raised before, I think my role in this particular matter is limited to deciding whether the motion is in fact in order or out of order.

The motion was made on Friday. It is a substantive motion. It appeared on the Orders and Notices, and I do not have any alternative but to accept it as being in order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if I might --

Mr. Speaker: I cannot --

Mr. Martel: All right, then, I will challenge your decision.

5:37 p.m.

The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Barlow, Bennett, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell;

Norton, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Scrivener, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Walker, Welch, Wells, Williams, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Copps, Edighoffer, Epp, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Martel, McGuigan, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Renwick, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Swart, Sweeney.

Ayes 50; nays 24.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, resolution 8:

That notwithstanding any order of the House, the House sit for the consideration of government business, afternoons and evenings Monday to Thursday and Friday until 1 p.m. until further order and that the consideration of Bill 142, An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Vespra, by the committee of the whole House be concluded not later than 5:45 p.m. on the first sessional day following the passage of this motion unless such a day be Friday, in which case the conclusion of the consideration will not be later than 5:45 p.m. on the following Monday, at which time the Chairman will put all questions necessary to dispose of every section of the bill not yet passed, and the schedule, and to report the bill, such questions to be decided without amendment or debate; should a division be called for, the bell to be limited to 10 minutes;

And, that any debate on the question for the adoption of the report be held in the evening of the sessional day on which the bill was reported and be concluded not later than 10:15 p.m. on that day, at which time Mr. Speaker will interrupt the proceedings and put the question for the adoption of the report without amendment or further debate and if a division is called for, the bell to be limited to 10 minutes;

And, further, that the bill be called for third reading debate on the sessional day following the adoption of the report and be completed not later than 5:45 p.m. on that day unless it be a Friday, in which case it will be completed not later than 12:45 p.m., at which time Mr. Speaker will interrupt the proceedings and put the question without further debate and if a division is called for, the bell to be limited to 10 minutes;

And, finally, that in the case of any division in any way relating to any proceedings on this bill, the bell be limited to 10 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to lead off on this motion. I am happy you found it in order because it is very similar to one made in December 1982. As the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) argued on the relative merits of the motion and whether or not it was in order, he referred to some of the dire consequences that supposedly had flowed from the House's action in 1982.

Mr. Martel: Ask the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman).

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be happy to ask him, because it cannot be denied. In saying this, I do not deny there are still cases before the court and there are cases that still have to be settled. No one in this House can dispute that as part of a total recovery package, that piece of legislation helped Ontario to recover in a better fashion than any other province in Canada.

Mr. Martel: Is that why it is now before the courts? The government House leader lost there. He believes it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In the total scope of things, the compassion of this province and the acceptance by the great majority of the people of the province, with some degree of restraint --

Mr. Martel: Tell it to the three quarters of a million people not working.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, listen, it allowed the people of this province, along with their government, to beat one of the toughest recessions in many years.

Mr. Martel: Tell it to those who are still unemployed.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Ontario is now at the top of the list of the provinces that have recovered in this country.

Mr. Martel: Tell that to the 17 per cent in Sudbury who are out of jobs.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is nice to hear the member talk about that, but that really is irrelevant to what we are talking about today. We have a very logical motion that is accepted and has been used a number of times in other parliaments. It is used regularly under the standing orders in the House of Commons. It is used at Westminster. It is used when, after full and adequate debate, it is decided the House must set some limits so the business of the province can carry on.

I want it to be very clearly put on the record. During the debates in 1982 and 1983 where we brought forward similar motions, I well remember the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) saying: "Do not go this way. Do not bring in time allocation. Use rule 36 because you have the power. We already have a closure device in our rules; use that."

On this side, we will be quite happy to use rule 36 if the member will ask the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) to stop his filibuster on this bill.

The member for Oshawa, after standing up as we went into committee of the whole House study of this bill, said he had only a few very short opening remarks. Nine hours later he is still reading letters and repeating himself.

Mr. Epp: The government House leader is filibustering.

5:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not filibustering. All I am saying is, if members want to assure us they will conclude their remarks and we can carry on in an orderly committee of the whole stage, we will be very happy to carry on and use the existing standing orders. But they will not do that.

We now have a bill that was introduced in December 1983. It passed second reading in this House after a debate of two and a half hours. It was sent to committee, as was the intention, and all those communities and people affected were given the opportunity to come in and meet with a committee of this Legislature. Changes were made in that particular bill and 38 1/2 hours of debate in committee time ensued.

I think members would have to agree that there was a very full, frank, forthright hearing on this bill. That bill, with changes proposed by the committee, was submitted back to this Legislature and we are now in the midst of a filibuster on the bill, during which no other member of this House can get an opportunity to discuss the bill.

In this bill is also a provision that annexation take effect on July 1. I think my friends realize it is much better that a piece of legislation pass before the event occurs. It is very relevant that this bill should be passed before July 1 and this motion outlines a schedule that will allow this House to debate and pass Bill 142 before July 1.

