Hansard Transcript 1986-Dec-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Grande: Obviously, members of the Legislature are in different committees, but I am sure they are going to be here at 12 o'clock when the vote occurs.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank some people. My thanks go to my friend and colleague, the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), who has generously agreed to let me have his private member's spot so that this important private member's bill would come before the Legislature today. I would like to thank Dr. Jan Dukszta, a former member of this Legislature, who debated this very same bill with the same principles in 1978, and Odoardo Di Santo, a former member of this Legislature, who debated a similar bill with exactly the same principles in 1982.

I want to thank the trustees of the Toronto Board of Education, who in the years 1981, 1982 and 1983 have done a tremendous job in bringing forward these issues and principles at the Toronto Board of Education, getting a final report out to the public and having public hearings on the matter.

As well, I want to thank the coalition to pass Bill 80, a coalition that was set up in the past two and a half to three weeks. It is amazing how people from every ethnic community, every third-language community, came together with passion to support this bill and to ensure its passage here in the Legislature today.

I want to thank them by name, and I will mention the organizations that make up the coalition to pass Bill 80: Canadian Arab Federation; Arab Community Centre; Chinese Canadian National Council, Toronto chapter; Chinese Canadian National Council for Equality, the national chapter; Council of Chinese Canadians in Ontario; the Federation of Chinese Canadian Professionals; Association of Chinese Social Service Workers; Chinese Parents' Association; Federation of Chinese Canadians, Ontario; Chinese Lingual Cultural Centre of Canada; Ukrainian Canadian Committee; the German community; the Greek community of Metro Toronto; Hellenic Canadian Federation of Ontario; National Congress of Italian Canadians, Ontario region; National Congress of Italian Canadians, national region; National Congress of Italian Canadians, Toronto district; the Korean Education Society; the New Democratic Party advisory committee; the Greek advisory committee; the Ontario Coalition for Language Rights; the Portuguese Interagency Network; the Spanish-Speaking Family Association; the Ukrainian National Federation; the German-Canadian Congress; the Canadian Association of German Language Schools, Professor Hans Schultz; German Parents' Association of Toronto; Ontario Goethe Society; and Erhard Hoffmann who is the co-chairman of the heritage language committee of the Toronto Board of Education.

These people came together in such a short time to give such fantastic support to this bill and demonstrate support for it, and I thank them profusely.

Bill 80 basically does three things. It integrates the heritage languages during the regular school day; it allows boards of education to use third languages as languages of instruction; and it establishes a third-language advisory committee to help boards of education in the operation and management of a heritage program.

There are reasons I commend the passage of this bill today to the members of the Legislature. In the past 20 years to 30 years, Ontario's demography has changed dramatically. The 1981 census tells us that 40 per cent of the population of Ontario have neither English nor French as their cultural background. In 1981 as well, more than 50 per cent of the residents of Metropolitan Toronto had neither English nor French as their background. In other words, we are not talking about 100,000 or 200,000 people in Ontario; we are talking about and addressing the fundamental concerns of more than 3.5 million people in Ontario. The members of this Legislature should remember that.

The next reason is our commitment to a multicultural society. We have rejected the melting pot concept of the United States. We have said in many different ways and on many different occasions that we have a multicultural philosophy based on the idea that each and every of the many cultures in our country has something of value to offer and something to share with other cultures as together we strive to build a more ideal society where all can live together in harmony.

10:10

The former government of Ontario enunciated a policy of multiculturalism with three elements: equality, access and participation, cultural retention and sharing. Our commitment to multiculturalism, to equality and to the dignity and rights of individuals in our province is meaningless and empty unless third languages become the cornerstone of our multiculturalism policy. I believe Bill Davis, the former Premier of our province, understood that when he said in 1977, "I strongly believe that every ethnic group has the right to maintain those facets of its unique identity that it regards as important."

In 1977, the heritage language program was introduced by the former government of Ontario. Thousands of children across the province are taking part in the program. However, the program was set up for after school and on Saturday, or where numbers justified there was an extension of the five-hour school day. To its credit, the Metropolitan Separate School Board extended the five-hour day from the very beginning in 1977 and the Toronto Board of Education followed suit with a limited number of schools for which the decision was made for an extended day. Other boards offered the program after school. Some boards to this very day do not offer the program at all.

While the program that was instituted in 1977 can be termed a success, we feel it needs to be improved. One of the comments made by the board of arbitration in the dispute between the Toronto Board of Education and the Toronto Teachers' Federation was, "An after-school program is capable of being construed as an afterthought."

The arbitration gives ample reason why third languages should become part of the school day. The main reason is respect. This is a very important word. If the cultures of the province are important, and we have agreed in this province that they are important, since language is indivisible from ethnic identity, then such languages must become part of the school day.

On International Human Rights day, December 10, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) told us, "Human rights, like respect, are more easily defined by their absence, but also like respect, they are the exquisite centre of our lives." Third-language minorities are telling us through their complete support for Bill 80 that they demand that their schools respect their languages and cultures by integrating language and culture programs during the regular school day.

I want to go on to the second principle, to allow boards of education to use third languages as languages of instruction. Let me stress at the outset as forcefully and loudly as I can that third-language minority groups with which I have been in contact in the past 20 years as a teacher and as a politician have never suggested they do not want their children to learn to speak English. On the contrary, they realize that unless their sons and daughters learn English well, their chances for future employment will be hampered.

This is exactly why third languages should be languages of instruction. Researchers from all over the world, not least from our own province of Alberta, tell us that youngsters learn English a lot better and are more proficient in English if the learning is approached from the heritage language.

This change in the Education Act will also allow boards of education to bring in transitional bilingual programs to be developed for children who speak only a heritage language when they start school. Once this change in the Education Act is made, school boards may want to establish bilingual or trilingual programs for children whose parents want to revitalize their language and culture. It provides the schools with a flexibility in programming that does not exist at present.

Three of our sister provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, have made the changes I am recommending to the Legislature today. Third languages in those provinces can be used as languages of instruction in schools. We want that for Ontario.

I want to talk briefly about benefits. There are many advantages to all of us, not just to the third-language minorities, as a result of these changes. I want to mention three in particular.

First, it provides to every child in the province, regardless of ethnicity, sex, race, colour or creed, the right to learn a third language.

I want to quote one paragraph from an unpublished master's thesis in 1983 by Grace Feuerverger at the University of Toronto:

"In Canada, the policy of multiculturalism is based on the notion of a society committed to ethnic pluralism and ethnic group maintenance. Multilingual individuals may be able to contribute more fully to areas such as education, social welfare, diplomatic policies and international business affairs. It appears therefore to be consistent with Canada's economic and sociopolitical policies to promote the language resources of our ethnic language children. Heritage language and other language maintenance programs may therefore be more crucially linked to intercultural harmony and to international relations more than they realize today."

I want to end with another quote that sets out the third reason I want to mention. It comes to us from a brief from the Toronto district of the National Congress of Italian Canadians. In that brief, the congress writes:

"Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of heritage language teaching which is often overlooked arises in the economic sphere. For Ontario and Canada to have a significant number of its citizens fluent in the language of both today's and tomorrow's markets is a potentially enormous advantage. We have Canadians whose roots go back to China, Korea, Japan, the Philippines and India, to mention only a few.

"In the decades to come, we will need thousands of men and women, not only proficient in the languages of this region but with a profound knowledge of the cultures as well. For it will not be merely business knowhow which closes deals; it will be equally important to have an understanding of the nuances and minutiae of a specific country, its customs and traditions.

"We have to begin to prepare now for the future, which to some extent is already upon us. It would be shortsighted in the extreme to ignore the long-term rewards of heritage language teaching in our schools."

Finally, I want to commend this bill to the members of the Legislature. I hope the debate will be centred on the principle this bill talks about. Details and clauses can be amended, added, subtracted, taken away, however one wants to put it. The important thing, the signal it gives to 3.5 million people in Ontario today, is that voting in favour of this bill on second reading will signal that this Legislature is willing to go on to the next step of this important and fundamental concern to so many people in our province.

The bill can be taken to a committee where we can hash it over and we can change it, but the important thing is to address the principle today and vote in favour of it at 12 o'clock when we get the opportunity.

I wish to reserve the four minutes and three seconds left for the windup later on.

The Deputy Speaker: I should remind our visitors in the galleries that under the rules of the House no demonstrations are permitted.

10:20

Mr. Cordiano: It is an honour and a pleasure for me to be speaking on this very important subject today, dealing with the principle behind heritage language instruction and the continuance of language as an integral part of any cultural grouping and identity.

For our pluralistic society to move forward and for our society to be truly multicultural, language is of high priority in maintaining the distinctiveness of cultural identity. Without language as a distinguishing feature, multiculturalism has a hollow ring. It does not go far enough, if language is not given its full expression in the cultural identity of any ethnic group in this country.

Our society is made up of a large number of groups, which we term a cultural mosaic. We live in a very complex, prolific society, and the leading edge, at the forefront in maintaining that cultural identity, is language.

I want to touch briefly on some of the background with respect to the teaching of heritage languages. In the past while, since they have become a part of the extended day in our schools, the government has made a commitment of $10 million a year to the instruction of heritage languages. Currently, 73 boards are offering more than 50 languages. As it stands now, the local board must decide on its own whether to offer the programs. They are not mandatory.

If the program is offered, it can be held on weekends, after school, etc. or, as is currently the case in some boards in Toronto, as a part of the extended day -- a lengthened school day -- rather than during the regular school day. As pointed out by my colleague, last year Toronto teachers objected to the extended-day option, but they lost in an arbitration handed down last June.

As I see it, Bill 80 proposes three fundamental changes: (1) it makes heritage language a language of instruction; (2) it makes it mandatory for a board to offer heritage language classes and (3) it allows heritage languages to be part of the curriculum for credit purposes.

I want to stress to the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) that I am fully supportive of the principal, but I want to look at his bill with particular reference to some sections, because I think it is important to point out some of the problems associated with his bill.

First, let me look at the question of heritage languages as a subject of the regular curriculum, and I will point out some of the pros and cons. I think the pros far outweigh the cons, and I want to go through this very briefly. Since languages other than English and French are currently being studied for credit purposes at the secondary school level, the ministry feels that overall language policy could be more properly coordinated if it were applied across both panels. At present, there is an inconsistency with respect to heritage languages not having the same legal status as modern languages at the secondary level.

The advantage of having it across both panels is that the program would be organized on a more educationally sound foundation and, as a result, the quality of these programs could be upgraded. If the Ministry of Education shared responsibility for the curriculum with the school boards, the program could be significantly improved. The curriculum, the guidelines and the resource materials could be part of the ministry's efforts put forward in this area. At present, however, the school boards have full responsibility for curriculum, supervision and hiring. In our multicultural society, this initiative would go hand in glove with the initiatives of this government and this party in its long tradition of advancing the cause of multiculturalism and enhancing the identities of each of the cultural groupings in our society.

Some of the people who are opposed to including heritage languages as part of the regular school day would add that the curriculum is already seriously overloaded and that they would upset the regular school day. Those are some of the arguments that have been put forward against the inclusion of heritage languages as part of the regular school day. As well, people point out that a significant financial commitment would be necessary to bring the program into the regular curriculum.

I want to refer to a number of other clauses, although I see time is running out. Very briefly, with respect to the question of having heritage languages as languages of instruction for transitional purposes, I point out that clause 235(1)(f) of the Education Act currently permits the use of languages other than English and French for transitional purposes, so that provision does exist.

One problem we would face in making this mandatory for school boards is that it would probably be infringing on the local collective bargaining process. In addition, school boards would not have the right to make decisions that would accommodate local needs.

I want to move on to the mandatory requirement of a school board to form heritage language classes. One problem directly related to the bill that is put forward by my colleague is that, essentially, the program for students related to a heritage language community, subsections 277e(2) and 277e(3) of the act, makes no reference to other students. Presumably, where students not related to a heritage language community wanted heritage language instruction, the boards would not be required to organize the classes.

Frankly, I do not think the section goes far enough. Some provision should be made for students who do not belong to a particular grouping but who want to participate in the instruction of a language. As a result, with all due respect, the bill is too narrow in its focus and does not permit students who have no direct relationship to a heritage language to take part in that instruction.

I see I have about 50 seconds. I wanted to get to some other sections, but I do want to say I support the principle of instruction of heritage languages. It is fundamental to the existence of what we would call the cultural mosaic of this country. One cannot have a vibrant cultural grouping without the language. The language acts as the first and foremost barrier to assimilation. It is fundamental to our policy of having a pluralistic society and a multicultural society.

10:30

Mr. Davis: I am pleased to enter the debate as the Education critic for my party and in the historical tradition of my party's initiatives in the field of education in this province, which has produced one of the finest public education systems in North America, staffed with qualified, competent teachers. My party's previous initiatives have seen the creation of community colleges, vocational schools, specialized schools for the handicapped, the introduction of kindergarten and junior kindergarten classes, the encouragement and development of alternative programs and the delivery of programs, schools for the gifted and schools of the arts.

I remind the House it was the Progressive Conservative Party that recognized the educational needs and the necessity of preserving the cultural and historical roots of our ethnic community and citizens. The heritage language program was initiated by the Honourable Thomas Wells as Minister of Education. It has been our tradition, as a legacy of our party, to provide for the young people of this province sound educational programs. It is from that perspective I wish to make several remarks.

Already there is provision within the Education Act for the use of heritage language as a transitional period for a youngster to learn English. One inquires as to the intent of the author of the bill. Is it to provide for the right of a student to be educated totally in the student's heritage language to the total exclusion of English or French? What effect would such a program have on the future of young people in the job market of today and their role in our society? Is the intent really that a percentage of the students' time would be devoted to taking their cultural language and looking at their heritage roots? Is it the intent of the bill to provide instruction in language so that young people can develop a sense of pride in their cultural history and appreciate their roots? As we look at this bill, I think that is the essence.

If one looks at class size, the bill says it should be 20 or more students. What occurs in a school if there are only 18? Should that heritage group be penalized because the bill is so definitive? What happens if there are 34 students? Should the class be split evenly at 17 or should the class size be 34? It appears to me that section of the bill can be discriminatory against the minority ethnic culture groups within a specific school because they do not meet the criteria.

I know the answer will come forth from the third party that we can bus them, but even now for those who take French immersion programs and are bused out of the local neighbourhood to another neighbourhood, the parents and students are already asking for that program to be incorporated into the local neighbourhood school, for the essence of education in this province is the neighbourhood school and its diversity and its ability to meet the needs of the students.

Is it fair to request some students to be uprooted from the local community, to be bused to another community, to be denied the right to take part in the extracurricular activities of their own neighbourhood school? If we are to institute heritage language programs that are important in this society because of our mosaic makeup, then it must be fair and just to every one of the minority and the ethnic communities.

I find it strange that the third party incorporates
-- and I applaud what they incorporate -- the parents and members of the community on the advisory board, but it was strange in the Bill 30 debates and the transition committees that were established by the Liberal government and by our colleagues in the third party, that trustees were the representatives of the parents. They did not support the amendment that asked for parents' involvement and that of the community.

I assumed the author of the bill would have created, as we now have with the French language, a Languages of Instruction Commission to deal with the impasses that will surely occur, rather than turning them right over to the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway).

As a party, we must ensure that this proposal must provide and enact the dream of the heritage language people and the cultural groups of this province. In order to do that, if we are committed, I believe we must emphasize that the heritage language program in Ontario continue to address the aspirations of the ethnic community to preserve its cultural identity and heritage in the mosaic of Ontario society. We must ensure that the legislation we pass today, which we will support and champion across this province, has competent and well-qualified instructors, has excellent curriculum and learning materials, adequate textbooks in the cultural languages and substantial provincial funding to meet the educational costs of this program.

My party will support the bill by the member for Oakwood. We ask him to send it to committee for a friendly amendment. We know the Liberal government will surely want to send it to committee, that it will not allow it to die in Orders and Notices so that at a later point it can introduce its own bill.

It is time for the education officials and the cultural communities to sit down together and work on a bill that will meet the aspirations and educational needs of the heritage languages program of Ontario.

Mr. Allen: I am delighted to see the three-party accord that is developing on the floor this morning with regard to this bill. That is a major development in Ontario politics.

Recently, I had the very fascinating experience of being at a citizenship court in my riding of Hamilton West. Thirty-four candidates came forward for Canadian citizenship. They represented 32 different language backgrounds. That is the reality of contemporary Ontario and contemporary Canada. What this bill seeks to do is to establish and recognize that fact as no other kind of legislation can. One can add up all of the multicultural services, whether they are sponsored by the provincial government or by the federal government or added to by municipalities and voluntary groups, but none of them can rival in significance the impact of having language programs in our schools that make it possible for people to live out of and live in and express themselves in the length and breadth of their lives in their own language.

It is not just a recognition of a contemporary fact. This bill reflects a heritage that in significant respects we have lost. There has never been a time in the history of this country, the geography of which extends from sea to sea and from the middle of the North American continent to the Arctic, in which this has not been a multicultural terrain, in which it has not been multilingual, in which it has not been multicultural. That is a fundamental reality of this country, and as the decades, the generations and the centuries pass, we have added to the numbers of groups that have participated in this reality.

The unfortunate fact is that somewhere in the mid-course of our history we somehow lost our nerve with respect to what that meant. We got caught up in concepts of what was sometimes called "integral nationalism," which said that, as a nation, we had to have one religion, one culture, one language, one people and all that nonsense, as though somehow rather submerging peoples into some kind of artificial homogeneity was going to produce a genuine people.

That dimension of our history came to its fulfilment in those great years of superpatriotism during the First World War, in which actual multilingual programs of education in various provinces of our country, including Ontario and Manitoba, for example, were stricken systematically out of the curricula of this country. There were institutions that trained teachers in bilingual and multilingual education in the first and second decades of this century; but in the second decade, in a great wave of English only, us only, unified nationalism, homogeneity, superpatriotism, those programs were demolished.

The turning point was 1916. For decades and generations, we have been living with a historic fact that repudiated our own identity as a people. The great challenge for us in our time is to recover that fact. We have done it substantially and significantly, but not enough with respect to the French community alongside the anglophone or English-speaking community in our country. We know the immense success that using French as a language of instruction in Franco-Ontarian schools has been, and what it has meant to that community. We know what French immersion has meant for countless and growing numbers of English-speaking students and those with other languages in our country.

10:40

This bill extends that principle into all the third-language groups of our country. While indeed there may be technical problems -- there may even be a necessity to amend this particular bill -- the important thing is to understand, debate and accept the fundamental principle it expresses. We can do that job when we come to committee of the whole House, hearings or however we go on to deal with this bill. The important thing for us is to recognize the reality it expresses, the identity it affirms and the vision of this country it underlines.

It has practical consequences for us. There is no country in the world better poised to play its role in the world of nations than this country by virtue of the multiplicity of language groups that have come here and found at least somewhat more hospitality, notwithstanding the suppression I have talked about, than they have found in some other countries, for example, to the south. Indeed, even Americans are now debating, in that country, bilingual and multilingual education by virtue of the movement of Hispanic groups in particular into the great republic to the south.

This is an issue of our times. If we resolve that issue we are poised to play a significant role in the world of nations. We have to capitalize on our language resources to provide the medium of exchange. If you do not have a medium of exchange you do not have an exchange of goods, let us face it. What is the fundamental medium of exchange in any society or between any two societies? It is language. As a result, language is the foundation of virtually everything we envision for our country. It is as clear and plain and basic as that.

When it comes to the problems some people raise in this respect: my goodness, if you spend all that time teaching children another language or teaching them in another language, how are they going to be able to talk to their compatriots in the common language of the nation? Let us be quite clear; if in fact it has done anything, French immersion has improved the language capacity in two languages of those students who have gone through those program. Studies show it even improves those students' capacities in some other non-language subjects as well, including sciences and other cultural subjects.

From the very first studies that were undertaken in 1975 to establish whether heritage languages were indeed appropriate for instruction in our classrooms, it was clear in those studies that the relationship of pupils and families to their school was enhanced to such a degree that there was a marked impact on the accomplishment of the students. That has been reinforced in the history of heritage language instruction ever since.

It is critical that such language instruction be embodied in the central, integral daily part of the curriculum of our schools. While that makes some people nervous, it is important, first, to affirm that principle, and second, to get on with its application.

I think all of us remember Owen Shime's final statement in his examination of this issue with respect to the dispute that took place in Toronto around the heritage language question. We recall the central affirmation that unless this was part of the central thrust of the curriculum, the daily experience of students of all backgrounds in our schools, then one was creating two classes of students: ghettoizing third-language students who would take part in those language studies and placing on them temptations to prefer sports, athletics or some other extracurricular activity to a fundamental language involvement that they should have.

For all those considerations, but most of all for what it means for an affirmation of the identify of our province and our nation, I rise to support this bill. I hope the accord I have listened to continues throughout the subsequent history of this bill in our Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is indeed a great pleasure for me to rise in this House today and speak in support of this important concept of heritage language instruction.

I take this time to applaud my colleague, the member for Oakwood, who has made this possible for me. I gather too that for a minister to speak on a private member's bill is not common practice, but this is very close to my heart, and to the heart of Canada and Ontario, as we proceed in developing what we call a multicultural society.

My own philosophy and experience have shown that three basic ingredients let man survive: his land, his religion and his language. If you lose your land, a certain identity is gone. If you lose your religion, it is another part of the genocide of man, of a race. If you lose your language, again that would lead to the destruction and absolute genocide of any race.

It is essential to realize that language is more than just the spoken word. Often, as I hear my colleagues debate and talk about language, it seems to mean grammar or just transmitting words back and forth. It is more than that; it is more than the spoken word. It is a custom. Language is a direct reflection of culture, in many cases a culture that has been cherished and preserved for many centuries.

I recall spending about three and a half months in Kenya and noticing about 43 different languages, plus Swahili and English, being spoken by tribal groups there. Yet there was great harmony and a great amount of communication and understanding while preserving all those different languages.

I think Canada and Ontario have a very fortunate opportunity, an opportunity to see a nation growing in a multicultural society. How do we do that? Do we go about as legislators, very quickly put in a law and say this is the way we should go without really understanding first what language is all about? This society is predominantly English and French. However, we have a multiplicity of other languages that we must understand.

Language itself preserves and transmits a cultural and historical memory as nothing else can do. It is an expression. I often stand in this House and see other members who speak different mother tongues struggle to bring the emotion and passion of what they want to carry on or put in place by transmitting that in English. Somehow I feel there is something lost, because even after saying what he has to say, one can see within the psyche of that individual that his colleagues have not understood what was said and what was wanted.

Before we go about passing a bill, I want us to understand what it is all about. In my constituency, there are quite a number of different ethnic groups that speak different languages. As their representative, I must first understand those constituents. Like myself, they came here as immigrants, away from the land of their birth, and some of them away from their religion. One of the closest and most intimate things to those people is their language.

10:50

How do we go about understanding or preserving that? Is it through the school process we have, instruction in the classroom, that will teach those languages? Is it through extended time outside regular classroom time that we address that? My government has looked at this and realizes that what is in place does not go far enough and has to be reviewed. However, when I look at Bill 80, I am hesitant as to whether that is the exact way we should go now and whether we are ready.

My time is very short and there is so much to say about this. We have to review this very carefully, not rush through legislation but make sure we preserve the languages we speak about, not only the spoken word but also an understanding of the cultural aspects. We look today at the society we have in Canada and in the United States and wonder whether we can communicate with the Pacific Rim or with Africa; we have to understand not only the spoken word but also the culture of language.

My colleague has asked me to allow him a few minutes and I will sit down to allow him that time. We must look very carefully at this and not rush into it. We must get all three parties working together to get a heritage language bill that will serve the people, all Ontarians, very well.

Mr. Shymko: I am very pleased to join in the debate. It is fortunate that this time, on an issue of strong feelings and concerns, I am getting seven minutes instead of the one minute and some 20 seconds I had on another private resolution. I thank the minister for giving me the extra two minutes and my colleague for splitting his time with me.

I stress that we have the support of this caucus for my colleague's private legislation. I do not know how my Liberal colleagues will be voting on this; it is my understanding they may be split on the issue. I was happy to hear that during a standing committee meeting with the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro), she declared publicly that she is supportive of the bill in principle. Today, we are speaking in principle; so I hope there will be unanimous support in principle from the governing party and then we will look at the details in committee.

I point out the tragedy of private legislation, in that we do not have the American congressional system or some other system where private members' bills can be guaranteed to pass. There is very little hope under our parliamentary system for private legislation ever to see daylight and become law. All this depends on the governing party.

It will be very unfortunate if we let this bill die in Orders and Notices. Having listened to the comments of my two honourable colleagues, I beg them to speak to their House leader and to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and ask them not to kill this bill in Orders and Notices. They can do it. They have the power because they set the agenda. I beg them to support this private bill. They can kill it. If their strategy is to talk very nicely today and then to kill the bill and introduce their own legislation some time in the future, it will be very unfortunate.

I do not have to address the issue of equity and the importance of Canada as a model for other countries and other jurisdictions in the entrenchment of the sensitivity of cultural and linguistic rights. I do not have to remind our colleagues as well --

Mr. Cordiano: You do not speak for the Conservative Party.

Mr. Shymko: I rarely interrupt my colleagues. I try to be nice.

Ask the francophone community in Ontario or in Canada if it can retain its culture without its language. Imagine the francophone community saying, "We would like to have only cultural guarantees but language is not important to us." Language is fundamental. Without language, we do not have culture. In the vast majority of cultures, it is fundamental.

I am pleased to see that in a confidential document I have received on the new multiculturalism policy of the present government, it is said on page 2 of that leaked secret document that culture is a fundamental human right. Ontario acknowledges that, and I would like members to remember it.

The second thing it says is that Ontario's policy on multiculturalism is to be interpreted within the context of the Constitution Act of 1982, specifically sections 15, 16 and 27. I remind my colleagues of a judicial study of the Constitution of Canada entitled The Effect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on Provincial School Legislation. It is a major study by Robert Fulton of British Columbia, who says:

"Although section 23 provisions deal only with two official languages, using section 15 and section 27, other minority groups with sufficient numbers of pupils could theoretically demand a right to education in their native languages. This could create some problems for some provincial governments, if they want to perceive them as problems, but reasonable limits clauses could probably be invoked to prevent the potential overwhelming expense of a multiple language education system."

He continues:

"Provincial governments today are not prepared to act in advance by preparing groundwork legislation, but instead are waiting for court decisions clarifying the scope of section 23."

I support this; it is inevitable. I also congratulate my colleague; he is now giving statutory rights to multiculturalism.

Mr. Grande: From the bottom of my heart, I thank the members who have spoken in this debate. On a personal level, it culminates 20 years of work within the multicultural communities and within the educational system, as a former teacher and as a politician. I feel strongly this is a direction we should be going.

I did not say this direction had to be voted and go to third reading today, a month from now or four months from now. We have engaged in good debate on principle in terms of the makeup of our multicultural society and the makeup and identity of this country. It appears there is a consensus, as my friend the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) has mentioned; I certainly hope it is a consensus. I hope the Legislature will speak with unanimity, with one voice, to the 3.5 million people of the province. Then they can expect the changes to the Education Act will occur.

I appreciate the concerns of my friend the Education critic for the Conservative Party, the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis). As I mentioned in my speech, we will get this legislation into committee and we will amend it. I am also very concerned about what happens if a minority group does not have 20 children. Where do they get this program? I hope the boards of education across the province will be flexible in that regard. However, members will understand I had to put down a number. The principle applies for one child, 20 children or 500 children, but in terms of cost and delivering educational services, as a province we decide there should be a pupil-teacher ratio. The Ministry of Education makes those decisions. Boards of education make those decisions on class size. Therefore, I tried as best I could to be as close to those numbers as possible, so that tremendous extra costs would not be incurred as a result.

11:00

We will go into committee and iron out these minor differences, but I am happy this Legislature spoke to the multicultural community with one voice today and said we would support it. In previous debates on this bill in this Legislature, the Minister of Education said he supported the bill in principle. When the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) spoke to this bill in 1978, he said he supported it in principle.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your indulgence and thanks to all the members who participated. I appreciate their support.

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Cordiano moved resolution 75:

That this House strongly encourages the federal government to review and revise the policy it is pursuing to cut back significantly established programs financing transfers to the provinces, and this House further encourages the federal government to allocate additional resources both to basic funding of post-secondary education and to the federal granting councils for the support of basic research.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Cordiano: As most members know -- and if they do not, they should know -- our country faces very intense international competition based on the fact that we are lagging behind in research and knowledge capabilities, gathering of information, new sources of information and new technologies. The role our post-secondary institutions will play in improving our ability to compete on a global scale is a crucial one to the success of our country's economic expansion in the future.

I want to quote what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had to say at the first ministers' conference that took place last month. He said, "We must compete by putting the most advanced technology in the hands of the best-educated and best-trained work force." When addressing other provincial first ministers, the Premier indicated that "Canada cannot march to the music of 10 different bands."

We have to move in harmony. We have to move as one country. We must speak with one voice on the international front, as well as on matters of concern to this country internally. That is difficult to do at times, given the nature of our country, the vastness of it and its regional diversity, but it is essential that we move in harmony in this area.

As the Premier has stated, we must set a goal for ourselves to double spending on research and development within the next 10 years. The Premier called for a co-ordinated national science and technology strategy for Canada at the last first ministers' conference. He proposed that provincial ministers responsible for science and technology develop an action plan to match the research and development spending of our major industrial competitors.

We have seen, over the years, reports by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and other organizations indicating that this country seriously lagged behind in our efforts to spend on research and development and to promote basic research. This government is prepared to do its part and has made a beginning on what was called for as part of the national strategy.

We have made a commitment to our postsecondary institutions. Starting with 1985-86, we established three funds, which I am sure most members are familiar with, to address specific basic problems identified by the institutions themselves and by several important committees and commissions, such as the Bovey commission. We allocated $50 million to these funds. These were referred to as the excellence funds for institutions. There was a teaching equipment and library enhancement fund, a research leadership fund and a faculty renewal fund.

The faculty renewal fund has since been expanded to provide $84 million in a multi-year commitment to support the hiring of approximately 500 new faculty members. The fund will greatly increase the opportunity for young Canadian scholars. That is essential because our faculties require upgrading, and there is room for new blood to come in on the scene. That is always critical to establishing new ideas and approaches.

Our government has also undertaken measures to enhance greatly capital support to our postsecondary institutions. This past spring, a renovation fund was created with $9 million allocated to it in the first year. At the same time, we committed $24 million for 10 major capital projects at various universities throughout the province; for example, $3 million towards campus redevelopment at the University of Ottawa, approximately $4.5 million towards renovations of the science building at Laurentian University and approximately $5.5 million towards construction of facilities for arts and social sciences at Wilfrid Laurier University.

As well, in the area of capital support, we committed $30 million to the University of Toronto for the construction of a new facility for the faculties of forestry and mining and the department of botany. I also want to point out that the University of Toronto received approximately $10 million for its new supercomputer. It will help the university in establishing a research capacity, which was lacking in many ways. We did not have that facility, and this will allow the university to respond to leading edge research requirements.

Our government is committed to continuing to work towards improving students' assistance programs. This is something that has come up as a serious problem from time to time, where many students face difficulty. I hear from students all the time with respect to the Ontario student assistance program and our ability to provide for the needs of students who are not financially well off. This year, in 1986-87, we provided an increase in OSAP funding of eight per cent.

11:10

I want to get back to our throne speech of April 22. I know members will be delighted to hear some of the highlights of that speech as I reiterate them.

Mr. McFadden: Were there any?

Mr. Cordiano: My friend the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden), I am sure, is very interested in this point.

Mr. Pierce: I can hardly wait. Go ahead.

Mr. Cordiano: We announced in the speech from the throne that the Premier's Council would be created to administer a $1-billion technology fund, and this has indeed put Ontario in the forefront of economic leadership and technological innovation in this country.

Mr. Laughren: Sure.

Mr. Cordiano: You may have your doubts, but I think we have made a very big commitment to research and development, and we have to co-ordinate our efforts within the entire country. It is not good enough that Ontario is doing this on its own and that each province is creating its own fund and moving in different directions. We may be duplicating our efforts, and that is not a good way to respond in getting the most from scarce resources in this country. Research is a very expensive proposition, and those scarce resources have to be efficiently allocated.

The $1-billion technology fund, headed by the Premier himself, tends to direct money to business, universities and colleges by way of shared financing. As a result, our government will act as a catalyst to stimulate joint ventures in strategic fields, and I think that is important.

I know many of my colleagues on the opposite side have called for an industrial strategy from time to time to co-ordinate efforts and address the problems in a strategic fashion and, in a way, the Premier's initiative in the creation of the council attempts to do that. It attempts to reach certain targeted areas to point out strategically what is required and to make decisions in assisting this province to expand in certain areas that will help the overall economy.

In addition, the speech from the throne announced this government's intention to encourage the development of centres of excellence in our post-secondary institutions and to establish research chairs.

On October 15, we announced a revised university research incentive fund, which will encourage universities and the private sector to enter into co-operative ventures. The program will be supported by the $1-billion technology fund, and consideration will be given to many other initiatives as well.

Finally, I want to point out to members across the floor that we have made a significant commitment to our post-secondary education system. We have shown this by increasing funds, but it is not just a question of increasing funds and increasing operating grants. Certainly that is important, but it is what we do with the money, in the final analysis, that counts most. If we are simply increasing budgets and allocating these resources without looking at what is required down the road, then that will shortchange this province. We intend to look at what is going to happen down the road. We intend to devise a long-term strategy for our post-secondary institutions, as they themselves are aware of and are looking at those requirements down the road.

I want to get to the fact that the federal government has significantly cut back in basic research funding. This is very crucial. The decision to freeze the base budgets of the federal granting councils at their 1985-86 levels until 1990-91 is incredible. We are going to fall far behind. All the provinces are going to be very hard-pressed to make up the difference. The increasingly fast pace of technological advancement is not something we can just live with because we will fall behind year after year. We are already behind the other major industrialized countries. For the federal government to freeze base funding at 1985-86 levels will seriously hamper our ability to increase funding at the provincial level.

It is only societies that maintain research capacity of the required size and quality that can participate in our new technological society at large. The world is becoming a technologically common society because technology is easily transferable and knows no differences of language or culture. To participate in that advancement it is essential and crucial that the federal government maintain its funding levels or increase them. With its budgets decreasing in purchasing power, our ability to survive at the forefront of leading-edge technology is rapidly eroding.

The matching grant program recently announced by the federal government in effect provides that every dollar the universities are able to come up with from the private sector for research will be matched by a dollar from the relevant research council to a maximum of six per cent per year. While the program has considerable appeal, I think it will be a failure because it is being viewed with a great deal of guarded optimism. I believe industry is holding back because it is more concerned with applied research as opposed to basic research, and that is a fundamental difference which is very important.

At this point, I want to say that the cutbacks involve not only post-secondary education but also health. This seriously hampers our ability to deal with the problems we face at the provincial level in our two most important areas, education and health.

As the Premier pointed out at the last federal first ministers' conference, "Financing payments and established programs transfers stand to cost all the provinces $5.7 billion in funding for post-secondary education and health by 1990-91." The post-secondary component of these funding cuts equals the total budget of the University of Toronto for three years; so we can see how significant that cutback is.

Finally, it is essential that we recognize that established programs financing transfers to the provinces are fundamental to this province's ability to maintain its industrial base, to advance its economy and to make strides in new areas. We can say that for the entire country. I think leaving it entirely up to the provinces and our Treasury is quite shameful for this country. I ask members to support my resolution.

11:20

The Deputy Speaker: Do you wish to reserve the last two minutes and 20 seconds?

Mr. Cordiano: Yes.

Mr. McFadden: This is the spirit of peace on earth and goodwill to all, as everybody in the House knows. Consequently, I intend to be as charitable as possible in discussing this resolution this morning. However, I will say that the member's lack of goodwill nationally and his audacity is surpassed only by his lack of imagination.

When I first read the resolution, I thought I was suffering from déjà vu. It sounded identical to a resolution I thought I had debated in this House only a few months ago. When I looked back in Hansard, what should I find but a resolution that was debated in this House on June 19. In effect, the resolution we are looking at this morning is a retreaded version of a resolution introduced by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) and passed by this House on June 19.

While post-secondary funding is of great importance to this province, as it is to the entire country, it is strange that we should be debating today a resolution that is almost identical to the one introduced by another member of the same caucus only six months ago when there are so many other important resolutions and private members' bills of major importance to Ontarians currently languishing in Orders and Notices.

Even worse, all this resolution does in effect is condemn another level of government without setting out any creative or useful thoughts about the provincial government's agenda or programs. The member for Downsview (Mr. Cordiano) is displaying remarkable nerve, condemning the federal government's financial commitment to post-secondary education. Not only are the federal government's financial problems a result of the fact that its federal Liberal cousins under the stewardship of Pierre Trudeau spent money like drunken sailors, but also the current provincial government has done little to be boastful about in the area of post-secondary funding.

As the member may be aware, before the federal Liberals were relieved of office in September 1984, they had begun to reduce the amount of annual increase in the established programs financing. During the early 1980s, the federal Liberal government made some major cuts in the area of funding for basic research.

The honourable member may also be aware that in 1975 the Canadian government had a manageable annual deficit of $3.8 billion. By 1984-85, the deficit had ballooned to $37 billion. When John Turner ended his brief tenure as Prime Minister of Canada, interest payments alone on the national debt gobbled up more than 25 per cent of the federal budget.

This is a far cry from the excellent financial situation the current provincial government inherited after 42 years of Progressive Conservative administrations. Today, interest payments on the provincial debt account for only 11 per cent of the provincial budget, which is almost one third of what it is nationally.

The financial condition of this province which the Liberal government inherited from our party gave the current government a great deal of room to manoeuvre. It gave the current government the excellent situation in terms of its books which has enabled the current government to make the various spending plans it has announced to this House in recent months. Yet what has happened in the area of post-secondary education in view of the sound financial position in this province?

During the recent provincial campaign, the leader of the Liberal Party, our current Premier, stated that university funding would be the "top government priority crucial to Ontario's future." Yet in 1986-87, even with the excellence funds added in, the percentage of the provincial budget allocated to universities was only 4.3 per cent, the lowest level in 20 years. When you compare the total provincial allocation to universities in 1986-87 and 1987-88, the increase is only 7.3 per cent, or only 3.3 per cent above the rate of inflation, at a time when provincial revenues are increasing by 9.6 per cent. In fact, funding for post-secondary education has been falling behind relative to other expenditures in this province, which indicates the lack of priority given to post-secondary funding.

During the recent election, the leader of the Liberal Party wrote to the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations and stated, "A Liberal government would restore the federal-provincial sharing ratio of EPF expenditures to its 1977 level." In 1977, Ontario paid 25 per cent of the operating costs of universities and the EPF transfers accounted for the rest. In 1986-87, EPF will represent 90 per cent of the costs. In 1986-87, for the province to pass on the full value of EPF transfers and then pay 25 per cent of the costs, as promised by the Premier, would require the provincial government to increase its contribution by $300 million. In 1985, in its newsletter, OCUFA stated that the province owed the universities $300 million, according to the Premier's own election promises.

The provincial government has also neglected the capital needs of Ontario universities. The Bovey commission estimated the current value of the physical plant of Ontario's universities, physical plant built up under many years of Progressive Conservative administration, at $3.5 billion. According to the Bovey report, between $66 million and $72 million is required annually for maintenance, alteration, renovations, additions to capital stock and building replacement. The $40 million of capital funding grants announced by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) is inadequate to maintain the existing physical plant of Ontario's universities.