It is a very reasonable motion on a reasonable piece of legislation. There has been full discussion. I see my friends shaking their heads. There is no problem with opposing it. Everyone in Vespra knows the members opposite are opposed to it. Everyone around the country in those little areas where those members have made it known they are opposed to it, knows those members are opposed to it. They respect them for that and they respect us for what we are doing. But why hold up the public business of this House and the public business of this province?

We have reached the time when, after full and frank debate, we can move ahead.

Mr. Riddell: You do not live in a dictatorship. We still live in a democracy over here. We will not stand for a dictatorship. It is called the heavy arm of government.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Riddell: You tried it with the imposition of regional government and I have to tell you that in by-elections --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member will please resume his seat.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Regional government was your party's idea.

Mr. Riddell: Regional government was stopped due to two by-elections. Do not forget it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was your idea.

Mr. Riddell: You are not going to get away with it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) will please contain himself. Order.

Mr. Martel: Dictatorship? Is that part of the rules? Is that a new rule or what?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Do you want me to quote it to you?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Why do my friends in the official opposition not have a free vote? If the number who have asked me if they could get out of here tomorrow night have any particular significance, I think they would be very happy to vote on this bill.

Ms. Copps: We do not have any knives out in our party.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Every debate in this House has its significant quotes and I am sure that for years to come that will be quoted to our friend the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps).

Hon. Mr. Davis: "I am not going to carry the can for any of them," he said.

Ms. Copps: You just got Peter Lougheed's knife out of your back.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This motion sets out a very orderly procedure which will allow for debate and a chance to conclude the committee of the whole stage and then we will allow for a philosophic debate on the report and third reading of the bill.

As I recall, in the last motion we put, my friends from the third party prevented any consideration of the committee of the whole stage, where people wanted to make some practical and perhaps necessary amendments to the --

Mr. Martel: Which one are you talking about? Are you talking about Bill 179?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I was talking about Bill 179.

Mr. Martel: We would do it again if we had the chance.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, you would, and you stopped a lot of necessary amendments from being considered and made.

Anyway, we have here a procedure that will allow this bill to be properly debated and dealt with. I would urge the House to pass this motion so we can get on with the business of Bill 142.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, as I read the motion, if the government House leader proceeds with the usual heavy-handed approach that he takes to all House business --

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: -- we can see him, and God forbid, moving closure on this motion -- that is, the previous question -- let us say this evening at 10 o'clock. That means that putting this time scale into effect will see, as a result, the third reading debate being concluded on Wednesday before six. We certainly do not want that to happen, but I thought perhaps I should just point that out to the members, because it is of great concern to all of us here that we are paid for every day, along with the members of the government. As a matter of fact, many of them are paid double and then some, whether the House sits or not.

Supposing the government House leader, in his usual unco-operative way, goes forward by truncating this debate needlessly later today, it really means that well before any deadline that could possibly be imposed upon Barrie and/or Vespra and/or this bill, the members opposite will be on vacation. Many of the rest of us have very heavy responsibilities in our constituencies and in seeing that the world is fed, but the members over there will climb into their leased jets and go off about their business, whatever that may be, to the four corners of the world.

It concerns me that the last time -- as a matter of fact, the time before last -- when we gave ourselves a raise as members of this House, it was on the basis that we were full-time members. That is why, Mr. Speaker, you would never hear a member of the Liberal caucus saying, "When are we going to get out of here?" Is that not right?

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: Definitely a misunderstanding. We are prepared --

Interjections.

Mr Speaker: Order. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr Nixon: I certainly appreciate that, Mr Speaker, because the members opposite are giving a very unreliable impression of the fact that the members other than themselves are anxious to get out of here.

We had the business. The honourable House leader for the New Democratic Party and myself worked very hard. We have co-operated to the nth degree with the unreasonable proposals put forward week after week by the representatives of the government trying to put the government business forward, giving ourselves an opportunity in private members' hour to deal with these matters in an orderly way.

We have even agreed to the point of doing away with private members' hour for the last two weeks in order to facilitate government members. The member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), who had an important matter to be debated, felt that the greater good would be for the House to consider government business, and we are prepared to do that. We are prepared to go on tomorrow and the next day.

As I recall, going back to the great days of Tory leadership, in the days of the sainted John Robarts -- when we did have a legislative program that meant something; when in fact this House was able to come to grips with and seize on the expanding issues of the time; when we were considered as something other than ciphers in this House; when our views were responded to and appeared as amendments in legislation -- in those days the Legislature did go on into July. I remember in one great summer it went on into August, which is one of the very good summers that I recall.

The argument that the government House leader is making that somehow or other if this is not jammed through by Wednesday or Thursday at noon, or something like that, the government business will be interfered with is simply not reasonable. We want to make it very clear that on that basis we do not feel the motion should proceed and, if it does proceed, it should not be supported.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

June 25, 1984