I submit that the member for Downsview should be a bit embarrassed to introduce this resolution. The Minister of Colleges and Universities was quoted in the September 30 issue of the Toronto Star as saying: "The fact is, were we to ignore post-secondary education, we might get elected with a majority anyway." This quote is evidence that this government's raison d'être is its own re-election.

There is no question that the federal government should be spending more money on research. In fact, a national conference sponsored by the federal government is going to be held early in 1987 to develop a national consensus in this area. The federal government should also be spending more money on day care, housing, social assistance for those in need, defence and a host of other areas; but it cannot, because federal expenditures must be made within the framework of fiscal responsibility, a concept clearly foreign to federal Liberal governments successively under Pierre Trudeau and John Turner; and apparently as well, I gather, to the presenter of the resolution this morning.

The federal government has been literally drowning in a sea of debt as a result of irresponsible spending during many years of Liberal administration in Ottawa. If the honourable member for Downsview should condemn anybody, he should be condemning Trudeau and his band of merry men and women, who mortgaged our future. Because of their irresponsible expenditures, about 30 cents of every tax dollar collected by the federal government are going towards the national debt. We have to move to change that so that additional funding can be provided for research and post-secondary education.

I am amazed that we would be debating a resolution in the House today that is strictly a recycling of a resolution we dealt with back in June on the same matter. I am amazed it would be brought in, in view of the fact that I am sure the honourable member knows very well the state of the national finances.

11:30

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I rise --

[Applause]

Mr. Allen: It is not often one is applauded simply for rising. I hope something to justify it will follow.

I rise on the one hand to support the member's resolution, because I think the motherhood concept embraced in it, namely, that the federal government should spend more money on post-secondary education and should address more money to basic research, is something everybody should agree with. I cannot find it in my heart to oppose that proposition.

What I find most unusual is the circumstance in which the member finds himself vis-à-vis the history of his federal Liberal colleagues and some of the remarks the federal Liberal task force is making as it goes around Ontario today. Second, I have difficulties with the long rehearsal of all the accomplishments of the present government, which so far are minimal and not a great deal to write home about. However, let me come back to one of the central points at issue.

It was a former federal Liberal Minister of Finance, Mr. Lalonde, who set in train the series of events which the member for Downsview has decried and which he now wishes to see reversed. I have in my hand a report from the Toronto Star, dated March 10, 1983, which announced the six per cent rule Mr. Lalonde was imposing on transfer payments.

Subsequently, the federal Minister of Finance, who is in charge of those transfer payments, let us know that the explorations of restraint, which began before his incumbency, are leading to a $6-billion reduction in the transfer payments under established programs financing over a period of four years, or $1.5 billion per year. A substantial amount of that obviously represents a loss for Ontario, whose major investment in health and in post-secondary education is substantially financed under EPF transfers.

The member might have alluded to something of that history. I find it very interesting that Mr. de Corneille, the federal member in charge of the Liberal task force currently travelling around Ontario and the country to drum up support for the proposition that there should be more spending done in the post-secondary sector, appears to spend virtually all his time drumming on the back of the provincial government, according to a report I have in hand from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, which recorded his remarks at the University of Waterloo.

The lead paragraph says:

"The federal government may have to get tough with the provinces in order to keep Canada's higher education systems from falling to pieces, says the chairman of the national Liberal Task Force on Post-Secondary Education."

The article concludes:

"Ottawa must take a stronger hand in the distribution of money for education. How can the federal government, which is responsible for taking tax money from Canadians, explain how it is spending it, if it just throws money at the provinces to spend any way they want?"

Those words are not addressed to any old province but to the history of university postsecondary financing in Ontario and, not least of all, to the present government, notwithstanding a small turnaround in the funding of universities that has occurred recently.

May I also refer to the remarks made to the present Tory regime on February 15, 1985, in the Johnson report on post-secondary funding, prepared to help the federal Minister of Finance on that issue. It says:

"From the federal withdrawal from financing post-secondary education, it is posed in this way, that is, in terms in which those transfers are given unconditionally, trusting the provinces to use them as they will], it is not a foregone conclusion that the $1.6 billion that would continue to flow to the provinces would in fact be spent on anything that the federal government had intended. It would be a matter of federal taxes being imposed and collected for the purpose of enabling the provinces to spend more to reduce their deficits. This may seem a rather direct way of stating the situation, but that in fact is the way it would be."

In other words, under the regime developed by the previous Liberal administration, it was possible to transfer moneys to the provinces in the guise of health and post-secondary education transfers and for them to be spent effectively in any old way the provinces wished. Under the Conservative administration, this province split those transfers 25 per cent to post-secondary education and 75 per cent to health in the latter years of that government.

That proportion has not basically been reversed under the present administration, and that is a fundamental fact to which I feel the member for Downsview would have wanted to call attention. The simple fact of the matter is that from 1977-78 until 1986-87, post-secondary education in Ontario as financed by the province and by the federal government saw federal established programs financing increase by 140 per cent on the one hand. At the same time, the Ontario government's grants to universities increased by only 90 per cent.

The message that needs to be conveyed is not simply a chauvinistic one from this Legislature to the federal government that it needs to pull up its socks but that all of us need to pull up our socks and to get on with the job of addressing the fundamental problems of financing postsecondary education in Canada.

It will do us no good to follow the recent report of Mr. Radwanski, who suggests we should corral our resources and create two superuniversities in Ontario as a method of resolving the problem. I do not think that would resolve anything. It would simply create two supermonoliths, and I doubt the result in terms of research, development or anything else would be greatly improved. It is a bureaucratic, mechanical answer to the problem -- and not a very fundamental one.

With respect, the current administration surprised us by adding some significant amounts of new money to the universities. However, if we are going to take to heart the member's resolution, we must recognize that in terms of per student expenditure, that increase did not bring us up the national average in our post-secondary expenditures. It left us far behind still in terms of the Ontario per capita expenditures on university financing, and it left us even farther behind if we measure the national average commitment per thousand dollars of personal income in the province. If we take the last measure, we remain roughly $400 million below the national average expenditure that would be expected of our system if we measured it in terms of personal income. The member should have been a bit more modest in stating what has been accomplished by this government and thrown his darts elsewhere.

When it comes to investing in science and research, the member is right. At an expenditure of about 1.3 or 1.4 per cent of our gross provincial product on basic research and development in this country, we are not going anywhere. We are falling farther and farther behind in the international race of our respective international economies.

It does not help when the federal government, with regard to the National Research Council, for example, decides it is going to lop off $26 million of its research spending. What in heaven's name is that government thinking of? On the one hand, it takes $14 million off basic research and diverts it to applied research in the space program, to a commitment it has with the American space program, and then cuts a further $12 million off the NRC to accommodate its ill-advised approach to its federal deficit.

When the Globe and Mail stated, "One does not lightly nominate government departments or agencies for exemption from deficit reduction duty, but we question whether the nomination of this agency for that purpose has been wisely done," it hit the nail right on the head.

When it comes to the local research expenditures of this province, I suggest the government should be listening to Dr. Ernie Holmes, who is the dean of research at the University of Waterloo, when he says that putting a program such as this government's research initiative before us when we have 22 to one or 23 to one student-faculty ratios is really a very unproductive proposition.

11:40

Mr. Knight: I am pleased to rise to participate in the discussion of the motion put forward by my colleague the member for Downsview. Before I address the resolution, however, since this is, I hope, the last day before our Christmas break, I wish you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House a joyous holiday season, all the best and much success in 1987. I wish a little more success to my Liberal colleagues, but that is only a relative statement and not an absolute one.

When we talk about the Christmas season, however, we are reminded that there are Scrooges around in this world, and the Scrooge of post-secondary spending, in my estimation, is the federal government. The member for Downsview has brought forth a resolution encouraging the federal government to review its reductions in spending. It is a resolution that we all should support. The problem is, and it has been mentioned by the member for Downsview, the reductions announced by the federal government beginning on April 1, 1986, in the established programs funding, known as EPF.

I should indicate to those in the House who are not aware of what EPF transfer payments are that these transfers are made up of tax points yielded to the province by the federal government as well as cash payments, and they are to be used for health and post-secondary education. They are combined by the province into our consolidated revenue fund and paid out to post-secondary education and health as needed. Post-secondary education, as everybody will know, includes the university panel, the college panel and also the grade 13 portion of our secondary panel.

These reductions in transfer payments, even taking our own considerable increases into effect, mean that in the future what will not be coming from the top will have to come from the bottom, or there needs to be a rationalization of the system. It is obvious to me and, I think, to everyone that we have to be mindful in the future that we do not put an undue burden on those who will have to pay from the bottom, meaning the students, and that the preferable route is to encourage the federal government to continue its necessary role in the financing of post-secondary education throughout the entire country.

I will not go into the kind of depth and detail that the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) got into, but I would like to go over a little bit of the history of the EPF payments. Prior to the mid-1960s, the federal government paid 50 per cent of the post-secondary education costs. Then in 1975-76, the federal government indicated that the transfer payments were to be spent approximately 32 per cent on post-secondary education and 68 per cent on health. I believe I see a nod from the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), who will probably speak later and perhaps correct that figure. In any event, they ordered the priority.

As a result of federal government attempts to reduce the deficit, it has announced the reductions in the rate of growth of transfer payments for both health and post-secondary education. These reductions began on April 1, 1986, a full year before they were supposed to begin. In the October 1985 budget statement, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) estimated that the revenue lost to the province as a result of these cutbacks would mean approximately $2 billion over five years and approximately $6 billion for all provinces in the country.

In the province historically -- and I am going back to the Robarts years -- since then, there has been a decline in provincial spending on postsecondary education. As a result, the federal transfer payments became a higher percentage of the moneys that were allotted to post-secondary education in the province. When we took office 16 months ago, as a government, we inherited 10 years of underfunding. Since then, the Minister of Colleges and Universities has been working to reverse that trend. There have been changes in the Ontario student assistance program; I believe an eight per cent increase was announced last January. We have allotted funds to the university renovation fund and our faculty renewal fund, and there has been a substantial increase in operating grants to the post-secondary panel.

In January 1986, the minister in estimates indicated, "Our increases in operating grants and our excellence funds meet our commitment of passing through the full increment of established programs financing to the post-secondary education panel."

That is the present situation. We know we need the funding power of the federal government and its ability to tax and transfer resources. The federal government has and should have a concern and an involvement because of its interest in the international dimension of education. Therefore, we must call upon it to reverse the trend of the diminishing of its role in the financing of post-secondary education.

I suggest that requires an interprovincial strategy for dealing with the federal government. In its throne speech, the federal government spoke of a national forum on post-secondary education. I suggest we direct that forum towards helping the federal government develop a proper policy direction, because it has been operating in a policy vacuum with respect to its funding of national post-secondary education.

If we can make sure the EPF transfer payment decisions are not simply between the federal Minister of Finance and the treasurers of the provinces, but rather that there is some involvement of those charged more directly with educational spending programs and priorities in the province, and if we can ensure that in the future the province is not driven by federal budgetary decisions and allocation mechanisms, perhaps the national forum can be a success. I suggest we should therefore call for an early date for that national forum.

Miss Stephenson: In the spirit of charity of this Christmas season, I rise to participate in this debate and to remind or perhaps suggest very gently to the member who has just completed his participation in this debate that most of his facts so far have been conveniently related to one period of time and have very deliberately neglected the absolute and actual source of the original problem regarding EPF, which was the artefact from Antigonish.

In 1980, he produced a budget that began the process of surgical laceration and radical excision of a very large amount of the EPF budget. It had been established on the basis of no specific allocation related to either post-secondary education or health, under the suggestion in 1976 of the then Prime Minister, that the provinces, which had full responsibility for these areas, should be able to make the decisions about what the proportion spent in those two areas should be.

In fact, in his remarks during the introduction of EPF in the House of Commons, Mr. Trudeau said very clearly that because the provinces had to determine what their priorities were, it was better to have no strings attached to the EPF funding. However, as soon as they got the EPF funding passed, they immediately began to think about reducing the increase of the rate of growth that they had promised as a result of the federal-provincial discussions.

11:50

As I said, in 1980, that delightful man from Antigonish decided it was appropriate to lop off immediately, as a result of the removal of the guaranteed payment, the entire cost of two universities in Ontario and to do that in one year -- not over five years, but in one year. That is the kind of pattern that has been established.

I remind the honourable member who has just spoken that in 1983 there was a joint provincial conference related to the concerns about the EPF reductions that were considerably more important at that point to this province, because we were in the midst of a very severe recession, the most severe since 1929, and were very much concerned about the huge amount --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Tory times are hard times.

Miss Stephenson: It had nothing to do with the Tories. We had a Liberal federal government in Ottawa. That is why we had a recession.

At that time, all the provinces agreed they could not accept the direction of the then federal Minister of Finance about all this. I did not hear anything from the Liberal benches at that time supportive of the total position of the provincial treasurers, ministers of health and ministers of post-secondary education who had participated in the development of the policy statements that they sent forthwith to Ottawa and debated with the then federal Minister of Finance. They got nowhere. The Liberal Minister of Finance decided that the impact of this was zilch; that the opinions of the provincial treasurers and ministers with direct responsibility counted for nothing.

Let us not suggest this is a good direction to be pursuing. It is not. However, it is not the work of the current federal government at all. This pattern was established by the previous government and was much more lacerating in many areas at that time because of the economic situation.

It is a little bit hilarious to listen to what is coming from the government benches at present, when this province is in better economic shape as a result of good management in the past than any other jurisdiction in Canada, even Alberta. Ontario has a significant amount of money it could be directing towards the very activities we are talking about, those areas for which EPF has some responsibility. Unfortunately, in the postsecondary area, not sufficient is being directed that way.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Has the member seen the ads signed by all the presidents? I thought maybe she had paid for them.

Miss Stephenson: I have seen what the Treasurer has done. He has ensured that the actual operating grant increase to post-secondary institutions in Ontario this year is the lowest percentage increase in the past five years. That is an unfortunate situation. I suggest there could be an immediate turnaround of the effect of the increased rate of reduction at the federal level if this province, with the money it has managed to have in its hot little hands as a result of good management in the past and good economic circumstances at the present time, could provide for research in the universities of this province.

It is all very well to say the federal government must participate. Yes, it must. The federal government had seduced the provinces into the national health care insurance program by promising it would provide significant amounts of money in support of the health care system. Then it passed the Canada Health Act, which ensured that while the money was being reduced, there would be greater federal intrusion into the provincial responsibility for the delivery of health care. I did not hear the members on the opposite side of the House complaining very bitterly about that when it was happening either.

There is a need for federal government participation, particularly in the post-secondary area. The benefits of post-secondary education are benefits that accrue to all Canadians, not just to one province, one university or one city. The benefit of Professor Polanyi's Nobel Prize is a benefit to all of this country. We should all be proud of it and all congratulate Professor Polanyi for his great contribution to Canada.

The federal government has a responsibility in this area, and we should certainly be talking to that government, but let us not lay the blame totally at the door of the current federal government. It is pursuing a course it perceives is necessary because it inherited the biggest Canadian deficit in history when it came into office. The Treasurer did not do that in Ontario. The federal government has major problems it has to try to overcome.

I agree with the member for Hamilton West that some areas should not receive the full impact of the paring that has to be done by ministers of finance. One area is the investment we make in the intellectual capital of our jurisdiction. They must have a little suffering, I am sure, but those areas should not have to suffer as much as some other areas, because we cannot afford that kind of distorted economic activity. At any rate, the federal government must seriously reconsider the direction it is pursuing related to this. It might modify the increase in the decrease it is suggesting will be our fate as a province.

I strongly suggest that if the Treasurer and the members of this government are really concerned about what will happen and what is happening, particularly to our post-secondary institutions, they will make better use of the large amount of unexpected revenue they have in their pockets and in their hands for the purpose of improving support for post-secondary education right now, and they will stop complaining about what is happening at the federal level, except to ensure that we pursue the activity that was established years ago in the development of the joint interprovincial committee to look at the area of established programs financing. This is not a new thought. It is a good thought for reactivation, but it is not a new one.

I concur with that, but I would like all the members opposite to suggest to the Treasurer that he rethink his position as well. That would have more immediate benefit for the post-secondary institutions of this province than almost anything else at present. It would be very helpful if he were to tell the boys at Earl's Shell that it might be beneficial to them in the future if greater research activity and greater intellectual capital was being financed within Ontario. I think they would be happy about it.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Downsview reserved two and a half minutes. I recognize the member for Downsview.

Mr. Cordiano: I want to refer back to the remarks of my good friend the member for Eglinton. He suggested I should somehow be chagrined by the fact that this resolution is a revamping of an old resolution that existed in Orders and Notices. I would have thought the member for Eglinton, who is not with us at the moment, would have felt this was an opportunity to discuss one of his favourite subjects, given that he is the critic for Colleges and Universities.

The thrust of my resolution centres on the question of post-secondary education with respect to continued support by the federal granting councils for basic research. That is essentially what I am talking about in my resolution. The federal government must have a co-ordinated national strategy for research. We must not just have a situation where the 10 provinces act on their own, go about their merry old ways and have 10 different bands playing 10 different tunes. The time has come for a co-ordinated approach, and that is essentially what my resolution calls for.

Perhaps the member for Eglinton is a little touchy about this subject because, as I recall, it was the legacy of the former Conservative government to cut back --

Mr. Laughren: You blame them and they blame the federal Liberals.

Mr. Cordiano: That is right. They blame the federal Liberals. The reality is that the former government did not support post-secondary education in this province. That is a fact the Conservatives have to live with. We are not blaming the Tories. We are putting our money where our mouth is, we are moving forward and we are committing funds.

Mr. Davis: You are doing the same thing. Just ask the Treasurer to give you some money.

Mr. Cordiano: The Treasurer, who is with us today, is moving forward to rectify that situation, which was created in the past. There have been 10 years of neglect and 10 years of abuse. We are now putting that to rest now. We are moving forward. It is a new era for this province.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for discussion on these two matters. I would like to inform the members it is now time to place the questions before the House.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Grande has moved second reading of Bill 80.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Grande: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether we can order Bill 80 to the standing committee on social development.

Agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cordiano has moved resolution 75.

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:02 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAX REBATES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I bring to the attention of this Legislature the incompetent way in which the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) has handled the farm property tax rebate.

In September, half the farmers in this province received their property tax rebate forms. The other half did not receive these same forms until this past week, three months later. The forms now have to be filled out and returned. With Christmas mailing, this means they will be in the minister's department next year.

The ministry then takes a minimum of six weeks to check the forms and mail back the property tax rebates. This means that half the farmers in this province will be receiving their rebates three, four or even five months later than the other half.

In my riding, I have been informed that no farmers in West Garafraxa and East Garafraxa have received their rebates. Why should the farmers be penalized by the incompetence of this minister? Surely the minister and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) should compensate these many thousands of farmers who have been penalized through no fault of their own.

I call on the Treasurer and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to treat these rural people with fairness and equity. They should receive one per cent per month extra rebate for every month the ministry has held up their property tax credits. Please put in place a mechanism that will ensure this does not happen again next year.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

Mr. Allen: In July the standing committee on general government, having studied the relations between the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the University of Toronto, outlined a number of alternatives that were acceptable for the future relations of those two institutions. In the intervening weeks and months, those two bodies have held negotiations that have led to what one can describe as a meeting of minds on the question.

The proposed solution that both the university and the institute recommend is one in which OISE will take over the functions of the faculty of education of the University of Toronto and thereby take over all of the teacher training, post-graduate education, research and field work in that whole area.

The major problem that has impeded a resolution and a final agreement with respect to those two institutions has been the matter of money. The dollars are not large. The institute on its side feels it needs about $3 million to $4 million in additional funds that now go to the University of Toronto to undertake that renewal of teacher training through the faculty of education. For its part, the underfunded university finds it impossible to spring that money loose from the basic income units it gets from the ministry.

I suggest to the government that the responsible course now is to find that small package of money to make this resolution possible, to bring those two parties together and to ratify their solution as our solution.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Epp: As most members are no doubt aware, this morning the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision regarding the constitutionality of the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act. As reported in the media, the Supreme Court upheld the existing law.

While I obviously have not had an opportunity to review the details of the decision, I applaud the court's judgement in this matter. The issue of Sunday openings has been of substantial concern to many members of the Legislature and to the general public, including the constituents of Waterloo North.

When faced with controversial issues such as this, we as legislators are called upon to look beyond public opinion polls. That being said, I believe the decision of the Supreme Court reflects the prevailing opinion of my constituents and their desire for some form of Sunday shopping regulation. I recognize there may be deficiencies in the present law and I look forward to its review by this Legislature.

FISHERIES PROJECTS

Mr. Stevenson: In early 1984, I called a meeting of the Pefferlaw Anglers Club and the Ministry of Natural Resources. The meeting resulted in joint research projects on the fish habitats of the Pefferlaw Brook and the fish ladder at the Pefferlaw dam.

In addition, it was decided that walleye from the Talbot River would be transplanted during the spawning run into the Pefferlaw Brook, with the Pefferlaw anglers taking part in this transfer. At a subsequent meeting, further agreements were reached for future co-operation.

The working relationship has been excellent since then. The anglers made improvements to the fish ladder, and the number of fish going over the dam has increased substantially. The anglers club record the fish passing through the ladder and assist with walleye transportation, which occurs each spring. Recently, the anglers association purchased a tank valued at $3,700 to give to the Ministry of Natural Resources, so it could transplant lake trout and whitefish yearlings into the desired locations within the lake.

I would like to congratulate the Pefferlaw Anglers Club for its initiative and financial assistance in improving the cold and warm water fisheries in Lake Simcoe. I would like also to thank the MNR staff for its continued assistance in keeping Lake Simcoe a prime fishing lake.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I am delighted the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) is here. The Minister of Labour, in his response to me on December 16, 1986, regarding the question of cancer claims for gold and mixed-ore miners in Ontario and his undercutting of the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, said, "I have heard a lot of nonsensical so-called facts.... When they are reviewed, they turn out not to be the facts." I challenge the minister to put forward those facts on which we have been wrong.

On the other hand, I will put forward a few for my friend the minister. I want to present some facts. When I raised the question of styrene in this Legislature, that it was 100 parts per million in some industries, unlike Sweden, where it is 25 parts per million, the Minister of Labour said the following, "They do not have an industry." I checked with the Swedish embassy. Interestingly enough, they have 35 to 40 companies, an industry worth $120 million a year. I do not know where the minister gets his facts.

The day before yesterday, when we talked about gold, the minister said, "As the honourable gentleman knows, a number of claims by the gold and mixed-ore miners have been accepted in some areas over the years." I checked with the United Steelworkers and I checked with the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union. To my knowledge, no one knows of a cancer claim for gold alone. If asbestos is involved or some other factor, right, but not gold or mixed-ore mining.

Perhaps the minister should get his facts correct. He should come in here with the facts he says I have wrong, because I am prepared to debate him on those facts.

HOLIDAY GREETINGS

Mr. Callahan: In this season of goodwill and with all the good-natured speeches coming from the opposition side, I rise to thank all my colleagues for the generous letters and personal notes they have addressed to me in the spirit of goodwill.

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish a merry Christmas and happy New Year to all the people of the city of Brampton, because I doubt I will be representing the entire city of Brampton at this time next year.

AID TO WAR VICTIMS

Mr. Shymko: I join the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) in expressing the best wishes of this holiday season to you, Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleagues and the people of Ontario for a merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah and a prosperous and peaceful New Year.

I want to thank the 18 members of the Legislature who have made contributions to the appeal letter I distributed yesterday, to help 10 to 12 children who have been maimed in the Afghan war following the tragic invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet troops seven years ago, the anniversary being Christmas Day.

In the light of our compassion and search for peace, let us look at these innocent victims. I appeal to members, if they have the opportunity today, to join us in bringing these children to the Hospital for Sick Children for corrective surgery. I thank the Ministry of Health, which is co-operating and the Department of External Affairs. I feel there is no better way of joining the appeal from our ambassador to the United Nations in this humanitarian gesture. What better way to celebrate peace on earth and goodwill towards men than by this gesture of compassion.

These 18 individuals have contributed $10 or more. If we each participated with a $10 contribution, $1,250 would be given to these children to help them live a decent, healthy and peaceful life.

Merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah and a happy New Year.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Foulds: When the Mulroney government decided to sacrifice jobs in the softwood lumber industry for a free trade agreement, Ontario's Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) said his government reluctantly went along. It did so because it has no idea how important forestry is to the province.

This time it has no excuse in the service sector industry, because its own report, published this week, tells it how important it is to the province and tells it that free trade will devastate the service sector, particularly the financial services industry.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SUNDAY TRADING

Hon. Mr. Scott: Today the Supreme Court of Canada gave judgement in a number of cases that dealt with the constitutionality of the Retail Business Holidays Act. This act was passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in 1975 after a lengthy report and recommendation made by the Law Reform Commission of Ontario.

The Supreme Court of Canada held, generally speaking, that the law was within the constitutional competence of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. In so far as the provisions of sections 2a and 7 of the charter applied, the law was constitutional as a reasonable restriction consistent with a free and democratic society.

The court's role in the process is now complete, and the law has been conclusively upheld as constitutional and valid. I am confident the citizens of the province will see it as their duty, now that the Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision, to comply with the law in every respect. That is the long tradition of our province, and I am confident this tradition will be honoured by all our citizens, who have always recognized that respect for existing law and the court process is a critical cornerstone of civilized life.

More than 4,000 cases of alleged breaches of the Retail Business Holidays Act have been laid over the last two years since the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed the constitutionality of the law. As honourable members will know, those cases have been adjourned by the lower courts to await the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Now that the decision is at hand, I expect that trial dates will be set in the ordinary course for the determination of those cases.

As acting Solicitor General, I want to emphasize that the direction given by my predecessor to municipal police forces and to the Ontario Provincial Police to monitor compliance with the law and to lay charges when breaches occur is confirmed. In Ontario, by and large, policing is performed by police forces under the direction of a municipal board of commissioners of police. I am confident the direction given by the Solicitor General will in every case be supported by those boards.

I should advise the members of the Legislature that the fines permitted under the act are fixed by the judges of the provincial court who hear individual cases. Fines may be fixed in any amount up to $10,000. Crown attorneys and prosecution staff will be directed to request provincial judges to fix a fine, upon conviction, that is appropriate to assure compliance with the law.

There are many law-abiding citizens in Ontario who believe the present law exhibits technical defects and anomalies that require adjustment. There are some who believe the law may be inappropriate to the needs of Ontario's society in this part of the 20th century. There are many who feel the law is valuable because it enshrines nonsectarian social values of an important kind designed to enhance family and community life.

In the democratic process, as laws are considered for modification or amendment, those views should be heard. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) previously indicated that an all-party committee of this Legislative Assembly will be asked early in the new year to hear representations our citizens wish to make in support of proposed modifications or amendments or the level of fines.

During the period when the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was pending, this government was concerned that businesses that elected to stay open in breach of the law and risk prosecution might be requiring employees who wished to comply with the law to attend at work. I am sure every honourable member believes, in the face of a constitutional law, it would be unfair to permit any employer to so act.

As I result, I will be introducing today an amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act that will prohibit employers in retail business establishments who are required to refrain from selling goods in that business on a holiday from counselling or requiring anyone to contravene the provisions of the act.

As well, the proposed amending bill introduced by me will permit an application to the Supreme Court of Ontario to enforce the law by mandatory injunction.

In addition, my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) will be introducing an amendment to the Employment Standards Act that will permit an employee who has been counselled or required to attend at work in those circumstances to make a complaint to an employment standards officer, who is invested with remedial powers under that statute.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As part of the government's overall response to this morning's decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, I will introduce later today an amendment to the Employment Standards Act to provide further protection for workers who refuse to work on Sundays.

Specifically, the amendment will give workers the right to refuse any work that breaches the provisions of the Retail Business Holidays Act. That act addresses openings on both Sundays and public holidays. The amendment I will be introducing will enable an employment standards officer to order an employee to be reinstated and/or compensated if he or she is dismissed for refusing to break the law by working. The amendment is effective today.

As honourable members know, the limitations on Sunday opening set out in the Retail Business Holidays Act were designed originally to ensure that workers have a weekly day of rest. The initiatives the government is taking today protect those principles.

Mr. Grossman: I was disappointed though not surprised, to be candid, that neither the Attorney General nor the Minister of Labour was kind enough to acknowledge the fact that the pressure for some protection for employees on Sunday had been raised in this House by my party continually, particularly over the past several weeks and particularly by the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor). The legislation, when they finally get around to it, is due to the pressure brought to bear by my colleague.

I should also like to point out to the government that this issue was raised one year ago. One year ago we had the same kind of Christmas problem, and the government refused to respond. Since that time we have had statements from the government saying, "Ontario Gets Tough on Sunday Shopping" and "Police Told to Crack Down." There were no quick-response plans. Then, "A-G Gets into the Act" -- of course, he gets into every one. This is my favourite: "Time to Reassess Our Sunday Closing Law, Peterson Says." You would think the date was today or yesterday; it was January 7, 1986, when he deemed it was time to reassess our Sunday closing laws.

What did the Premier do after that? After that, the Attorney General told him that he, the Attorney General, was not prepared to reassess it until the court case was done. Our party of course proceeded to reassess it and brought forward a task force recommendation many months ago. Had the government been at all seriously concerned about this, it would have started the task force process itself a year ago.

Now, when the going gets tough, the Attorney General, as always, runs for cover and says, notwithstanding his brave statements, "Wait a minute; now I actually have to take a position." If it is abortion, it is the problem of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). If it is a tough question with regard to law enforcement, the Solicitor General, when there was a second one, used to be responsible for telling the police what to do. Now, when it comes time to stand up and say what he believes his government should do about Sunday shopping, suddenly the Attorney General, one of the great autocrats of all times, becomes a great democrat and wants everyone to join in the handwringing and figure out what his poor government should do on this very tough issue.

In the absence of any guidance from the Attorney General, particularly this sort of misleading stuff -- "Store Staff Cannot be Forced to Work on Sundays" -- we legislators will have to pick up the ball where he has dropped it. We have had one year of inaction, one year of confusion, one year of total chaos; and with the continuing chaos this Sunday, it will be on the shoulders of the Attorney General and those of the Minister of Labour for the total absence and abdication of responsibility for one long year.

Mr. Mackenzie: I wish to respond to the statements by the acting Solicitor General and Attorney General and by the Minister of Labour. While the initiatives are useful and appreciated, it should be pointed out that this shows the answers we were getting to questions on December 3 and 4 and on other days as well were not accurate. The Attorney General's comment that if somebody had problems, he just had to call, clearly was wrong because what he has had to do is bring in the legislation we were asking for at that time.

It seems to me this legislation is not difficult. It could have been brought before this House before this date so we could have taken a look at the bills, which we have not yet been given. There are some questions I would like to have clarified in the two initiatives that have been taken. Does it clearly cover store managers? We do not know. They are some of the people who raised a number of questions with us, as well as the regular employees. There are a number of questions to be answered. It indicates that we were right in the questions we were asking and that we should have had this legislation before this day.

TECHNOLOGY FUND CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I am pleased to announce today that two initiatives that were assigned to the Premier's Council when it was established by the Speech from the throne have been developed and are now operational.

The Premier's Council has been given a mandate to "steer Ontario into the forefront of economic leadership and technological innovation." As part of that mandate, the council is expected to provide guidance to the government on eligibility criteria and allocations from a $1-billion special technology fund. The technology fund is being used to support, complement and encourage science and technology research in the private sector and in post-secondary institutions.

The Premier's Council has met four times over the course of the summer and fall and has spent much time in deliberations over the objectives, criteria and assessment procedures for the technology fund and for the development of a program to encourage centres of excellence. The technology fund has received Management Board approval and the process for screening and evaluating applications is under way. To date, 250 inquiries have been received, there are 52 active files and 12 projects are in the midst of serious consideration by the council secretariat.

A subcommittee of the Premier's Council was formed to consider centres of excellence and has worked hard over the fall to develop a program and process designed to elicit the best possible proposals. That program has now been approved by the full council and by cabinet.

Centres of excellence will bring together private sector firms and post-secondary institutions in consortiums that are designed to stimulate the production of advanced, world-class research, to train and develop world-class researchers over the medium to long-term and to encourage the transfer and diffusion of technology.

The goal is to establish an environment that will lead to the creation of new technologies. The benefits that will accrue from this investment in science and technology will help to ensure Ontario's future industrial and research competitiveness in the global marketplace.

13:50

Post-secondary institutions, private sector firms and crown corporations will all be eligible to form consortiums and to submit proposals. Eligible proposals will be assessed on the basis of their availability to comply with specific published criteria. All proposals must be submitted by March 31, 1987. The council has decided that during the first year, during the summer of 1987, the program may choose to announce a second call for proposals.

Adjudication of the scientific, technological and anticipated commercial merit of proposals will be conducted by a panel of independent experts drawn from both international and domestic sources. Assessments will be reviewed by the Premier's Council, which will forward its recommendations to Management Board of Cabinet for approval.

Funding for the centres of excellence will include full operating costs of research and will normally be available for five years, renewable upon satisfactory completion of a sunset review process.

Initially, not more than six centres will be financed, to ensure that adequate levels of funding are available to establish and maintain the quality of the centres. Information on the centres and the substance and format required for proposals to form centres of excellence will be circulated to all Ontario universities and colleges, the Ontario Federation of Labour and broadly to companies involved in research and development in Ontario.

I am pleased to inform the House that the Premier's Council, of which I am a member, has been hard at work. As a result, both the technology fund and the centres of excellence program are in place and ready to receive applications.

Mr. Gillies: Nine months after the throne speech, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology rises to inform us that the $1-billion technology fund is now operational. I am sure Abe Schwartz and a number of other people will be delighted to hear this, as the fund has really done nothing in nine months.

What have we found out about this fund? The minister tells us today that the criteria for funding are now in place and are attached -- this some eight months after the Premier's office put out a news release awarding $17.5 million to the Exploracom project. There has been one other award by this council in that period of time, for $100,000 to a university, and in the meantime the fund has accrued administrative expenses of a similar order of $100,000.

The technology fund, of course, is not a $1-billion technology fund. There is not even $100 million of new funding this year. In fact, it was supposed to be $50 million in new funding. If we look at the second-quarter Ontario Finances put out by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), there is a reduction of $7 million, which means the $100-million technology fund this year is really $43 million. A good portion of that went to our friend Mr. Schwartz, without the following things that are in today's statement: the objectives of the fund, the eligibility for the fund, the proposal assessment criteria, the form of proposal, the selection process and funding and conditions. It is all here; but it was not there for the good friend of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), Abe Schwartz. Merry Christmas, Abe.

LIABILITY INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I would like to take this opportunity to update the members on our work to alleviate the shortage of product liability insurance for Ontario exporters to the United States. This shortage has meant that Ontario manufacturers face the danger of losing sales in the vital US market, thereby threatening the livelihoods of their employees.

I informed this House in July that we were initiating a proposal with private insurers whereby a policy of up to US$1 million would be available for Ontario exporters to the US. I am happy to report this process has now been completed and we are in a position to offer assistance to Ontario firms unable to get insurance for their exports to the US.

We have negotiated a tentative agreement with seven leading insurance companies to form the US products insurance arrangement. These are Royal Insurance Co. of Canada, Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada, Co-operators General Assurance Co., Zurich Insurance Co., Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., General Accident Insurance Co. of Canada and Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada. These insurers are to be congratulated for their response to the genuine and pressing need of Ontario manufacturers which, through no fault of their own, cannot obtain liability insurance for their US products.

The three-year program begins January 1. The Ontario government will provide substantial reinsurance to private insurers participating in the plan. Ontario's share of premiums accepted over three years will not exceed $25 million, and the majority of the risk and the program administration will remain with the private sector.

This program will be one of last resort for manufacturers that have been unable to obtain insurance at any price on their US exports. Insurance agents and brokers will have to demonstrate they have made a best effort to secure coverage. There will be no element of subsidy in the program. Market rates will apply based on US experience.

I should point out that not all risks will be covered. Some companies, because of their product or claims history, may not receive quotations from the arrangement. However, we expect this to be a very small percentage of those firms now unable to obtain insurance.

This program will address the current lack of availability of liability insurance. I am confident it will be of considerable assistance to the province's exporters. We hope legislative changes in the US will not necessitate this program lasting beyond the scheduled three years.

A full information package will be provided to all insurance agents and brokers in Ontario within the next week.

Mr. Swart: I would like to make some comments on the rather amazing statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology relative to the Ontario Liberal government involving itself financially in the provision of insurance for exporters within our province. This is unique because they do not do it for anyone else; yet they give certain guarantees, at least up to $25 million, to those corporations.

I wonder whether the government realizes that there are those other than corporations that are being devastated by insurance; that young people are losing jobs with bus companies, trucking companies and towing companies because those firms cannot get insurance to cover them.

Does the government not realize that people are taking their cars off the road because they cannot get affordable insurance, even though they need it for business purposes? Does the government not know that small businesses are closing and many are operating without insurance because they cannot get it? It is another indication of that government over there providing socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am pleased to announce today that Professor Kenneth Hare has agreed to undertake a review of nuclear safety in Ontario. This review was recommended by the select committee on energy and agreed to by the government earlier this year.

Professor Hare is university professor emeritus of geography at the University of Toronto and former provost of Trinity College. He is recognized internationally for his research work in meteorology, climate and biogeography, and he has had a most distinguished academic career. He has been an officer of the Order of Canada since 1978.

Professor Hare has a long and distinguished record of service with many official bodies, foundations and institutions of high international reputation. He was chairman of the Royal Society of Canada's committee on the environmental consequences of nuclear war, which published its report in 1984. Professor Hare played a leading role in reviewing the research to be undertaken by Canada and the United States on acid rain, and he is now winding up his work as chairman of the royal society's commission on lead in the environment.

We are indeed fortunate to have obtained a person with Professor Hare's broad background, knowledge and experience for the nuclear safety review. I have asked Professor Hare to take a fresh look at Candu reactor safety in Ontario. He will be guided in his review by the recommendations of the select committee to "examine the safety of the design, operating procedures and emergency plans associated with Ontario Hydro's Candu nuclear generating plants."

As well, I have asked Professor Hare to examine any actions that have already been taken within Canada as a result of information received about the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union.

I have also indicated to him that I have a plan to ask the federal government to institute an operational safety review team through the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. Essentially, this team will study the design features and operational safety practices now in place at Ontario Hydro's generating stations. I expect Professor Hare will provide advice regarding the terms of reference for this review. The results of the study will be provided to Professor Hare as one component of the information available to him.

Professor Hare will begin his review in January. I have asked him to submit his report to me as soon as possible, and in any case no later than December 31, 1987. I have also told him he can count on the full technical and scientific support of Ontario Hydro and of the federal government and its agencies.

In accepting this important task, Professor Hare has expressed his intention to consult widely. He will obtain a cross-section of technical and scientific views and information and will invite submissions from interested groups on the scientific and engineering dimensions of nuclear safety. I welcome this approach, and I have agreed that the budget for the nuclear safety review will include funds to assist such interested groups in the preparation of technical submissions. I have also agreed to Professor Hare's close collaboration with the Royal Society of Canada in carrying out this important assignment.

It is Professor Hare's wish, as well as the intention of this government, that all studies commissioned by Professor Hare, all materials submitted by interested groups and his final report will be made available to the public.

I believe that in Professor Hare we have a distinguished Canadian who will command the respect and confidence of all facets of Ontario society. I am confident he will bring a fresh perspective and analysis to the questions of nuclear safety in this province.

I am today tabling my letter appointing Professor Hare as commissioner of the Ontario nuclear safety review, along with information on Professor Hare's career.

A previous commitment has prevented Professor Hare from being in Toronto today. However, he has agreed to be available tomorrow at two o'clock in the Legislature's media studio. All those people in that corner can question the good professor at that time.

Mr. Charlton: I wish to take a brief moment to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy this afternoon. The Minister of Energy has just thrown the final insult at the select committee on energy and at the members of this Legislature who, through a number of their committees, have demanded for a number of years an independent review of nuclear safety in Ontario.

It is unfortunate the minister has not even learned how to read and understand English properly. The committee called for an independent panel. The minister has announced the appointment of Professor Hare, someone who is not independent on the question of nuclear energy in Ontario. He has been a direct participant in the nuclear debate in this province. He testified before the former select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs in a pro-nuclear role and participated in studies on nuclear waste and nuclear waste disposal. His biases are already clearly on the record in black and white.

How can the minister possibly expect the members of this House and the people of this province to have any faith in any review of nuclear safety that is done by a man whose biases are already clearly on the record? It is a joke. It is a farce. He has avoided the issue that was put to him by the select committee.

VENTE DE TERRAINS

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: J'aimerais présenter, aujourd'hui, le rapport réalisé par le personnel du ministère des Affaires municipales concernant les inquiétudes et les allégations de certains contribuables quant à la vente de terrains à vocation industrielle à la ville de Vaughan.

This report deals with procedures used in the sale of town-owned lands. It notes weaknesses in the town of Vaughan's administrative practices. These include extensive use of in camera meetings, amendments to agreements following council approval and the lack of public advertising and tendering for the sale of public industrial land.

The members will note that at the end of the report final recommendations have been deferred until the outcome of a police investigation.

Cependant, vous constaterez, Monsieur le Président, à la lecture de la lettre jointe au rapport, qu'une étude approfondie des pratiques et procédures de la ville de Vaughan est nécessaire.

It is obvious there is a need for a comprehensive review of council procedures and administrative processes to bring them up to an acceptable standard.

ONTARIO STATISTICS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table today the 10th edition of Ontario Statistics, a compendium of data on social and economic activity in this province. I would add that Ontario Statistics is being published for the first time in French and in English.

14:10

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Grossman: I regret if we interrupted the conversation between the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson). We would have enjoyed hearing it, as the whip is apparently now enjoying hearing it. I understand his nervousness, but we will continue.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Attorney General. Can he tell us whether he was mistaken -- perish the thought that he would be mistaken -- or would he entertain the possibility that he was mistaken when he said in this now legendary headline dated December 4, "Store Staff Cannot be Forced to Work on Sundays, Scott Says"? Perish the thought, but was he wrong on that day or is he bringing in legislation which duplicates protection that is already in place?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The response of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) was as mean spirited a piece of business as I can imagine.

Let me be perfectly frank with him. I have often been wrong and I will be wrong again in the future. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to make the same concession to reality, but he will not.

The question is, was I wrong? I said two things. I said I wanted to hear from any people who had lost their jobs because they had been forced to work on Sundays. I had a lot of phone calls from members of the opposition, who were obviously afraid they were going to lose their jobs, but I heard from no citizen who said he had lost his job. I do not think I was wrong to do that. I am not ashamed to have done it and to have invited people to call if they confronted that kind of problem.

I said I believed there was a provision in the Provincial Offences Act that permitted us to enable those people to get their jobs back. It is still there. It presents some ambiguous and difficult problems. I may have been wrong to say it was sufficient. I still think it was. The purpose of this law is to make clear, beyond any doubt, that a person will not lose his job if he is required to work against the law.

Mr. Grossman: We do appreciate the clarification today, which the Attorney General has refused to give until this date. Let us understand what his clarification is.

What he meant on that date, "Store Staff Cannot be Forced to Work on Sundays," what he really meant, apparently from the answer he just gave, is that if employees are fired, they can hire a lawyer and sue the employer who just fired them to try and get their jobs back. That is what he just said. I have the article here. In this article, he gives the clear impression, which is his wont, that a law is in place that says store staff cannot be forced to work Sundays.

In the holiday spirit, is he prepared to concede that what he said earlier is right, he can make a mistake, and that what he meant to say two weeks ago when he was refusing to take any action whatsoever to protect employees was that if they were fired, they could sue to get their jobs back?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As a matter of humanity, which is consistent with some view of the season, I am prepared to admit I make mistakes. I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opposition even countenance such a possibility, though the public knows the Conservative Party may have made the biggest mistake in its history within the past year. However, it is a mistake that is recoverable. Where is the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) when we need him?

When I was asked about this matter, I believed, on the basis of advice I obtained from highly qualified officials in my ministry, that the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act would do the trick. I asked anybody who had been fired to communicate with me.

On reflection, we thought that section of the Provincial Offences Act was not apt to this purpose. Therefore, we recommended to my cabinet colleagues that this amendment be made. I think that was a prudent and sensible course in the public interest, designed to protect the interests of any workers who might be fired, and I am not ashamed to have taken it.

Mr. Grossman: The only mistake we on this side of the House made was to expect that when the Attorney General came into the House, he might answer questions. We were wrong.

I want to refer the Attorney General, as he tries to explain his way around these unusual statements, to listen to these words of his: "...Any employee who does not care to work on Sunday and is employed in a trade that is regulated by the act" -- not the Provincial Offences Act, but the Retail Business Holidays Act -- "is not obliged to work on Sunday. I assure all members that no jobs will be lost in Ontario by any employer attempting to force employees who do not want to do so to work on that day."

This was the Attorney General's statement of December 3. He referred to the act. He said that under the legislation employees were not obliged to work. Today, he is introducing an attempt to explain his inaction by saying that suddenly a brand-new extraneous act that he just introduced applies.

Now that the Attorney General has finally decided to do what both opposition parties have been telling him to do for three weeks, how does he explain the statements he has been handing out to the public for several weeks, saying they did not need legislation and were already protected?

Hon, Mr. Scott: It was always against the law for an employer to require someone to work on Sunday under the Retail Business Holidays Act. The issue --

Mr. Grossman: What section?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Perhaps the honourable leader will just listen. He should try it for a change and see whether it works.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Is he finished?

The issue was whether the government could compel an employer to take back an employee who had been fired unlawfully for a breach of the law. I said yesterday that the existing remedy was a civil remedy. We have today created a criminal penalty and invoked the provision of the Employment Standards Act. The statement of December 3 that the member quoted was my view then, and it is my view today.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: The Premier's flagrant abuse of the standing orders of this Legislature has made a mockery of the concept of open government in Ontario. We now have more than 100 written questions in Orders and Notices that the government refuses to deal with, some dating back more than a year. Three cabinet ministers have already resigned because of improper conduct. Why is the Premier deliberately stonewalling this Legislature by holding back government information on these questions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I refer that question to the House leader.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member opposite and his colleagues have raised this matter previously. I have refrained from quoting from Hansard what he and his colleagues said in similar circumstances in years gone by, because I agree that the previous government, just as is this government, was doing its best to respond to complex questions that require expensive and lengthy answers.

We are tabling the answers as soon as they are available. Rather than accusing the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of deliberate stonewalling, the member surely should accept the goodwill on this side as we accept it on that side. We are doing the best we can to see that the information requested by the members opposite is made available as soon as possible.

14:20

Mr. Harris: The Premier would not cooperate when my party produced information that proved to be true about the three failed cabinet ministers. The Ontario Provincial Police or the Metro police have now been called in on a number of issues, including Wyda, Spectrum, the Vaughan property transaction and the former Solicitor General, when the Premier (Mr. Peterson) would not accept his responsibility to provide essential information. He refused a judicial inquiry into the Wyda scandal. He refused a commission, as requested more than eight months ago, into the Vaughan land scam case, whatever that is; we do not know.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Harris: He continues to break the rules of this House by refusing to answer or by giving superficial, coverup answers to more than 100 questions in Orders and Notices.

It is the selective questions that deal with all these issues, and more that appear to be there, that he refuses to answer. With that selective answering, why is the government continuing to hide information from this Legislature and from the public?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Anything but that is the truth. We are preparing the answers as rapidly as we can. We have tabled the answers to scores of questions put in Orders and Notices by the members opposite. We will continue to do our best in this regard.

I am sure the member will realize most of the information requested is available in volume 3 of the public accounts, which was tabled yesterday. It is available through the estimates process, which has been held up to some degree by the importance of other legislation before the House. Surely he knows there are remedies, including the oral question period, which he is using today.

I resent the imputation of motives, particularly in his original question to the head of the government, that there is some sort of deliberate stonewalling. This is definitely not true.

Mr. Harris: Perhaps the minister can indicate what is so complicated about answering in December 1986 a question tabled more than a year ago about the expenses of government travel using government and chartered aircraft. The Premier has refused to respond to that. He refused to respond last May about the expenses of government cabinet meetings in various parts of Ontario. He has stonewalled the standing committee on public accounts. The Premier has tried to cover up the actions of his cabinet colleagues. He continues to conceal information from the public by violating the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Harris: Is it because he is incompetent that he cannot answer these questions? Is the government that rotten, or is he afraid to table this information because he has something else to hide?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member indicated one of the questions that concerns him more than anything else is the cost of travel. If he does not have time to read volume 3 of the public accounts himself, he might look at the reports in the newspapers that indicate he and his colleagues in the old Tory administration spent at a far faster rate than any of the members of the Liberal administration. That information is available to him.

I want to quote from Hansard of April 18, 1984, in the name of the government of Ontario at that time, of which the member who asked the question was a part. It states the sources from which this information can be extracted "include the public accounts of Ontario, the legislative library, ministry libraries, caucus research offices," which have at least been tripled in the time since the Tories left office, "the resources of which have increased considerably...and, of course, the estimates process."

That is the answer they gave us, we accepted it in good faith, we are giving it to them and they know what they can do with it.

Mr. Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This shows how arrogant this government has become in 18 months.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was not a point of order. I am sure all members will read Hansard after today.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Mackenzie: If we can get back to a slightly more serious matter, I have a question of the Minister of Financial Institutions. The minister may be aware that Rothmans is permanently closing its Toronto plant as of tomorrow, throwing another 145 workers, members of Local 319 of the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union, out of work.

Rothmans has informed the union that it wants to remove the surplus in the pension plan, which amounts to about half of the $8.6 million in the fund. The minister's recently announced moratorium on surplus withdrawals does not apply in windup situations. Rothmans has indicated it intends to use the surplus to provide severance pay and other benefits to the workers; the employees will thus be, in effect, paying for some of their benefits and severance pay arrangements in spite of having separate contractual, negotiated arrangements in these plans. Part of their agreement is that if the plant is wound up, the pension funds will be theirs.

What is the minister prepared to do to ensure that these workers receive what is rightfully theirs and avoid a long and costly court battle over the pension funds?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The situation that the member of the third party brings to my attention is being handled by the Pension Commission of Ontario.

I should mention that the freeze I have put in my proposal is a freeze on surplus fund withdrawals from ongoing plans. There is provision in most plans for when the plan is wound up. As a matter of fact, 90 per cent of the plans make provision for what happens to surplus funds on windup. On the other hand, nearly all the plans are silent when it comes to removal of a surplus from ongoing plans.

Mr. Mackenzie: It gets difficult with this minister at times.

The minister has placed a ban on surplus withdrawals from ongoing pension plans. Unfortunately, the same protection does not apply to pension plans that are being wound up or terminated. In the past two years, the surpluses withdrawn from plans being wound up have amounted to more than $100 million.

These plans being wound up are often the result of plant closures, instances where the workers are most in need of protection. When will the minister realize the money in these pension plans belongs to the workers and place a moratorium on surplus withdrawals from all pension plans, not just those that are ongoing?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to clarify the problem we have. On windup, most plans have a provision that deals with the surplus. That is a contractual arrangement between the members of the plan and the plan sponsor. If there is no mention -- and there may be 10 per cent of all plans that do not mention what happens to the surplus in a windup -- then that is something for the pension commission to determine, or failing that, it may have to be resolved in the courts.

We have dealt in our provision with what happens to ongoing plans, because there is no mention. That is where the problem is and that is where the discrepancy is. We have put a freeze on that because there is no provision in most plans on how to deal with it.

Mr. McClellan: Surely even this minister realizes that the legalized theft of surplus funds is a relatively recent discovery in the corporate world. While we have had all kinds of discussion about ongoing plans, given that in the United States more than $7 billion has been taken out of pension plan surplus funds through the process of terminating pension plans in the last few years, and given that in Ontario since 1985 more than $100 million has been taken out of so-called surplus funds from pension plans that are terminating here, does the minister not understand that by failing to close this loophole, which was not anticipated in the past, he has built in an incentive to people in the corporate world to terminate pension plans in order to get their hands on the surplus funds?

14:30

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The House leader of the third party has just touched on a very important issue, the issue we are dealing with and the reason we have gone through the process we have. What happens is that when you have a defined-benefit pension plan, there is a possibility of surpluses accruing in an ongoing plan. Once you push too far, there is every incentive for some plans' sponsors to wind up the plan, distribute the benefits, take the surplus and then go to a defined-contribution plan. That is what we are trying to avoid.

Now the member is saying to me, "Do you know this is happening?" I am saying it is not happening very often, but that is exactly the thing we want to prevent from happening. The way we can prevent it from happening is by dealing with it in a reasonable way, where all parties who are going to be affected by it can have some input.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I also have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions, relating to the rather strange response he gave last Monday to the question put by my leader and myself on auto insurance. In an attempt to discredit the driver-owned public insurance plans, the minister quoted the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and said: "Members in British Columbia and Manitoba reported the greatest incidence of large increases, with 29 per cent in both provinces having to pay increases of more than 50 per cent."

I wonder whether the minister would now admit that his figures, as confirmed to us by the CFIB, had nothing to do with auto insurance but represented only general liability coverage to its small business members?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is what I said. I never for one moment referred to automobile insurance. What I was suggesting, if the honourable member will listen, is that the situation -- It is too bad the leader of the third party is not here. When he talked to me, he suggested that one of the things I had said was somewhat moronic, and I am reminded of a story. There used to be moron jokes. One moron joke was: A moron lost a dollar and he was looking for it out in the hall. Someone said, "Where did you lose it?" He said, "I lost it in the other room, but I am looking here because the light is better."

The leader of the third party refers to insurance in Manitoba. He refers to what they are doing there but ignores the situation in Ontario. I am suggesting that if he can get Manitoba to quote rates in Ontario, then we can compare. I am also suggesting that with respect to government insurance in both British Columbia and Manitoba, other than car insurance -- where they are caught in a situation in which they do not have the political will to address it -- in the other areas either they have gone out of the business or their rates have increased, as that shows, by 50 per cent.

Mr. Swart: I cannot refrain from saying that the right man is telling the moronic jokes. He understands them.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, do you not think that the minister should apologize to the member for implying that he is a moron.

Mr. Speaker: That is a point. However, I listened very carefully and I do not think that was the case.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary, the minister may think it is his style, but I think the people of this province will think it is something of a cop-out to answer a question on auto insurance with a reply on liability insurance.

Now that he has admitted, as he has, that the CFIB refers to liability insurance only in British Columbia and Manitoba, I want to ask him whether he is so out of touch with the real world of insurance that he does not know that the Social Credit government of British Columbia sold off its liability insurance almost two years ago, in February 1985. In Manitoba, the bulk of liability insurance is sold by the private sector. Therefore, will the minister concur with me today, as he inadvertently did on Monday, that the rates of private insurance companies are a ripoff?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If the member would only admit it, the reason both those jurisdictions got rid of their liability insurance was that it was costing the people of those provinces millions of dollars. They were losing their shirts and they got out of that business. That is the reason. It had nothing to do with anything other than that it made no sense for them to be in that business.

Mr. Swart: The minister is wrong again. The Social Credit government sold it off because it is a right-wing government, as this government is. The Manitoba government still has its public liability insurance.

Mr. Speaker: Has the member a question?

Mr. Swart: Yes. Given the minister's colossal ignorance of what has taken place and is taking place in the driver-owned public auto insurance plans in the west and given that he probably does not even know that the auto insurance rates of the public plans had no increase in 1985 and 1986, compared to an increase of 35 to 40 per cent in Ontario -- yet the private casualty and property insurers here are making their highest profits ever
-- why does the minister not simply admit he is a lackey for the private insurance companies, that they will get from him what they want and, as far as he is concerned, the motoring public be damned?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member, as usual, tries to cover up facts with rhetoric. I have a headline here from the Winnipeg Free Press, which I have shown to the member before. It says, "Autopac Expected to Lose $4 Million." That is the situation in the Winnipeg paper. It says, "A Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. source says that Autopac's losses this year could even be higher." If the member would only get his facts straight and make the arguments based on facts, we could deal with them.

SALE OF LANDS

Mr. Partington: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who continues to duck his responsibilities under the Municipal Act. Will the minister tell this House the date on which he or his staff notified the town of Vaughan that he would not be conducting a commission of inquiry into the questionable land sales in that community involving a certain high-profile Liberal?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: While the ministry was conducting the review of the land sale that took place in Vaughan, we were advised that the Ontario Provincial Police was also conducting a similar review of the procedures used in the sale of these lands. Therefore, the ministry simply co-operated with the OPP and we discontinued our review. Even today, the OPP still continues to conduct its own investigation.

Mr. Gillies: On December 8, the minister told the House he did not believe an inquiry was necessary under section 180 of the Municipal Act in this matter. Today we have his internal report before us, which cites extensive use of in camera meetings surrounding these land deals, amendments to agreements by staff following council approval and, most seriously, the lack of public advertising and tendering for the sale of public industrial land. He alludes to all these things, but nowhere in this report can the members of this House learn why.

What is the motivation behind this? Why will the minister not launch a proper inquiry into this matter?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The honourable member will read on page 17 of the report that I am still awaiting the OPP report, whenever the investigation is concluded. Pending that report, there is a possibility the ministry will conduct its own commission of inquiry, but we are awaiting the final OPP report, and it says so right on page 17. Nowhere in my report or the minister's report do we make any allusion to any coverup of anybody in this House.

14:40

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The member's original question made an allusion to a high-profile Liberal in the area. It is a very serious innuendo. I am not doing anything but drawing it to your attention, but it seems to be quite seriously inappropriate for a statement such as that to be made here or anywhere.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Brock wish to make any comment?

Mr. Partington: No.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member maligned a very large group of individuals. I do not think that is fair or appropriate and I consider it highly irresponsible.

Mr. Davis: If the shoe fits, wear it.

Mr. O'Connor: If you do not like it, you know what you can do with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Mackenzie: I have another question for the acting Solicitor General. Giving the record of compliance and the Sunday shopping problem in the past in Ontario, can the acting Solicitor General tell this House clearly whether the protection the government is now talking about will also apply to the small shop owners in each individual mall, such as Lime Ridge Mall in Hamilton, owned by Cadillac Fairview, if those shops decide to stay open?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I believe it will.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister clarify that point, not only in terms of owners of the small shops or franchise operators, but also in terms of the management or managers of these shops? Will that be included in the legislation he is bringing in?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The amendment applies to all employees who are covered by the act. The manager of a store, unless he is the owner of the store, is an employee of the store.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Doug Downey, Norm Prentice and Grant Ferguson are all prepared to put in writing that they would not have obtained operating credit for their 1986 potato crop if it had not been for a phone call from one of the ministry staff to their bankers in Shelburne. Why is the minister continuing to cover up that he and his ministry led these farmers and their bankers astray?

Hon. Mr. Ridden: If you sweep a basement often enough, you will eventually get most of the cobwebs. I have answered the member's question three times now. I gave him the scenario of what took place. The only inkling my staff could have given anyone was that I was prepared to go with a cabinet submission for some financial assistance, but that was not until July or August, long after the potato producers had planted their crops. How in the world could the potato producers have based their decision to plant on that, when I did not even hear about Natural Fry and the situation it was in until June, and we were not prepared to go with the cabinet submission until some time in July or August.

Mr. Stevenson: How about October or November?

Mr. Speaker: Is that your supplementary?

Mr. Stevenson: In the minister's estimates, he said much about the confidence he has in his ministry staff. He also said he is the captain. Clearly, he has the responsibility for the actions of his staff.

We also know the name of the person who made the phone call. There is no secret about that. It is very clear that staff person would never have made that call had it not been for utterances from the minister around the ministry that financial support would be forthcoming.

Will the minister not now agree that his sloppy handling led those potato growers into a $400,000 boondoggle?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As I said to the honourable gentleman when he posed the question yesterday, if he can send me any written commitment my staff or anyone else made which would encourage those growers to plant potatoes, then let him send that over to me, and I will be more than glad to have a look at it.

I am not sitting by a telephone listening to what my parliamentary assistant and my ministry staff are saying. The member even accused the Premier's office of giving the growers some kind of encouragement. I cannot sit by a telephone and know what is coming out of all these offices. I stand behind my staff, and my staff did not give the growers any indication in April and May, when they were planting, that we were going to be rendering financial assistance, because I did not know about Natural Fry and its insolvency until June.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Premier. Two developments have taken place this week with regard to free trade matters. First, Simon Reisman and Peter Murphy have set up the free trade talks and, second, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) released a government report which indicated that free trade would be dangerous to the services industry, particularly to the financial services industry that is so important to Ontario. Can the Premier tell me what steps he is taking to make sure the financial services industry does not become in 1987 what the softwood lumber industry became in 1986 because of his inaction?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think the two situations are analogous. This government is paying a great deal of attention to the services area. I do not think enough attention has been paid to it, not only with this government but also in other jurisdictions, given the very important role it plays in the economy.

That is a sweeping report with a number of ideas in it, the ideas of the author in that regard. That report will be shared with Mr. Reisman, his staff and others who are in the process of discussing these matters. At the moment, I do not know of any action on the issue, but the United States is particularly interested in the services area at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talks, as well as the bilateral talks. I cannot tell my honourable friend how that will develop. I do not know whether it is being discussed by Mr. Murphy and Mr. Reisman today or tomorrow -- it may or may not be -- but it is something we will be watching very closely.

Mr. Foulds: The Premier knows very well, and it is common knowledge, that the services sector, including the financial services sector, is on the free trade bargaining table. I want him to tell us what steps he has taken, with that knowledge in his mind, to protect the services industry in Ontario and to make sure it is not traded away, the way softwood lumber has been.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect, I do not see an analogy between the two. This government has done a number of things in the services area. The member will be aware of the things we have done in financial regulation. It is our view that we have the capacity to be internationally competitive in the services area, particularly in financial services and others. We are building policy supports in those areas and in a number of others -- engineering and architectural services -- where indeed this country has an international reputation.

Depending how this thing develops -- and I honestly do not know the pattern to that discussion on the services side now -- we will not sit back and deal away this country's future. I think the member can be assured of that. I am frustrated, and perhaps I am frustrating the member, because I cannot answer the question more specifically; I am not in a position to do that today, and neither is anyone else.

14:50

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Hon. Mr. Elston: On December 1, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) asked whether the government would be prepared to cover the cost of vaccine for haemophilus B influenzae vaccine. I am prepared to respond today, as I said I would at a later time, and advise that the cabinet has approved coverage of the cost of the vaccine following today's date.

Haemophilus influenzae meningitis is caused by a bacterial meningitis and it results in several things happening, including the development of epiglottiditis -- which is a form of croup -- arthritis and pneumonia in children who are five years old and younger. We will be prepared to pay the cost of the vaccination of children over two years of age, at a cost to the government of about $1 million a year.

Just for the information of the people here in the House, we do not yet have a vaccine available for children under two years of age, but I understand some work is being done to develop further vaccines for those children. I understand it is being looked at now by the Department of National Health and Welfare, but it will be some time before it is available.

Mr. Andrewes: Would the minister agree that when this vaccine is available and approved, his ministry will cover those costs as well?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is a little early for us to consider the vaccine, which is not yet even fully developed or approved by the federal government. Obviously this government, looking to the welfare of the people of the province, will be very willing to view the opportunities it has to fund the vaccines that become available to protect the citizens of the province. Since approval may be several years off, we will be pleased as a government to view that very seriously when it comes back to us.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Elston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I inadvertently misspoke myself when I was reading quickly from my notes so I would not be accused of delivering a statement.

I would like to correct the record by indicating that haemophilus influenza meningitis is a significant cause of the following diseases: bacterial meningitis; epiglottiditis, which is a form of croup; arthritis and pneumonia in children of five years and under. I earlier indicated that bacterial meningitis was a cause of those other diseases, and that is not the case.

In any event, there were 158 reported cases of this disease last year. We will be funding the vaccine to eliminate this disease in the upcoming year.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Stevenson: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who has stated now two days in a row that unless allegations are in writing, he will treat them as being unfounded. Does the minister believe statements by a former Liberal candidate to CKBB in Barrie about promised forthcoming funding to be indeed unfounded?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I cannot verify any kind of statement that has been made to any kind of news media. All I know is that the growers the member mentioned have not approached me personally about the matter. No Liberal candidate has approached me about the matter. No one has approached me. The member is the only one who is standing in this House and making these kinds of allegations. I simply have to tell him that unless he is prepared to show me in writing where my staff has been negligent in any way, I have to treat his allegations as unfounded.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stevenson: The former Liberal candidate surely does not consider this as unfounded or he would not be going over the minister's head into the Premier's office to try to get some action. Would the minister not agree that his half-baked actions and his drippy responses here in the Legislature have left the potato growers in a real mash?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The potato growers are not in a mash. The only one who is in the mash is the honourable gentleman posing the question.

The potato marketing board had its annual meeting yesterday and it passed a motion to go ahead and develop a financial protection plan. I expect the board will be asking for a meeting with me within the very near future, and at that time we will take a look at whatever options may be available for those growers. However, the growers are not in any kind of mash or mush; it is the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) who is.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding repeat orders. As I understand it, having had people write anything but orders, the minister now has a policy that says they will not write new orders, the inspectors are forbidden from doing so, and they are informed to proceed under clause 37(1)(b), which is a failure to comply with an order. As I understand it, the inspector fills out a special action request, and this is filed with the manager. The inspector can recommend no prosecution for failure to comply. These are kept in the regional office.

Can the minister tell me how many special action requests for failure to comply have been filed without a recommendation to prosecute? In other words, how many orders have not been complied with at all?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We have had some considerable debate about this. Part of the considerable debate has even surrounded when those work place parties, both management and workers, wish us to allow some additional time. We have been very strict in ensuring that we do not write repeat orders and that section 37 notices are the proper way to go. That will then allow an inspector, as the member points out, to file a section 37 and initiate at least a review of whether the failure to comply was a technical violation or something done quite deliberately and for the matter to be reviewed.

Obviously, if there is no compliance, then a prosecution is much more likely to follow, and I would suggest to the honourable member that it would indeed follow.

Mr. Martel: The minister fails to answer my question. I asked him how many have sat in there. He has decided not to write anything in his annual report on the failure to comply.

The second step in this process, as I understand it, is that a special action request, if there is a recommendation by the inspector, goes down to the legal branch for consideration as to whether they will prosecute. That being the case, can the minister tell me how many special action requests recommending prosecution have been filed with the minister, how many have resulted in a conviction and how many have not been acted on at all and are just sitting there?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Obviously the member thinks I come to this Legislature with every figure that will simply satisfy whatever today's whim is. However, I have a couple of figures. In the first six months of this year, the number of referrals to the legal branch was up by 155 per cent over last year.

The member has chosen to use some numbers over a period of time, but while I am on my feet, I thought it would be useful for the House to know that in the first 10 months of this year, the number of accidents reported to the Workers' Compensation Board was up by 2.3 per cent over last year. Of course, employment in the first 10 months of this year was up by 3.5 per cent.

I thought it would be useful to give a couple of comparisons to the House. In Quebec in that same period --

Mr. Martel: The question was on orders, not on industrial accidents. The minister might want to deal with the question.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member does not want to hear the numbers again.

Mr. Martel: Any old place in the ball park does for him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat.

Mr. Martel: Tell him to answer when he is asked.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order. New question.

Mr. Martel: If you want to make a statement, make a statement about it.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Sudbury East take his seat.

15:00

REIMBURSEMENT OF DOCTORS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Why is the government of Ontario paying from 50 per cent to 100 per cent more to Ontario doctors for treating Ontario residents, as compared to what Ontario doctors are paid by the government of Quebec for Quebec patients who receive exactly the same treatment in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is not suggesting that we pay our physicians less. Presumably, he is asking why the Quebec government is not paying as much for treatment of its patients. I presume that is what his question is.

When patients from another province are treated in Ontario, we have worked out a reimbursement mechanism between the two provinces. Some of the physicians the member is talking about have been members of la Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec, which is the Quebec payment plan. A number of them have withdrawn, as I understand it, but the rate of reimbursement by the Quebec government for services to its patients is established by the Quebec government.

Mr. Sterling: The minister must realize that in the Ottawa-Carleton area in particular, a good doctor is not going to refuse to treat a patient whether he comes from Quebec, Ontario or wherever. Does the minister think it is fair to ask the Ontario doctors in effect to subsidize Quebec at this time? Why does the minister not work out an arrangement so they are properly compensated for the services they are providing?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is getting a little off the mark, inasmuch as I have been meeting with the physicians from Ottawa and indicated I was sympathetic to their concerns. However, when it comes to spending money from Quebec, the authorities who have to make decisions on how that money is allocated are the people who control the Treasury in Quebec. I believe, as the member does, the people in Ontario will provide the service to the patients whether they are from Ontario or Quebec, and we do that, but in terms of reimbursement criteria, those are worked out on a contractual, consensual arrangement, and they may have to be reworked.

I can tell the honourable gentlemen, who is shaking his head over there, that already there are some arrangements being considered by the Quebec government that are not yet in effect, and at this point we are unsure about when they will come into effect, that may partially assist the Ontario physicians. However, even those arrangements will not bring the Quebec reimbursement up to the level of the Ontario physician providing services to the Ontario patient. That being the case, I have indicated to the people who came to see me, as representatives of the Ottawa Academy of Medicine, my interest in pursuing questions about the reimbursement they receive for Quebec patients. I will be doing that in January.

HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mrs. Grier: Now that the Minister of the Environment has arrived, I have a question for him. Given that his daily briefings are taking longer and longer, perhaps it is not too much to ask that I get a brief answer to the question, so we can all get on.

For two years, the Ministry of the Environment has allowed Spar Aerospace in North York to store more than 300 plastic drums containing cyanide waste on its property, open to the elements, subject to freezing, cracking and whatever. Only when this came to public attention was this threat to both workers and the community removed.

Does the minister agree with this apparent policy of allowing industries to create their own hazardous waste dumps rather than take it to safe disposal?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: All the activities we undertake as a ministry are designed to provide the kind of protection the public so much deserves in terms of the potential environmental consequences that could result from any misuse or improper storage of a product. Although it is not the ultimate solution, I am encouraged that there are individuals within our society -- the member was there when we discussed this at McMaster University at a conference, and she was involved in this same subject -- who are employed at various places and who assist us by pointing out problems that might exist. They are protected by the Environmental Protection Act, which is the whistle-blowing provision that does not permit that.

I share the member's concern. Whenever these matters are brought to our attention, we deal with them as a ministry as expeditiously as possible. I can assure her that if she has suggestions that may be of assistance to us in dealing with matters of this kind, she knows I am very open-minded and prepared to accept the recommendations that are made if they are reasonable.

Mrs. Grier: The minister seems to have missed the point of my question, which was that his ministry officials considered the outside storage of plastic drums of cyanide waste acceptable and allowed them to remain there for two years. Can the minister give us some assurance that he is going to strengthen the regulations and not allow this kind of dumping and disposal to continue and not allow companies to get away with avoiding the costs of safe disposal of hazardous products?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We want to encourage industries at all times to deal with matters in the most environmentally sound fashion. The member draws to our attention some of the concerns that exist in terms of the cradle-to-grave treatment of wastes. As she will know, regulation 309 dealt with that to a large extent. Companies had to have their waybills in a much better fashion than in the past. In fact, there was a tracing of these contaminants from one place to another.

I think the member is referring to companies that do so right on their own site in a way that is improper, rather than having to transport wastes to other places. I can assure the member that I want to explore this and investigate it further and come up with ideas and proposals that are conducive to producing an environmentally safe work place and an environmentally safe company yard. I assure the member that is my intention.

COURT DRESS

Mr. Callahan: My question is directed to the Attorney General. I understand that the senior provincial court judge in Ottawa has requested that lawyers appearing in provincial court be gowned in the garb I understand to be by tradition that which is worn in a district court or a Supreme Court. I would like to inquire of the Attorney General whether his ministry was aware of this before the request was made and whether the request is one that will be followed in the other provincial courts.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I was not aware that order had been given by a provincial judge in Ottawa. I will look into it.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Eglinton.

Mr. McFadden: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara). I do not know whether he is still in the chamber. I guess he has gone. I could ask a question of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) but all I can see of his desk is a box. Is the Premier in the box? I had better save it for tomorrow or Christmas Eve. I will stand down my question.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The multimillion-dollar sewage-works upgrading program in many towns around Lake Simcoe is largely completed. The Lake Simcoe strategy study put in its report in October 1985, giving its recommendations and asking for funding for moves in the future to continue the upgrading of the water in Lake Simcoe. I understand the minister is the Vice-Chairman of Management Board. Why has it taken more than a year to get a submission to cabinet for future funding for work on Lake Simcoe?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will know from his stint in government that matters of this kind must receive a good deal of consideration. He will know that applications are made to the Ministry of the Environment by a number of municipalities relating to the provision of either sewer works or water works. The member will know as well that, just as he is interested in this project because of the geographic location of his constituency, there are other members in the House who have --

Mr. Stevenson: Why do you not say you do not even know what I asked you about?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I happen to know because the member sent me a letter or a press release, one of the two. I read the member's dissertation on this. I even signed a letter of reply to him, from which he can quote in the House. Of course, it has not arrived yet; the member's federal friends in Ottawa must be responsible for that.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Not the post office.

Mr. Stevenson: It is totally the provincial government, your own ministry staff.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am trying to reply to the question. The response to the member is that we are evaluating all the projects that are brought forward for our consideration and will be making the announcement of funding at the appropriate time.

PETITIONS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. McFadden: I have a petition signed by 21 residents of Toronto, which is worded as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the imposition of market value assessment on Metro Toronto by the provincial government. The higher property taxes for many north Toronto home owners as a result of market value assessment would pose a tremendous financial hardship on many individuals, particularly those on fixed incomes, single-parent families, seniors and low-income workers.

"The people of Ontario are already paying too much in taxes. The increases in property taxes under market value assessment, caused by escalating land prices in Metro Toronto, would not result in a corresponding increase in municipal services.

"The imposition of market value assessment on Metro Toronto by the provincial government will not only cause financial hardship for many people, but also it will have a destabilizing effect upon neighbourhoods and families in north Toronto. We urge the provincial government not to impose market value assessment on Metro Toronto home owners."

This petition is addressed to this Legislature and to the government.

Mr. Speaker: I hope this might be the last time in 1986 that I have to ask the members to refrain from carrying on so many private conversations.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Partington: I have a petition signed by 811 members of the Christian Reformed Churches in St. Catharines -- the Covenant, the Maranatha and the Trinity.

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

"We, the members of the three Christian Reformed Churches in St. Catharines, hereby express our concern and objections to the use of Sunday as a regular day of business, which is increasingly being done by the major stores. We appreciate and support the action of those people who refuse to open their stores on Sundays and we endorse their stand.

"We, the members of the three Christian Reformed Churches in St. Catharines, represent about 2,500 people who live in the city and surrounding area and we urge you to keep stores closed on Sundays."

Mr. Speaker: I hope this is the last time in 1986 that I have to ask members to refrain from holding so many private, loud conversations.

Mr. Rowe: I have a petition to his Honour the Lieutenant Governor signed by 99 constituents from St. George's Allandale Anglican Church in Barrie. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, believe in keeping Sunday as a holy day in order that all people grow in holiness, i.e., `wholeness.' For this they need a regular time for `re-creation' together."

I have a second petition, signed by 416 constituents, against Sunday shopping.

Mr. McCague: I have two petitions, one from 90 constituents and another from 79, again opposed to Sunday shopping.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Mancini: I have a petition addressed:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

This petition is signed by approximately 30 people.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Newman, on behalf of Mr. McNeil, from the standing committee on the Ombudsman presented the committee's report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

On motion by Mr. Newman, the debate was adjourned.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence. I missed a petition. May I present a short petition on store hours on behalf of --

Mr. Speaker: Do members agree that we revert to petitions?

Agreed to.

PETITION

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Martel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House leaders. Very briefly, this is on behalf of good Catholic women of my area, who are opposed to Sunday shopping, and I want to join with them. I am pleased that today's decision should help matters.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Assembly be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Office of the Assembly program, $6,677,400.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that, notwithstanding any previous order of the House, changes be made with respect to the consideration of the estimates in the following committees:

In the committee of supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Housing to be considered for 12 hours and 30 minutes before the completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs; in the standing committee on administration of justice, the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to be transferred from the standing committee on resources development to the standing committee on administration of justice and to be considered for five hours before the estimates of the Ministry of Financial Institutions; in the standing committee on general government, the time remaining for the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to be reduced to seven hours and 30 minutes;

In the standing committee on resources development, commencing January 12, 1987, the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to be considered before the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, and in the standing committee on social development, the estimates of the Office Responsible for Women's Issues be transferred from the standing committee on administration of justice to the standing committee on social development and to be considered for seven hours and 30 minutes before the completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Motion agreed to.

15:20

COMMITTEE TRAVEL

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the subcommittee on members' services of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly be authorized to adjourn to Boston, Massachusetts, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, during the week of January 4, 1987.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTINGS
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that when the House adjourns today, it stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday, January 12, 1987.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, before you carry that motion, I will indicate to the members what the business will be during the week when we return.

On Monday, January 12, we will do estimates of the Ministry of Housing in committee of supply; on Tuesday and Wednesday, January 13 and 14, Bill 165, adoption disclosure; Bills 150, 151, 152; Bill 90, Metropolitan Toronto Police Force complaints; Bill 139, model law, and Bill 127, Surveyors Act.

On Thursday, we will deal with private members' resolutions in the name of the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) and the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) and Housing estimates.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It might be useful to know that committees will begin on Monday, January 12. The standing committee on social development will deal with the estimates of the Office Responsible for Women's Issues; the standing committee on resources development, estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines; the standing committee on administration of justice, the Ministry of Financial Institutions, for five hours -- that is probably wrong -- and the standing committee on general government, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INDIAN LANDS AGREEMENT CONFIRMATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved first reading of Bill 183, An Act to confirm a Certain Agreement between the Governments of Canada and Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am pleased to announce for first reading legislation that will ratify the 1986 Indian lands agreement. The new agreement does not change nor attempt to change any rights of Indian bands within our province. Members will recall that until now many of the issues surrounding Indian reserve lands and natural resources on these lands have been governed by the Indian lands agreement of 1924. That agreement has now been proved vague, ineffective and unsatisfactory.

With the new agreement, developed in consultation with the federal government and representatives of the Indian bands, we intend to accomplish two goals. First, it will stand with the 1924 agreement and provide a mechanism to correct existing deficiencies. Second, it will allow individual Indian bands to join with Canada and Ontario to negotiate and implement specific land and natural resources accords.

The cabinet supported the context of this agreement in October 1985. Both the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I have signed it. I anticipate our colleagues in Ottawa will ratify it shortly.

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 184, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: In my statement today, I described the bill, which has essentially two provisions.

One is to make it a quasi-criminal act either to counsel or to require an employee to work in a retail establishment on a Sunday or a holiday if the retail establishment is within the ambit of the Retail Business Holidays Act. It is a companion to a bill that will be introduced shortly.

It also authorizes the Solicitor General through his counsel to apply to the court for an order compelling the closure of any store that is open in breach of the legislation.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 185, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the following public opinion polls: a survey on animal rights, a survey on homes in Ontario and a survey on attitudes towards energy in Ontario.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to table the answers to questions 302, 337, 376, 415 to 446, 454, 494, 503, 514 and 520, interim answers to questions 518, 519, 525, 526, 527 and 528 and a response to a petition presented to the House, sessional paper 232, standing in Orders and Notices. I wish to table as well the answers to questions 378, 388, 394 and 408, standing in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Thursday, December 18].

I want to thank very much the staff of the Cabinet Office for working so diligently with innumerable public servants in all ministries to obtain this information and to make it available to the members of the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 108, An Act to amend the Insurance Act;

Bill 112, An Act respecting the Enforcement of Statutes related to the Environment;

Bill 158, An Act to continue the Canadian Insurance Exchange;

Bill 167, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Andrewes moved, on behalf of Mr. McCaffrey, second reading of Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

Assistant Clerk: The 147th order, second reading of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the County of Huron, Mr. Reycraft.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order: When we discussed the orders for today, my understanding was that we were going to deal with order 146 next. Any of the items that were taken off Orders and Notices were taken off with the agreement of all three parties. Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Windsor, has been discussed in committee twice and has been passed twice by the committee, and no one advised me until five minutes ago that we were not going to proceed with the bill.

I would appreciate having the opportunity to move second and third reading of Bill Pr6.

15:30

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, you have heard this argument before. It is the contention of the government that there is a public bill before the House that deals with at least one important section of the matter dealt with in Bill Pr6, and it is not our policy or our decision to call the bill at this time. It will be on Orders and Notices, and if there remains any ambiguity, it can be worked out when we return in three weeks.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Further on the point, this matter has been discussed in committee. The majority of the committee decided the bill should go forward. There is an important section of this bill on community right-to-know legislation, which was originally initiated in the community because a commodity was being stored in the old Bendix plant in the riding of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). This bill is being passed to protect the constituents of the Minister of Labour and yet he is stopping the bill here today.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the opportunity to debate that bill.

On the same point?

Mr. Martel: Yes. We went through this; we had this out in committee. The Liberal members of the committee originally attempted to get the thing ruled out of order because two private bills were on Orders and Notices. In fact they are not the same bills. The member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan), when he chaired the committee, having looked at them and having discussed it with people at the table, decided the motion was in order.

What is happening here is that, despite the fact there is a sunset clause in the bill which would remove that section from being enforced lest it interfere with the work place hazardous materials information system, the minister is hiding behind the WHMIS agreement to say they cannot have their bill. Their bill sunsets the WHMIS clause so that when WHMIS comes into agreement, this one goes out of existence.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat.

The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) raised a point of order. I listened to that member as well as to other members. Order 146 is not before the House. As I have ruled on previous occasions, and as other Speakers have, it is the prerogative of the government House leader to call the order of business. That can be anything on Orders and Notices.

COUNTY OF HURON ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, on behalf of Mr. Reycraft, second reading of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the County of Huron.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I thought we had agreement on Bill Pr7.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If there was an agreement, I had not understood it that way; but in the interests of whatever it is we are celebrating, we would be glad to proceed with that bill when we return in January. I will withdraw that order and call order 148.

Order withdrawn.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Offer moved second reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Ms. E. J. Smith moved second reading of Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF NORTH BAY ACT

Mr. Harris moved second reading of Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the City of North Bay.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

546672 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT

Mr. Andrewes moved, on behalf of Mr. Cousens, second reading of Bill Pr55, An Act to revive 546672 Ontario Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendation contained in the report of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly on the extension of the provisional standing orders until 12 midnight on June 18, 1987.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments?

Motion agreed to.

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period commencing January 1, 1987, and ending March 31, 1987.

Mr. Foulds: I have a few brief comments on interim supply before we support the motion for passage. I want to remind the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) --

Miss Stephenson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe the last speaker in this debate was the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and it is my understanding that the speakers are going in rotation.

Mr. Foulds: I think the member is correct.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) is correct. Were the questions and comments of the member for Etobicoke completed? Does anyone on the government side wish to speak? Then the member for York Mills.

Miss Stephenson: I rise to participate, albeit briefly, in this discussion of the extension of funds to the government in order that it may pay the loyal civil servants who work so diligently on behalf of the people of Ontario, a matter we would not wish to see delayed or interrupted in any way.

However, I do so with some bemused humour when I recall the number of occasions over the past 11 years, at least 10 years, on which the government of the day requested interim supply for a period of some extension and was almost invariably opposed by the members of the Liberal Party, who now form the government.

15:40

Mr. Mancini: That is not your job.

Miss Stephenson: Really? Is it not our job to oppose you? I see. I do not know what kind of superhuman being the member thinks he is, but I can tell him he is going to be cut off at the knees, which will make him even shorter than he is.

This is a request that is reasonable to the end of the fiscal year, but it is not without some concern that I recall that on many occasions in the past there was no such concurrence from the official opposition. How things change when people move from one side of the floor to the other.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How could we be more co-operative?

Miss Stephenson: One of those most guilty of this is the Treasurer. Poor lad, he has had such an emotional transmogrification in the move from one side of the House to the other that even his best friends do not recognize him any more.

Interjections.

Miss Stephenson: What is the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) doing over here? He should get back over there. I want to heckle him; I cannot heckle him if he sits here.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled.

The Deputy Speaker: Carry on with your debate.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member is not in his seat.

Miss Stephenson: That is only because they are all taller than we are.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Stand up. I want to see who is taller.

Miss Stephenson: I am, I would like the member to know.

May we return to the very serious matter that is before us?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I think you have lost the punch on it.

Miss Stephenson: No, just wait.

I want to return to the very serious matter that is before us; that is, the need of the government to have funds in hand to pay for the programs for which the government is responsible.

Since the government has the funds within the Treasury, within the general account as a result of the windfall that has occurred, not as a result of its expertise but as a result of the improved economy within this country and the expertise of the management of the government that preceded it, I have no doubt there will be very little difficulty in ensuring that the funds are made available for the purposes for which they are to be delivered.

I would like to ask the Treasurer one or two, or perhaps even three, questions. The first is one I have asked before and to which I have not yet received a responsive, responsible answer. Given the amount of additional revenue that has accrued to this Treasurer, would it not have been wiser to have done something rather more significant in terms of the reduction of the cash requirements in Ontario this year? Would it not have been more responsible to have ensured that we are not carrying out programs within this province at this time at the expense of those young people who will become taxpayers in the not-too-distant future?

I am distressed at the thought of mortgaging the future of our children. When the kind of windfall the Treasurer has enjoyed this year occurred, I thought there would be a move in the direction of ensuring there would be a significant reduction in that cash requirement and therefore a significant reduction in the total provincial deficit, which I think is important.

As a mother and grandmother, I do not want to see those generations burdened with requests for things we may not need but which we want in this province, simply because this generation has decided it is appropriate to spend whatever money we have on them. Why has the Treasurer permitted the unconscionable increase in administrative costs for this government to supersede the responsibility to decrease the deficit of Ontario?

I am concerned that in some instances there is very little increase for certain programs the people of this province think are important, while there is a very large increase in the administrative costs of the ministry looking after the program. He has not been able to bring himself to reduce the deficit, which he as a good farmer knows is the prudent thing to do when he has money, to prepare for the situation that will come in the not-too-distant future when he will not have a huge amount of money, because Grit times are hard times and we know that is so.

There is yet another question I would like to ask the Treasurer. Why has there been such a tiny bit of improvement in the funding he has made available to the post-secondary institutions, particularly the universities in the province, in the area of the renewal of faculty, which was probably one of the most significant recommendations of the Bovey commission? The amount to be allocated is smaller than was suggested and is to be stretched over a much longer period than was suggested. At present, it is folded in in a way that does not ensure the universities will use it for the purposes for which it is supposed to be allocated.

I believe the Treasurer has some responsibility to ensure that when significant amounts of additional money are made available -- and they have not as yet been made available -- there will be some assurance that the faculty renewal program, which was one of the backbones of the Bovey report, will be carried out in the way in which it should be.

A couple of days ago, we received an interesting red document, Ontario Study of the Service Sector. Everything is covered with red these days. It looks a bit bloody at times, but it is the colour of the Liberal Party and I suppose that is appropriate.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Oxygenating.

Miss Stephenson: Not necessarily oxygenating. Carbon monoxide produces that colour. Oxygen produces a scarlet colour that is a little less orange than the one the Treasurer chose.

The report, written by Mr. Radwanski, is one of some interest and I have read a relatively large part of it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is not very long and it is easy reading; what happened to you last night?

Miss Stephenson: Because there is nothing in it; that is one of the problems.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: You sound like Garth Turner.

Miss Stephenson: No, I do not sound like Garth Turner; I sound like me.

The first thing I read was the section on education. I am informed that there was a study, at a cost of $60,000, in support of that section on education which did not even discover that the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions curriculum guidelines had taken place and that Mr. Radwanski knows nothing about an assessment mechanism built into the secondary school program which has been there since 1984.

I am appalled that we would spend this amount of money to produce a document that is so totally nescient of the activities related to secondary school education which have taken place in the Ministry of Education during the past four years. I am equally appalled that the Treasurer hands out this document with some largess, suggesting this is the route to the future as far as Ontario is concerned.

Mr. Radwanski is going backwards, unfortunately, certainly in the area of education. It would be helpful if the Treasurer were at least to inform him that perhaps he might have explored a little further the developments within secondary education in Ontario and if the Treasurer were to provide us with the information about the tendering process carved out to hire Mr. Radwanski to produce this orange-red document, which it is at present, on the service sector within Ontario at a cost approximating, I gather, $750,000.

I have not been able to glean any knowledge anywhere about the process of tendering which was, I hope, in place to hire Mr. Radwanski. Since he is Mr. Trudeau's chief apologist, one of the authors of Liberal policy via the editorial board of the Toronto Star and certainly one good Grit, I wonder whether there was any kind of tendering carried out. The Manual of Administration -- and the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan) knows this -- demands that when this kind of money is going to be spent there be a reasonable process of tendering which will be public knowledge. I ask the Treasurer to provide us with that information, because we have no such information at this time.

15:50

I am concerned that the amount of money being delivered to the Treasurer is spent in the most responsible and appropriate fashion. I have not been assured in the 18 months this government has been in place that its sense of responsibility as far as the taxpayers of this province are concerned is as highly developed as it should be. I urge all members on that side to persuade the Treasurer -- who probably does not need persuading; he probably needs simply to be left to his own ideals -- to return to that kind of responsible delivery of funds on behalf of the people of Ontario.

I hope they will all think seriously about the fact that every single dollar they are spending is not theirs; it is money belonging to the taxpayers of this province and is simply put through the process of the government of Ontario for the purposes of serving the taxpayers of this province. I hope they are doing that as effectively and as efficiently as they should be, but I have no such sense of reassurance at this point.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will use the two minutes at my disposal to respond to a number of the points the honourable member has made. I think she is aware that the deficit was reduced by an additional $100 million beyond that projected in the budget, and while I would like it to have been more, still I think it reasonable. It amounts to the lowest per capita deficit in Canada, as the member is aware, and we are quite proud that this is a fact.

As a matter of fact, earlier in the day she was indicating that our deficit position was handed on in very good shape when she left the con. I think we have improved it even from that point. I will congratulate her if she can find it within herself to congratulate me. Otherwise, I withdraw my congratulations.

The indication about inadequate funding for universities seems to be a strangely anachronistic comment, as if it were left over from times gone by. I can remember making the same criticism myself when I was in opposition, but after the announcement of the university grants this year, the member may recall that all the university presidents working together took advertisements in the major dailies across Ontario thanking the government for its sensitivity and perspicacity in this regard; and they included their signatures, something that had never happened in this province before.

I regret the comment the member made about Mr. Radwanski, who authored the excellent report that is getting so many rave reviews everywhere but in Garth Turner's column. I have a feeling for that reason that the member probably gets all her ideas from Garth Turner. That is okay because he certainly is not a dumb person and he is a very good writer. I do not happen to agree with him. However, I thought some of the recommendations that Mr. Radwanski made, particularly in the area of education, were intensely interesting.

Miss Stephenson: Unhappily, I did not hear all of what the Treasurer had to say because --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was a setup.

Miss Stephenson: I know. The Treasurer's colleague just told me the Treasurer sent him over to distract me.

All I want to say is that it is interesting the Treasurer should bring up the point about the deficit per capita in Ontario being the lowest in Canada, and I congratulate him on maintaining that excellent level, which has been a characteristic of Ontario for lo these many years. I am delighted to know he has not destroyed it completely.

All I am asking is that he improve the deficit position so we can get our Standard and Poor's rating back and so we do not burden future generations with our extravagances. We have been guilty of this in the past, and I am willing to say that out loud in this chamber. But I do not think we need the extravagance of the kind of administrative excess that appears in every single portion of the budget and the estimates this year. I am distressed about that and I want the Treasurer to know that.

Mr. Foulds: As I started to say before I was so pleasantly interrupted, we will be supporting the motion. I have only two or three very brief comments to make.

First, I remind the Treasurer of the stark reality of Ontario's economy. I have talked on this theme many times in this House and I will until the last day I occupy this chair. We have two economies in Ontario, and the northern Ontario economy really does need some serious attention. It needs attention in an interventionist way.

You cannot simply rebuild the economy of the north in the traditional way that the Progressive Conservatives tried to do, with the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) stumbling through the north like a wounded moose in a snowstorm, handing out money; neither can it be done in the way the Premier (Mr. Peterson) does by saying to the people of Terrace Bay, Geraldton or Nakina, "It is up to you to pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps." You have to enable those people by giving them the power and the tools to do the job the Premier is asking them to do.

With that in mind, I recommend to the Treasurer once again the special northern Ontario development fund that was in my resolution 62, which the House agreed to. That fund would be set up to be administered by northerners so they could have power over investment and over their own economy.

Community planning agreements were recommended in the so-called Rosehart report, which I prefer to call the Wildman-Rosehart report because a lot of the recommendations we support and the government has failed to act on were put on that agenda by my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman).

When a company goes into a community in northern Ontario, perhaps even in southern Ontario, it is important that there be in effect an agreement among the community, the company involved, the trade unions -- the work force -- and the government about what that company is going to do in its projections on manufacturing and production and in its manpower requirements. In that way, there would be openness and accessibility to corporate information, you would be able to plan the life of the community and with the use of the fund I talked about, you would be able to start developing alternative industries when markets force production down.

Second, and I want to spend only a second on this, there is the question of the deficit. I understand why the Conservatives are obsessed with the deficit. When a Conservative government in Alberta that had windfall profits from the oil industry finds itself in the unhappy position this year of having about a $3-billion deficit on a $12-billion budget, that is what I call a deficit and true Conservative financing.

Third, I want to talk for a moment or two about free trade. I raised a number of questions with the Premier this afternoon. I made a very brief statement earlier in the day and do not need to expand at length.

Part 2 of Mr. Radwanski's report, entitled The Challenge of Free Trade, indicates very clearly that free trade in services, in financial services in particular, has become one of the top priorities and objectives of the United States trade negotiators. We know, and it is common knowledge, that services are on the free trade bargaining table. If that is the case, then Ontario's economy, with 73 per cent of its jobs in the services sector, is on the bargaining line. If it is on the bargaining line, we need a stronger response than the Premier was able to give to my questions this afternoon.

In effect, we need weekly updates from the Premier or the Treasurer on the status of those negotiations with regard to the services industry. We need to have that open and out in the public, and we need to have a further statement of what Ontario, the Premier and the Treasurer are doing to protect our jobs in that sector. This is not an easy matter.

This government was caught completely unaware on the softwood lumber issue. It did not realize the importance of the softwood lumber industry to Ontario's economy. It does not have that excuse this time. Its own report points out fully and explicitly the extent to which the services sector is the major engine of Ontario's economy at present.

It is extremely important that the government, especially with the acceleration in this past week of the free trade talks, makes sure Ontario's interests are protected. It may even come to the point where the Premier will no longer be a "yeah-but," saying "Yeah, but" to free trade but will have to say no to free trade.

I know it would be very hard for the Premier to have to stand up and actually defend Ontario's interests, because he is such a federalist; but in this case, with this industry and within the next month he must do that. He may have to take himself by his bootstraps and say no to free trade.

16:00

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I recognize the honourable member's continuing interest in and good advice to the House in general on northern development matters. I always listen to what he says in this connection, and I know the Premier does as well.

The thing that concerns everybody here is that the resource base for northern Ontario, and for many of the provinces of Canada as well as Ontario, seems to have moved out of its cyclical nature and into some sort of, structural depression. It is very difficult for me as Minister of Economics with the information that is available to me, which I frankly believe is as good as any source of information, to see how this is going to improve in the next months or years.

The price of copper, for example, is below what it was in the most depressed years of our Depression economy. Nickel continues to have a low price and a falling price. The honourable member has already referred to the problems with softwood, and even the pulp situation, and various fibreboard manufacturing enterprises are having increasing difficulty. Therefore, we are looking at how to deal with a structural dislocation rather than with some sort of tiding over a cycle. I hope 10 years from now we will see that it does have a cyclical nature and that the tremendous buoyancy of the value of northern resources will return. Frankly, I do not see it right now.

There may be an opportunity to discuss in further debate some additional responses of this government, in conjunction with the government of Canada, particularly as it reviews taxes for thoroughgoing tax reform, concerning what can be done in the long term to provide, not just assistance but also a different economic base. That is what we are searching for.

Mr. Foulds: I appreciate the Treasurer's interest. I am particularly struck by his idea and his understanding that it is not merely a cyclical problem but that we are in a very serious structural situation. What that means is developing alternative industrial opportunities in the north, and those have to be looked at very carefully.

Mr. Andrewes: I want to mention very briefly the response of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) today to my question of December 1, in which he indicated the ministry would undertake to cover the costs of the haemophilus B vaccine, which is an issue. Perhaps it is not a big issue, but it has been one of great concern to many parents who have children under the age of five.

The important aspect of the minister's action is that the government now officially recognizes the concerns of many of these parents and has agreed to include this vaccine, along with the other usual ones, mumps, measles, whooping cough and so on, in the category that is part of the programs of the boards of health for young people in Ontario.

I want to leave the assembly on a pleasant note by thanking the Minister of Health for acknowledging that and by indicating to him that this, like many other small issues, is of fairly major concern to many people. I could enumerate some of these issues; I have done so from time to time in statements. In government, members often look at the macro issues and forget about the smaller ones that can come to the surface.

Before I retire for the year, I want to say a word today about the statement made by the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), who is Minister of Energy and Minister of Natural Resources. In his statement, the minister picked up on recommendation 3 of the report of the select committee on energy, which recommended to the government the appointment of a world-class panel of experts on the nuclear industry to study the safety and other features of the Candu reactor system, which has become a major part of the electrical system in our province.

Although it is perhaps a bit presumptuous of the minister to make such a fanfare of this announcement, since one man does not a panel make, it is an important announcement. We congratulate Professor Hare and indicate to him that he will have this party's co-operation and support as he undertakes his study.

Much to the chagrin of members of the select committee, certainly for myself as chairman and for the members of this party, there are still 23 recommendations of that select committee's report outstanding. Those recommendations include a fairly large number that fall under the category of increased legislative control of the province's public utility; they fall under the category of public review of the province's public utility.

These are issues that 20 months ago the Minister of Energy and members of his party, particularly the Premier, felt to be very pressing issues that should be dealt with immediately. Throughout the campaign of April and May 1985, they indicated publicly that once they became the government -- if they became the government, which subsequently they did -- they would make major changes. They appointed a select committee that undertook, after a great deal of study and research -- I say that for the benefit of the Treasurer, because he paid the bill for the research -- to produce what I think was a pretty good report.

The first two recommendations dealing with the Darlington nuclear station were majority recommendations of the committee but were not fully endorsed by all members of the committee. The government was very quick to pick up on those recommendations. Equally important are the 23 others. Any government or political party that has grandstanded for so long on so many occasions on this issue would want to move with haste to accept and implement them.

Interjection.

Mr. Andrewes: I am talking about the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) and his 51 -- his 50 colleagues who sit with him; 49 colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is changing every day.

Mr. Andrewes: It changes every day. I urge the Treasurer to pass on those words to his friend to his right, who on occasion is on his left, and indicate that the select committee feels somewhat slighted that its 23 recommendations still lie untouched.

16:10

Mr. Harris: Yesterday, when I was responding to one of the other speakers, in discussion of the deficit, I brought to the attention of the Legislature what I thought was an interesting clip out of the newspaper. I might as well read it again as it is so short. It is from Ottawa, and it deals with Statistics Canada:

"Borrowings by federal, provincial and local governments during the third quarter totalled $5.53 billion, a drop of 39 per cent from a year earlier, mostly because of the reduced federal deficit, Statistics Canada says. Borrowing by individuals, however, increased sharply to finance major purchases of consumer goods."

I found this little clipping to be one of the more interesting pieces of journalism I have read in some time, because it reinforces a theory I have. If government will keep its mitts off people's money and leave it in the hands of consumers, small business and the private sector, considerably more economic activity will take place, more jobs will be created, we will have a healthier economy and the government will have a host more money, as a result of that, to help those who truly need it. There are people in Ontario who do truly need more help, and most of us would like to give them more help than we appear to be able to do under existing programs.

There are two aspects I would like to highlight. One is something that we did not hear for 42 years. It was always the federal government that kept increasing borrowing, the amount of money it had to borrow to cover its interest payments went up and up, year after year, and it was Ontario that kept a pretty firm lid on these borrowings.

Something strange has happened in the past two years in Canada and in Ontario. One has been in Ontario over the past couple of years. The problem at the provincial government level is starting to become very alarming to people. It is not as apparent, because economic activity in the province, particularly in southern Ontario, is at a level that is almost embarrassing to the rest of the country. However, we know these things are cyclical, and the increase in government spending, increased taxation to cover that spending and a lack of reduction of the deficit here in Ontario during this situation are very alarming.

At the same time, it says the federal government's demands on these money markets have been significantly reduced over the past couple of years. People can argue in a partisan way over decisions Ottawa is making, but I submit, and only on this aspect, because I do not want to get into a debate on all federal activities, Michael Wilson and the Prime Minister of Canada need to be congratulated for at least slowing down this growing tide of massive increases in the deficit, which has allowed the federal government to decrease its demands on that borrowing market.

The second part of this little article is the corollary this journalist has put on it and points out that when government borrows less money and places less demands on those money markets, borrowing by individuals increases sharply. Individuals are now able to have access to money at a relatively stable interest rate and are able to finance major purchases of consumer goods. Consumers are -- and, of course, businesses, large and small, though the small ones have more difficulties getting access to money -- are able to access that money market and carry on with the expansions, capital and otherwise, that they need to do. I mention that because it is not talked about very much. This is an example of the type of economics I believe in.

Briefly, before I leave the deficit and the lack of attack on the deficit, when the Treasurer comments on my remarks, he will say they have reduced it by $100 million or $50 million, or whatever it is, but in those two years -- and I do not have my copy of the budget with me, so I will go off the top of my head and he will correct me -- either from increased economic activity or massive tax increases -- in the first budget particularly of about $700 million and modest tax increases in the second one -- but mainly because of the economic activity, his revenues are up by $3 billion in the one year and by another $3 billion the next. Cumulatively, I do not know whether it is $5 billion, $6 billion or $7 billion -- perhaps he will give us the exact figure -- but it is a massive amount. Where is the money going?

The expenses of operating government are rising at double the rate of inflation; spending is double the rate of inflation. Surely to God the Treasurer will confirm that economic activity in the province has exceeded his wildest expectations during the past two years. If we cannot balance our budget and reduce the global deficit by running a surplus in these good years, it must be apparent to all that we will never be able to do it. If we increase the global deficit during the good years, of course exponentially it grows in the lean years and the deficit could run to $5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion or $10 billion in Ontario in a matter of a few years if this is allowed to continue.

Then you reach a point where the amount of money required from the taxpayers to pay interest exceeds the ability to raise that money. That is when, I submit, the province and the country collapse, as is happening with some Third World countries that are barely being kept afloat by the generosity of their world partners. I hate to see Ontario moving in that direction, but it appears to me during these good years as though we are.

The second part of the recovery I would like to talk about is the unevenness of it vis-à-vis northern Ontario. Northern Ontario is suffering. I suppose it is an anomaly for Ontario, but it is suffering in a very real way in its resource-based industries. The government will say there is not much it can do about it. It is difficult. We have had conference after conference, paper after paper and theory after theory. How do we generate economic activity in a town that exists only because of the mine that is there or the trees that grow beside it? Take away the viability of that mine or when its ore is all mined, and there is nothing left. Take away the viability of harvesting those trees and what do we do to help keep the town alive?

Those are difficult questions to address and not ones I wish to tackle on the last day of the Legislature. Perhaps on the first day of the return --

16:20

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Maybe on the first day of our return, the member will have some answers.

Mr. Harris: I submit to the Treasurer that we have given a number of answers that would help. However, what bothers me is the softwood lumber issue. Given that it is difficult to replace those jobs with other jobs by diversification, surely we should be fighting hard to maintain every job and every economic advantage we have in those industries that are currently there.

The government fumbled the ball on the softwood lumber industry. My colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) has indicated the government fumbled the ball on this, and the government did. They were asleep, in spite of the fact it was raised by myself and colleagues in my party a number of times that they must deal with this and must get ready for it. They should have been in Washington finding out what was going on and starting to counter the activity that was going on down there. The writing was on the wall; the signs were all there.

I submit that the government fumbled that. We have been through that in question period after question period and debate after debate.

Something that has not come out a lot is that the government decided to go with this Canada option. I am not embarrassed to say what I think of the Canada option. It is primarily the British Columbia option, carried by the Minister for International Trade in the federal government, who is from British Columbia.

I submit it is that way for a number of reasons. One is that British Columbia is responsible for 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the exports into US markets. It suggested it will increase its stumpage fee in reaction to the 15 per cent, 20 per cent, 30 per cent or 35 per cent tariff or wherever it ends up. It should. Its fees are anywhere from 20 per cent to 40 per cent lower than Ontario's, so it should be increasing its stumpage fees substantially just to get even with Ontario.

I do not believe Ontario put that position forward to Miss Carney or to the federal government when it went along with the national consensus. There is considerable evidence that position was not put forward properly to the federal government. I understand the federal government. I do not agree with it from Ontario's perspective, but where else could the federal government be when Ontario was asleep at the switch and not putting forward Ontario's position?

The federal government accepted the position it heard. It heard the BC position and it heard the Quebec position. Nobody knows what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) or the rest of the clowns in Ontario are doing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order please. You did not mean that.

Mr. Harris: I am sorry. Did I call anybody a clown?

The Acting Speaker: The member called them clowns. Would he mind withdrawing that?

Mr. Harris: I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker. I did not mean to. However, nobody knew what the Premier was doing and nobody knew what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was doing. I did not think I called them clowns, but if I even inferred it, I withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member said "other clowns."

Mr. Harris: That is right.

However, they were asleep. That position was never put forward properly with the federal government. Then the Premier went out to Vancouver and completely lost Ontario's day when he went to British Columbia. He said, "We cannot go along," and could not convince anybody. He completely lost the day.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Where was the member? He was away on vacation. The Premier was the only person speaking for the commonsense approach. He convinced everybody in the industry in this province. The member is out to lunch.

Mr. Harris: I was not going to spend a lot of time on it, but I am going to go back and tell the Treasurer how the Premier arrived at the position. Ontario's first position was that we would go along with the national consensus. We would go with the 10 per cent. Then the Ontario government changed its position. Why did it change? It changed because the industry association in Ontario told the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), and ergo the government and the Premier, that if they did not change their position the industry would no longer support them and the industry would fight it out alone.

It was at that point after pressure from my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) -- from both opposition parties at that point
-- that the Ontario industry said to the government: "You are wrong. If you go to Vancouver or Victoria and do not change your position, we will go it alone." It then changed its position, but it was too late and it was not able to convince the federal government because it had agreed once before.

The Premier went out and finally fought the fight that he should have been fighting for Ontario, but because of a lack of background, because of a lack of depth, because he did not understand the issues soon enough, because he went out changing his mind, because he was asleep at the switch and because he was not able to explain the issue very well, the Premier was by himself.

The Premier of Ontario lost the day. He was not able to convince anybody. I understand why he could not convince them. He flip-flopped on the position. He could not and initially did not make Ontario's case substantially different from those of British Columbia and Quebec.

How at the 11th hour can one go out and say: "I was wrong before. I am sorry. I guess I misled you, Prime Minister, and all the ministers and my colleagues across Ontario. Now the opposition and the Ontario forest industry have told me I was wrong, so I have changed my mind. Will you agree with me when I change my mind?" That is the true story of what happened, as I understand it. I am happy to put that on the record.

I want to mention a couple of other things. How are Ontario manufacturers treated in Ontario by this government? Let me give a little example. This was raised a couple of days ago.

A number of Ontario manufacturers were invited to promote, display, sell and explain their products at Expo 86 at the Ontario pavilion. Thousands of goods were donated by companies such as Beaver Canoe and the bicycle manufacturers. What happened was that their products were sent to the Ontario pavilion. They were used as decorations where nobody could see them. They were not put on display for promotional purposes. There was none of what they understood would happen to their products. To add insult to injury, their products were sent back to them in such deplorable condition that they were virtually written off.

What did the government do? It let down on its commitment to the manufacturers. What did it do when this was brought to its attention? It said, "Too bad." It even refused and still refuses -- increased pressure may cause it to change its mind one day, and that is why I am mentioning it again today -- to reimburse these small companies that can ill afford to see $1,800 canoes come back bashed up so that they are worth nothing, and $3,000 and $4,000 specialty bicycles come back virtually worthless. How are they treated? They are given the royal back of the hand that this government has become so famous for.

I want to mention another interesting thing I saw in item 5.9 of the Provincial Auditor's report. I mention it because it deals with the Ontario Waste Management Corp. The auditor's report points out that salaries rose by some 33 per cent. The reason it gave was to bring them into line. Bring them into line with what? Bring this into line with this new free-spending government? We look at ministry staff salaries going up by 50 per cent. This government spends like a Liberal government, certainly like the traditional Liberal government I learned to know under Pierre Trudeau and John Turner in Ottawa.

16:30

When the money comes in, the government spends it. Everybody gets increases. The Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) is here; there are two ministers of culture. When you look at the number of assistants at 50 per cent higher salaries than assistants ever got before and at the number of political assistants those two ministers have, it is astounding, particularly when you look at the peanut budget they are dealing with in relation to the numbers of political staff.

That is the way Liberal governments operate. They load on the political staff so they can get out the press releases and sing the good news and the praises. They say, "It does not matter what you pay them; increase the salaries." That is what leads to runaway spending out of control. The Treasurer can get away with that in the good years, but he will not be able to get away with it very long. Trudeau got away with it. The federal Liberals got away with it during some good years, until people finally woke up. It caught up with them. That is what I believe is happening in Ontario today.

I want to refer briefly to the blue book, because today when I asked the Treasurer about unanswered questions about spending, he said to me: "Why do you ask these questions? They are all in the blue book." I checked. It says in the blue book for 1985-86, "Travel for the Premier of Ontario, $5,428." Who is he kidding? Is he telling me the Premier's total travel expenses for the fiscal year 1985-86 are $5,428? Is he going to try to sell that through this Legislature? I think not.

That is why we have to ask questions in Orders and Notices. It is all hidden away somewhere else. Travel for G. Ashworth, nothing; V. A. Borg, nothing; H. E. Ezrin, nothing; G. P. Hutchison, nothing; T. Zizys, nothing. I do not even know all these guys. I had better get to know them, I guess. These guys never spent five cents travelling last year. Obviously it is incomplete.

There are probably millions and millions of dollars tucked away somewhere else; so the Treasurer should not tell me to look in the blue book. That is why we have to ask questions in Orders and Notices: to get information that is covered up and spirited away. Perhaps it does appear in an obscure place somewhere that nobody can find, but the Treasurer should not tell me it is in the blue book; obviously it is not.

I have hundreds of other items I want to speak on. I am sure I will have other opportunities as we go into the new year; so I will sit down now.

I will just mention the Bridges program, which is the Canadian Mental Health Association program. It is very important to the riding of Nipissing. It is a matter of $100,000 or so which the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has held up for a long time. I know it is going to come. The Minister of Health has indicated it is coming, but the program's funding runs out at the end of December. They now have about five staff members sitting there waiting to see whether the minister will announce it between now and January 1, whether they are out of jobs and whether the program will continue to exist. This is not the way governments should run. Good people are lost when they do not know whether programs are carrying on.

It has been a disillusioning period for me, particularly with the fiscal irresponsibility that has been demonstrated by this government in its short time in office, 18 or 19 months. For those of us who are concerned about good fiscal policy, every one of those months has been a month too long.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This debate seems to have attracted the enthusiastic attention and interest of most of the members, so I will not detain them long.

Volume 3 of the public accounts has some arcane rules, I suppose. I am informed that travel expenses under $6,000 are not reported except for ministers. The member has a point. If he wants to know specifically what those are, the answers will be forthcoming. Page 175, for example, shows the expenses of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Two ministers are listed, the former minister and the present Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). The travelling expenses are listed on page 176; the two ministers' shares in the expenses for the full fiscal year are reported there.

If one understands the rules of volume 3 and what is omitted, I suppose for the sake of brevity and convenience, the essential information is there. I say again that we will provide the details the member has requested.

I do not want to prolong this, but I want to say that the member's comments about the free trade debate are interesting and the sort of thing that is very appropriate for this sort of debate. In this connection, I also call his attention to the Radwanski report, which was tabled a couple of days ago and which has received so much interesting comment from people who have had the time to peruse it. His views on free trade are --

Mr. Harris: I did not talk about free trade. I did not mention it once.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member talked about trade with the United States and our difficulties with it, but if he did not mention it, I will not either.

We get to softwood lumber, which he did discuss extensively. Most objective observers, such as myself, and I think most people, in observing how the Premier of Ontario responded to the situation that was precipitated for the country by the policies of the government of Canada, feel he maintained a strong and useful independent position. The Premiers went to Vancouver and were told by the federal minister that she had negotiated an agreement whereby, at 15 per cent, we would be able to extricate ourselves from the decisions taken in Washington that had been shown to be so disadvantageous to us.

There was some indication that this agreement had been entered into, and all the Premiers except our Premier decided it was a good thing. I have quite a lot of sympathy for Premier Vander Zalm, who has such a huge softwood industry. We have a large one as well, but the proportion of his economy that is bound up with the softwood industry is far greater than ours, although I say again I do not for a moment discount the importance of our own. I cannot blame him for saying, "Yes, let us go for the 15 per cent." We did not, and the Premier of Ontario maintained a consistent position that we should follow the judicial solution, go to the hearing board in Washington and plead our case, because he felt we would have an opportunity to win.

Mr. Harris: Which the government missed. There was no representative from Ontario there.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is fine, but we are represented by the government of Canada in international matters. I personally feel his position was good. It was responded to positively, not only by the woodworkers themselves but also by the owners of the mills and by the people who are knowledgeable about this matter.

16:40

On a political basis, if I may be so bold, I think the Premier cleaned the board with those people. He had a coherent position, he stuck with it and he stood alone. That is difficult to do. Frankly, when I saw what he had done, I was very impressed, amazed and pleased. I felt that if I had been in his position, I probably would have gone along with the rest of them and said, "If you can get a 15 per cent deal, we had better go for it." He had a much stronger position than that, and I believe he is correct. It is the only way any kind of approach is going to be made with our trade negotiating partners in the United States.

I do not apologize for the Premier's position a bit. It is the only one that made any sense. It is not my position to be pejorative about the stance taken by the government of Canada or some of its ministers, but I thought they were less than effective, if that does not put it too strongly.

The honourable member mentioned a number of things. He wondered how the manufacturers in this province are treated. His example was what happened at Expo 86. I, for one, had not heard before that Beaver Canoe had received goods back in broken condition. I will be glad to know about that. If they are the member's constituents, I know he will bring it to our attention. I cannot promise what I will do, but I will be glad to do what I can.

I attended the Ontario pavilion out there. It was beautiful. I ain not prepared to say that if I had been in government when all the decisions about our participation were made, I would have approved them. I happened to be on the Management Board of Cabinet when the original budget went over and over its original goals. The total expenditure was something in excess of $31 million. We had what many people considered one of the best pavilions there. I will not comment further on that.

To tell the truth, I was very impressed with the display of these objects, almost objets d'art, as we refer to them in my home town. There were light aircraft, different means of transportation, including those beautiful canoes the honourable member is referring to. I am sure the member was there; if not, too bad.

Mr. Harris: I was there at government expense.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Now I remember.

Anyway, they were all hanging up in the space in that building. I thought the display was marvellous. Nobody was there writing up orders; maybe someone should have been. If that stuff was returned to the original owner in broken condition, I would like to know about it. We want to see that people are treated fairly. We do not want people running around to their private members saying the government is not treating them fairly, because we intend to and we will. All we want to know are the facts, and we will make the judgements on that with the assistance of the honourable members. I am not going to pursue this, because I do not want to.

I appreciate the offers of support from the two opposition parties, now so effectively represented in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you put the motion so I can attend upon His Honour, who has indicated his gracious acquiescence to our request that he give royal assent in this chamber.

Motion agreed to.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request your Honour's assent.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

Bill 14, An Act to amend the Oleomargerine Act;

Bill 26, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act;

Bill 108, An Act to amend the Insurance Act;

Bill 112, An Act respecting the Enforcement of Statutes related to the Environment;

Bill 131, An Act to amend the Assessment Act;

Bill 158, An Act to continue The Canadian Insurance Exchange;

Bill 167, An Act to amend the Assessment Act;

Bill 168, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act;

Bill 169, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act;

Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the City of North York;

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of London;

Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the City of North Bay; and

Bill Pr55, An Act to revive 546672 Ontario Limited.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish everyone heartiest best wishes for a happy holiday season.

The House adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

December 18, 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAX REBATES

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

SUNDAY TRADING

FISHERIES PROJECTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOLIDAY GREETINGS

AID TO WAR VICTIMS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SUNDAY TRADING

TECHNOLOGY FUND CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE

LIABILITY INSURANCE

NUCLEAR SAFETY

VENTE DE TERRAINS

ONTARIO STATISTICS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PENSION FUNDS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SALE OF LANDS

SUNDAY TRADING

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

FREE TRADE

INFLUENZA VACCINE

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

REIMBURSEMENT OF DOCTORS

HAZARDOUS WASTES

COURT DRESS

WATER QUALITY

PETITIONS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

SUNDAY TRADING

NATUROPATHY

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

PETITION

SUNDAY TRADING

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

COMMITTEE TRAVEL

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INDIAN LANDS AGREEMENT CONFIRMATION ACT

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

COUNTY OF HURON ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

CITY OF LONDON ACT

CITY OF NORTH BAY ACT

546672 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (CONTINUED)

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT