Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

SPEAKER’S RULING RE QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: If I might have the attention of the members of the House for one moment, on Tuesday a matter arose during the early question period which I feel deserves some attention. A number of questions were addressed to the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) regarding a speech he made outside the chamber on a matter not concerned with his administrative responsibilities as the Minister of Correctional Services.

I permitted the questions, but I wish to advise the House that this procedure is improper and that in future I will rule such questions out of order. Ministers are responsible to this House for the conduct of public business as defined by their assigned executive council responsibilities. The private views of members, whether they be ministers or private members, are not subject to questioning during the question period.

I hasten to qualify this, of course, by saying that the House is entitled to know if statements made by ministers represent government policy. This appeared to be the thrust of the questioning last Tuesday. I merely wish to point out to the House that I will be making a clear distinction between questions concerning private views and those concerning the administrative responsibilities of the ministry.

May I, at the same time, suggest to honourable members that in the putting of their questions they ought not to assume that a supplementary question will be given as a matter of right. It seems to me we could cover more ground within the experimental hour for questioning if questions were put directly, succinctly, and with less putting of statements rather than putting of the questions. Even more strongly, I would suggest to ministers that their responses be directly to the question and without deviation.

Mr. Nixon: It is just like church: the sinners are absent.

Mr. Speaker: I am putting all sides of the House on notice that I intend to judge the question period more firmly in order that a greater number of questions may be put and answered within the allotted time. I find that since the question period has been expanded to one hour the number of questions and answers has essentially remained the same. I would ask the assistance of all honourable members in keeping the questions and answers as crisp and as to the point as possible. I will be keeping in mind my responsibility to allow as many members as possible to put questions during the oral question period.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of clarification in relation to the incident last Tuesday involving the Minister of Correctional Services, your ruling is helpful to us. I take it, though, that it would have been quite proper for members of this House to have directed questions to the present Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) in relation to something said by somebody else and not to direct a question to the Minister of Correctional Services about his personal views.

Mr. Speaker: Only for the purposes of determining whether or not it was government policy.

Mr. Nixon: Precisely the procedure taken by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith).

DEATH OF FORMER MEMBER

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word of tribute in marking in this Legislature the death of Charles Millard, which took place on the weekend. There will be a memorial service for Charles Millard, a former member of this Legislature, who was elected in 1943 and again in 1948. The service will be held at the Thistletown United Church at 11 o’clock on Saturday, and a number of members of this caucus will be present.

Charlie Millard was an inspiration and a guiding force in the formation of the industrial union movement in Canada, first at General Motors in Oshawa with the formation of Local 222, and then as the first national director of the United Steelworkers of America in Canada from 1942 to 1956.

In addition, he played an enormously important role within the labour movement in the encouragement of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and ultimately in the creation of the New Democratic Party.

He served his fellow workers and his province, as well as his party, with great distinction. I wish to mark our sadness at his death and our gratitude for the enormous contribution he has made in this province.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I personally did not know Mr. Millard, but certainly my father did, and I can recall nothing but words of praise and admiration for him, although there was a certain disagreement as to political philosophies. He was known in my time as a very committed and sensitive man, and I am certainly pleased personally and on behalf of the government to express our sadness at his departure, and our sympathy is extended to his family.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in these comments. I did know C. H. Millard, both as a politician and as a spokesman for labour. He was a very good friend of our family.

The members may have noticed that the leader of the NDP indicated he was first elected August 4, 1943, so he was part of the resurgence of opposition comment at that time that resulted in the defeat of the then Liberal administration. I can recall sitting in the gallery and hearing him express views with which I found a great deal of sympathy. I have often regretted, as a matter of fact, that the spirit of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation perhaps left the Legislature with Mr. Millard and certain others.

I know his role in the community was a very important one. We want to join with the other members of the House, particularly those who have spoken, in offering our condolences to Mr. Millard’s family.

ABSENCE OF MINISTERS AT ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

Mr. Dukszta: I rise on a point of personal privilege. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett), though well-warned in advance, was not present at the Tuesday late show when I sought explanation from the minister for the discrepancy between his and the Attorney General’s (Mr. McMurtry) sub judice ruling as it applies to the Cantrakon decision.

The minister’s failure to appear at the late show to answer the reason why there is a discrepancy between his and the Attorney General’s statements suggested that indeed he may have something to hide, but equally important, makes a charade of the late show.

Mr. Sterling: He doesn’t have to be here. What is the point of privilege?

Mr. Dukszta: It shows the minister as being almost in direct contempt of the House and it is an abridgement of my privileges as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to make a general ruling on this matter, ordering this minister and other ministers, if the case comes up again, not to continue to flout this House.

Mr. Gregory: He told you he wouldn’t be here.

Mr. Roy: On that same point, I join with the member for Parkdale because a week earlier I raised a question where I was unsatisfied with an answer pursuant to the standing orders. I think it would be helpful if you, Mr. Speaker, made a ruling on this because the standing orders do make provisions for a minister to respond pursuant to a five-minute comment made by the member who is unsatisfied. I personally join with the member for Parkdale because I find it somewhat contemptuous of the House that the minister would not even appear when one of his questions, involving an important issue within his ministry, was being challenged.

Mr. Nixon: Send out the OPP to bring them in.

Mr. Speaker: Having regard for the comments of the members for Parkdale and Ottawa East, standing order 28 does provide for a member to express his displeasure with regard to an answer given by a minister. It also provides a minister, if he so chooses, the opportunity to respond within the framework of the standing orders. The standing order is quite silent, however, on whether or not it is mandatory for a minister or it is incumbent upon a minister to be present.

As all members from all sides of the House are aware, there is an ongoing review of the standing orders, a blending of the traditional standing orders and the provisional standing orders. Perhaps the honourable members would like to take it up with that committee for a recommendation to the House. There is nothing in the standing orders that compels a member to take part. It is something that is done strictly on a voluntary basis. You may wish to pursue that avenue.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may be permitted a brief comment with respect to the point raised by the member for Parkdale. He is entitled to raise questions with respect to the interpretation of the rules and you have already commented on it. It is very unfortunate, however, for him to impute to one of my colleagues that fact that he was attempting to avoid the issue or indeed, to use his expression, “hide something.” I think it is very unfortunate that members who want to make a point with respect to the interpretation of the rules would then get involved in this type of subjective comment.

Mr. Laughren: It is unfortunate, we agree.

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would remind the member for Parkdale that when he served notice, he was told by the Minister of Housing at that very moment that he, the Minister of Housing, would be unable to be in the House at that particular time. Notwithstanding that, he proceeded with the matter, and now he has the nerve to stand up here and suggest that my colleague was trying to avoid him or the issue. I think that is quite irresponsible.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I note you have suggested this is a topic that might be sent to the committee on procedural affairs and perhaps the membership there can consider it. But maybe something we should consider is if there is nothing to hide and the minister cannot be in attendance -- and I acknowledge on occasion a minister may have a previous commitment -- that we should broaden the rule to say that somebody on his behalf, perhaps his parliamentary assistant, can be there with the facts so that there won’t be the suspicion that perhaps there is something to hide.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that matter is before the procedural affairs committee now.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FIRST MINISTERS’ CONFERENCE

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have just a very brief report on discussions in the nation’s capital during the past three days.

Mr. McClellan: It should be very brief if it is a progress report.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The members opposite, I know, were watching moment by moment and saw it all in living colour and really need no great explanation as to what happened.

Mr. McClellan: Nothing happened. What have you got to report?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This part of our routine proceedings is for making ministerial statements, not for bantering back and forth.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. As I say, I know the honourable members saw all of it. In case they missed some of the relevant portions, the meeting was called at the request of the Prime Minister to provide an opportunity to assess the discussions and the decisions made at the February meeting where certain principles were agreed to, where certain medium- and long-term goals were established for the economy and where a discussion emerged as to how one might achieve them.

At this conference, we discussed a wide range of topics: manpower strategy, agricultural development, government regulation or deregulation, R and D, industrial development, tourism, regional expansion, transportation, the manufacturing sector, some aspects of public-sector bargaining, restraint and, while not on camera, the question of the pricing of oil.

I will table the presentations made by Ontario. I know members opposite will stay up late tonight reading them, although if they want to save them for weekend relaxation they are more than welcome to do so.

Mr. Roy: Don’t talk too fast. I am taking notes.

Mr. Laughren: It’s a change that you are even tabling it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no. The honourable member suggests it is a change to table it. It is all public documentation. We are delighted to table it.

We did point out from Ontario our continued concern for inflation. We see this as still being a problem that exists in this country. There is a tendency when people feel it is under some measure of control, to believe that it might not reappear. Our concern is that we remain aware of it and that government policy should reflect this concern.

Another part of our point of view was about the very extensive expansion of our export market, partially because of the existing situation of the Canadian dollar, and also as a further impetus to the manufacturing sector. I think there was general support -- it will upset my friends in the New Democratic Party -- for this from all first ministers. There was one first minister with a slightly more cautious support for the role of the private sector in the economic growth and development of this country.

Mr. Laughren: He was the best first minister there too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the honourable member that it was encouraging to hear the Premier of that great province express this confidence in the private sector.

Mr. Laughren: He has made it great.

Mr. Wildman: The only articulate one in the bunch.

Mr. Foulds: Just stick to your text.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There was a discussion with respect to some aspects of manpower training.

Mr. Foulds: Bring in his kind of budget next time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We dealt with, and Ontario presented its concerns with, the reduction of trade barriers within this country because we are increasingly concerned about the potential balkanization in a trade sense of this country. That was part of our presentation.

I know there are some in the media who always question whether these conferences produce anything.

Mr. Laughren: Including Frank Miller. What about the Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will have a copy of the communique very shortly and will be prepared to table it. I think it’s always helpful when the first ministers of this country are not only able, but willing, to sit down and discuss broad economic objectives --

Mr. Foulds: I sure am glad you were blocking the Treasurer from the cameras.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and take some opportunity to express from their point of view what they see affecting their own provinces and how it relates to the national economy.

I would only make this other observation, Mr. Speaker, and I sense this from the media. It was kind of encouraging because they always have suggested these things must be totally open. It was intriguing to receive the number of questions some of us did as to whether these conferences might be more productive if some of them were held in camera. It was interesting that this suggestion came from a number of the very excellent media representatives who were there.

Mr. Laughren: Would you tell the Treasurer to export his jacket?

Mr. Speaker: That’s irrelevant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ah, Mr. Speaker, there were some at the conference who thought the Treasurer’s jacket was irrelevant, but we would never say that.

Mr. Roy: He didn’t go on camera like that, did he?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He certainly did and you should have seen the pattern. It was tremendous.

I must also relay to the House, in anticipation of a question, the discussion that took place which was not in public on the question of the price of oil. I was being pressured by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) and to a certain extent by the leader of I the New Democratic Party (Mr. Cassidy) as to what the position of Ontario was and is. I could state it very simply and I attempted to do so when I was in Ottawa.

We supported the objective of the Prime Minister to have a postponement of the January 1 price increase; no problem whatsoever. What the people on the other side of the House didn’t realize, what they didn’t understand because they never understand the whole question of energy pricing, --

Mr. Bradley: You’re being condescending.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- was that as a part of the postponement, the government of Canada is in the process of agreeing with the two producing provinces, and I emphasize two, that the price increase scheduled for January 1, 1979, would in fact take place on January 1, 1980.

Mr. Roy: That’s not the reason your Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) gave us the other day.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We oppose the $2 increase per barrel. The Prime Minister knows that; I made it very clear to him. I’m not saying anything in this House that I didn’t say to the Prime Minister. We still oppose the concept of the Canadian crude price being at world price. I re-emphasize that it is in the national interest and it is important to industry in this province that we be somewhat below world price to retain that competitive edge which is essential to us.

Mr. Laughren: Finally.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would go one step further. That means, for many of our industries, being below that of the “Chicago” or American price. I would say to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy), who probably understands this more readily than any member opposite, it is essential to industry in his community that those industries be able to compete with feed stock that costs less than what the American producers are paying in the same competing industry, where the gulf price is somewhat lower than the Chicago price which his leader has now adopted as being his yardstick.

Our position didn’t change. We supported the postponement.

Mr. Roy: That’s not what the Energy minister said the other day.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is exactly what he said.

Mr. Roy: He said you are breaching an agreement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We support the postponement. The government of Canada was in the process of renegotiating with the producing provinces and I told the Prime Minister, “I accept the postponement. I will support you,” even though very few others did. In fact, I can’t think of anyone else who did. I was a little bit like a voice in the wilderness. We supported that.

I also made it clear that we would not be in support of the agreement, even though we are not a party to the agreement, of the $1 increase being extended to January 1, 1980. That is our position; it is simple; it is very clear.

Mr. Roy: It is a switch.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not a switch.

Mr. Bradley: Did you tell Lougheed that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I urged the Minister of Energy, I urged the Prime Minister, in the national interest, to move ahead with the postponement of the price.

Mr. Roy: In a period of one week you’ve switched.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There is something wrong with your hearing and your eyesight.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I’m sure the members opposite are aware, about 20 minutes ago Mr. Gillespie said, if the Canadian Press report is accurate, as it usually is, the federal cabinet has decided to press ahead with his proposal to delay a January 1 oil price increase despite opposition from some provinces.

Mr. Roy: You are supporting them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I make it clear: this province supported the postponement of the price increase in the interests of the consumers and the manufacturers and the industries of Ontario.

Mr. Roy: Tell that to your Energy minister.

Mr. Bradley: Glad to see we got you back on track.

Mr. Roy: It only took you a week to flip.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as I promised the members of this House last week, I have investigated complaints by college and university student awards officers that there have been excessive delays and inaccurate awards of grants and loans under this year’s student awards program. These complaints are generally well-founded --

Mr. Laughren: Finally, you admit it.

Mr. Cassidy: How many lies did we get before we got that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- and at this moment I should like to table, for the benefit of the honourable members, a summary of the problems and the remedial action that has been taken or is forthcoming. Many of the problems can be traced to numerous policy and administrative changes earlier this spring as a result of additional public input.

An hon. member: Shift the blame on to Harry.

Mr. Laughren: It belongs there.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: These changes forced the abandonment of the original schedule for the implementation of the computer program.

On Tuesday afternoon of this week I met with representatives of the Association of Student Awards Officers of Ontario to discuss our mutual concerns. I assured them that policy changes for the next year will be kept to a minimum so that awards officers, their student clients and the ministry will be more familiar with what is, after all, the first radically new student assistance program in more than a decade.

I have scheduled a series of meetings with the awards officers so that we may continue our frank discussions of issues related to the administration of the Ontario Student Assistance Program, which involves at least $77 million in grants and almost as much again in interest-free loans.

Without the active co-operation of the hard-working student awards officers, many of the almost 85,000 students assisted by OSAP would be considerably worse off. Many awards officers are devoting extra time and effort to the administration of emergency loans, which are financed from an advance payment of $11 million in operating grants to colleges and universities made by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

I intend to make clear to each college and university president my appreciation for the student awards officers’ additional help to the ministry and to those students which the ministry serves.

I should also like to point out that all staff of the student awards branch have been making every effort to assist students. They have been working extremely hard -- at night and on weekends, almost consistently -- and they deserve our appreciation.

I regret deeply the delays and the confusion surrounding the new program and will do my very best to ensure a trouble-free Ontario Student Assistance Program for next season.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Premier, now that the government has come to its senses and stopped opposing the federal initiative which would postpone the $1-per-barrel increase in January.

Can the Premier explain to the House why the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has displayed such a deep concern with the conference, to the point that he says Ontario now is going to have to consider economic stimulation itself in order to produce jobs here? Is it possible there have not been programs that were designed to produce jobs here and the Treasurer is only now beginning to contemplate what those alternatives would be?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think there really were two parts to that question, one somewhat provocative and the other not. In fact, the first part of it wasn’t a question; it was in the form of a statement.

Mr. Nixon: Answer it anyway.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t say this to upset the honourable member --

Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier address himself to the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am attempting to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: You never do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I recall it, the acting leader of the Liberal Party asked how come the government came to realize there was merit in postponement. I would only say to the acting leader of the party that this government, unlike his party, has been advocating for four years that we stay away from the concept and principle of world price. That is still our position, unlike his party’s. We think this is in the interests of the consumers and industry in this province. We were and are in support of the postponement for the six months. That is the position and has been the position, and it is totally consistent.

Mr. Hall: Except for last week.

Mr. Roy: Tell your Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld).

Hon. Mr. Davis: As to the second question about the Treasurer -- now that I have cleared up that for the very distinguished acting leader -- actually, I would suggest that question might be asked of the Treasurer, but I will presume to answer it in any event.

Mr. Nixon: I figured there was some solidarity in the cabinet, although the Minister of Energy might question it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What the Treasurer has suggested is that while we weren’t really expecting any major new federal initiatives at this conference, we sensed that everything they were about to do was presented in the budget; that we in this province were still concerned about the degree of job stimulation and job creation; and that this government, because there was nothing further -- and I am not being critical in that sense of the word; we didn’t go there expecting there would be anything further, quite honestly, although always one lives in hope --

Mr. Laughren: So do we.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and as a result of the fact there was nothing further, this government is giving consideration to programs that would further stimulate job creation in the province. It is as simple as that.

[2:30]

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Does the Premier not recall his attendance at the first energy conference, in which he accepted the concepts put forward by the same Prime Minister whom he has been arguing with over the last day or two, which resulted in the price increases at the time? Surely if his policy is consistent, he should not permit Ontario Hydro to go forward with the increases that they have most recently announced?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am really quite amazed because the acting leader of the Liberal Party is one of the more intelligent members of that distinguished group across the House. He really is.

Mr. Roy: Of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We have debated this before, but I will document and I will demonstrate for him that this province never accepted the principle of world price. We argued against it vigorously and strenuously --

Mr. Nixon: You accepted the increases.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and one may use whatever colourful descriptive words one may wish to use. This province did not accept it. What the acting leader of the Liberal Party should understand is that the provinces of Canada are not party to this agreement. There is a formal agreement which is executed by the government of Canada and the two producing provinces. We didn’t sign it nor did we support it because it contains a principle of going to world price.

Mr. Laughren: You do support it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, you are wrong. I am delighted to have the member’s interpretation of what I have said or what our position is, hut I will restate it unequivocally right now. We may be the only province in Canada that feels this way, including the great friends of the member opposite in the province of Saskatchewan, that this country should not go to world price. There may not be another economist anywhere in this country who agrees with me, but I happen to know there are a lot of consumers and there are a lot of businessmen who do.

Mr. Martel: You forget so soon.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t forget.

Mr. Martel: Who made the mistakes in the first order?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will the Premier outline for the House what level of unemployment, what level of inflation and what economic conditions would, in the opinion of the government permit this government to accept any increase? If he will do that, will he say what action the government intends to take, if the federal government moves to implement the postponed price increase on July 1 of next year?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The figures are fairly readily calculable, if that’s the right word. Because he wants to deal with us fairly and logically, I think the member would understand the impact of a price increase in crude oil. The impact of that in terms of the economy varies, depending on the existing situation of the economy. In other words, if the economy is healthy, if we have a relatively low rate of unemployment, there is a far greater opportunity to absorb that increase than in our present situation.

While the motivation of the government of Canada has been questioned, I am not one of those who has questioned this motivation because I happen to think the economy is in the process of recovery. This postponement of the increase of three cents a gallon on $1 a barrel on January 1 will be helpful in terms of that recovery. My own guesstimate is that if the price increase were to go ahead on January 1, on a calendar basis this potentially affects about 4,000 jobs in the province of Ontario.

That’s a guesstimate and that would be on an annual basis. What impact it would have on the consumer price index is not as easy to calculate. I will try to get a figure for the member. I can’t do that off the top of my head, but I think I’m relatively close in terms of the potential of 4,000 jobs. It’s a potential because it’s so hard to measure.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Treasurer who with his attire is reinforcing our confidence in him, which has been waning recently. I wonder if he would explain to the House hat new programs he has in mind or is contemplating which have sprung or are springing from his brow because of his disappointment with the program and with the conference that ended yesterday?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My attire today is in honour of my own patron saint. You have to remember what day it is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kerrio: St. Andrew’s Day.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is St. Andrew’s Day and all we Scots like to show our ethnic background on a day like today.

Mr. Kerrio: Where’s your kilt?

Mr. MacDonald: You don’t wear a yellow tie under those circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: Meanwhile, back to the question.

Mr. Deans: The problem is you’ve got things upside down.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, that’s Australia.

Ontario has obviously been giving some consideration to things that could be done to make selective job opportunities available in the province. We were awaiting the outcome of this conference.

In fact, one of our papers -- and I hope members will have the time to read it -- stated that we felt a more productive use could be made of the roughly $2 billion a year currently being spent on unemployment insurance benefits by helping refrain people to enter the skilled labour market. I believe only $40 million of all that money has been allocated to the 10 provinces for the coming year for a series of experimental programs.

While there were certain job-stimulus packages or programs announced by Mr. Chretien in his budget and some time before that by other ministers, we felt there would be a need in Ontario to make some specific changes. Those will be announced in this Legislature as quickly as we are able to do so. I can assure members that should not be too long.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Perhaps the reason the question concerns me is that while the Premier was taking a moderate response to the conference, the Treasurer was not. Would he not agree that the transfer of close to $300 million of federal funds, enabling us to reduce sales tax, was at least a stimulant to our economy to some degree?

Mr. Martel: It was an election gimmick.

Mr. Nixon: How could he indicate that really the provincial economy has: not benefited? Would he not further agree that if there are any programs in the mind of this Treasurer that would enable this province to increase its level of employment and economic growth we should have had them sooner than this? After all, he has been Treasurer since August.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think we I have to realize -- and it is nice to hear the member defending the gentlemen in Ottawa -- that sure, the $300 million is a welcome change. The member might find that I supported it in the press. In fact, there were a number of steps taken in that budget which deserved our support. I don’t want to condemn somebody simply because he is not of my political party. I think those steps taken deserved support.

Mr. Conway: Were you a Liberal once too, Frank?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, no; I never sank that low.

Mr. Cunningham: Oh, oh, that won’t go over.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact remains that we did not want to take steps in advance of that meeting which might have caused duplication with programs announced by a federal government applicable to all 10 Canadian provinces. I think that was the key position. There is enough duplication and overlapping in today’s world without our adding to it, so we awaited that conference in case some new ideas were brought forward.

It doesn’t mean that there should or shouldn’t have been. I read the headline today and I guess I am accurately quoted. It was my first conference. A good deal of progress had been made between conferences -- and I hope there will be a good deal made between this and the next conference -- but frankly, sifting in that room as a first-time observer I didn’t see a great deal agreed to in the three days we were there.

Mr. Roy: I could have told you that, and I never attended the conference.

Hon. F. S. Miller: However, in the spirit of Canadian Confederation, I believe it is important for each of us to recognize the regional disparities, regional aspirations and problems of our fellow Premiers and ministers. That took place in that conference. We had an opportunity to put forward our points of view; so did they. I am willing to work with them between now and the next conference on any kind of basis they wish to have complementary programs.

In the meantime, obviously we will have to tackle some specific Ontario programs. We have the strongest industrial base in Canada. We want to make sure it stays the strongest industrial base in Canada. We hope to impress upon other provinces that it is in their interests that Ontario’s industrial base remain strong.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: In view of the fact that we are already into the winter months, and in view of the fact that the Treasurer indicated he didn’t judge ideas by which political party they came from but rather on their merit, would he now consider some of the programs which we have suggested to him within the last year -- such programs as the water treatment plants which the International Joint Commission has told the Ministry of the Environment need to be improved -- and also institute some immediate programs on home insulation and some of the capital works projects that have been put on the shelf, which would help the municipalities around the province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m not going to rule out any suggestions. In fact, I listened to the Premier of Saskatchewan extol the virtues of a balanced budget.

Mr. Laughren: He doesn’t just talk about them.

Mr. MacDonald: The point is he balances his. You can’t. You have rhetoric and no action to back it up.

Mr. Laughren: The jolly miller from Muskoka. Never a serious answer, never.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations arising out of the federal government’s withdrawal of its subsidy for wheat for domestic consumption. Since the bakery industry has now indicated it intends to piggyback a five-cent increase in the price of bread in addition to the seven-cent increase which it claims will come because of the federal government’s withdrawal of its subsidy, what steps does this government intend to take to make the bakers justify every penny of both those increases before they go into effect?

Mr. Havrot: Have you ever been in the bread business? Lots of dough in it.

Mr. Roy: Tell him bread is always rising.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have had our staff economist meeting with the bakery council this morning, going through it penny by penny.

I’m rather surprised that the leader of the New Democratic Party accepts even the nickel or the seven cents. That 75-cent subsidy on a bushel of milled grain, if you work it out, as my economists have, doesn’t exactly add up to a nickel a loaf or seven cents.

Mr. Swart: He didn’t say it did.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I’ve been looking at it for quite some time and I’ll let the member know next week.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the overall 12-cent increase being threatened by the bakery council will cost the average Ontario family of four $70.20 a year on its grocery bill, what steps has the government taken both to protest the federal government’s actions and also to convince the bakers not to try to piggyback undue increases on top of any impact from the federal subsidy being withdrawn?

Hon. Mr. Drea: As I said, our staff economist has been meeting with the bakery council. Secondly, the question of the removal of the 75-cent subsidy from a bushel of milled grain is a matter that’s now before the House of Commons. There are a number of people who are not even altogether sure it will take place. I told the member I’d be back to him next week.

Furthermore, the prospect of a 12-cent increase is a mere projection. It’s my understanding that, if I listened to Mr. Lang correctly last night, he says a nickel.

Mr. Cassidy: It is not a mere projection.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I seriously question the nickel. We’re looking at it very thoroughly, but I really can’t do anything till I find out what the price of that grain is going to be.

While we’re talking about that, let’s be perfectly frank about it. They’re taking off that subsidy; instead of all of the taxpayers paying into the price of a loaf of bread, bread eaters are going to pay it directly. There’s no real difference in that price.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, yes there is.

Mr. Martel: Yes there is -- they will just increase it by that amount.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the minister has his economist working on this at the present time, can he indicate what, if any, increase could be laid to the increased cost of energy, increased cost of labour, increased cost of transportation, which the bakery council indicated would make up the additional seven cents a loaf?

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s precisely what she’s looking at.

Mr. Nixon: Seven cents is precisely the amount?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, I said that is precisely what she is looking at.

Mr. Conway: Just one economist?

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: If the minister discovers that the five cents or the seven cents is not a justifiable figure because of the cutout of the 75 cents a bushel subsidy and in other areas he finds it excessive, what power has he got beyond exhortation to avoid an undue increase? Is he going to ask that we eat less bread as well as less turkey in order to bring it into line?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, it will be good for you.

Mr. Pope: Give them the turkey ads, Frank. The member opposite ought to be ashamed of himself. He ought to know what’s going on.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I guess I live right. I’ve been waiting for a sucker punch all day.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe I spoke on Monday about a certain problem with a certain commodity. I notice the ads are out this morning. On the six-to-14-pound size they’ve already dropped 10 cents a pound, and on the butterballs over 20-26 cents a pound.

Mr. MacDonald: That is political grandstanding.

Mr. Pope: You ought to find out what’s going on.

Mr. Bradley: Must be the federal government. Blame it on them.

Mr. Conway: You’re just Beryl Plumptre in a vest.

Mr. Roy: Thank God you’ve been talking to Beryl Plumptre.

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Drea: As I said when I discussed the matter of turkeys and monitoring food prices in reply to a question by the leader of the New Democratic Party the other day, the most potent force in the marketplace when it comes to prices is a well-informed, alert consumer. We will bring exactly all the details to the consumer and we will let them make up their own minds.

If the member is suggesting to me that what the federal minister responsible for the wheat board has said -- and I heard it last night; he has said that it represents a nickel to seven cents -- if the member is telling me that we will find out that that is false, what I am going to do is get on the phone and call up the federal minister responsible for the wheat board and ask him to check his figures, so that it can be properly debated in the place that is making the decision about the subsidy, and that is the House of Commons.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. Cassidy: I have another question arising out of differences between members of the cabinet over important issues. This is a question of the Minister of Energy.

Is the Minister of Energy aware of the strong and long-standing objections of the Ministry of Natural Resources to the cooling water discharge system which has been designed for the Darlington generating station?

In particular is the Minister of Energy aware that officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources testified before the Porter commission in October that those cooling water discharge provisions could wipe out the lake white fish population of Lake Ontario? If so, what does the Minister of Energy intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The answer to most of the question is yes. The answer to the last part is I propose to talk to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld).

Mr. MacDonald: It sounds like a Bennett cabinet meeting.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Which I have been doing recently.

Mr. Foulds: On a daily basis?

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a daily basis.

Hon. Mr. Auld: On a daily basis. I can’t say that I’ve always been satisfied with his replies. On the other hand, he hasn’t always been satisfied with mine; but we’re working on it.

Mr. Martel: You’re in worse shape than I thought. You’re answering yourself.

Mr. Cassidy: We finally got the two ministers talking to each other.

Mr. Martel: That’s a bad sign. It’s one thing to talk to yourself, but when you start answering you’re in bad shape.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the potentially disastrous consequences of the present cooling water discharge provisions, which could wipe out the lake white fish population in Lake Ontario, will the minister get Hydro to agree to make the necessary alterations in the Darlington plant before construction has got to a point where it is not possible to easily change that discharge construction?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, it is a problem. There is not total agreement among all biologists, I have to tell the honourable member, nor is there total agreement among all engineers. We have been meeting as recently as Tuesday on the matter and it looks as though we are getting close to a satisfactory resolution between Energy, Natural Resources, Environment, which is also concerned, and Hydro.

Mr. J. Reed: Was this problem brought forward in Hydro’s environmental assessment of the Darlington plant?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The honourable member is aware that in the assessments that were done prior to Darlington, there were a number of matters which were addressed. The real question is the matter of the solution. The problem has been known for some time. To get a solution which is effective and yet not unnecessarily expensive is the problem.

WATERLOO REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Sweeney: A question to either the Provincial Secretary for Justice or the Premier, whichever wishes to take it. It’s in reference to the Ontario Police Commission inquiry into the Waterloo regional police force.

Given that the prerogative of either accepting or rejecting the recommendations of this report lies with the local police board, what implication is there in the statement attributed to the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) at 1 o’clock today that if the local board doesn’t take appropriate action the matter won’t end there? Could it mean that the Solicitor General intends to interfere with the decision at the local level?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that the honourable member would like to address that question to the Solicitor General.

Mrs. Campbell: When the Solicitor General comes back from the Sault.

Mr. Cunningham: What is the minister doing in the Sault; graduate work?

Hon. Mr. Davis: At least he is welcome. At least he likes the Sault.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the honourable member have a supplementary?

Mr. Cunningham: I’m going there next week.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Your leader doesn’t like the Sault.

Mr. Sweeney: A supplementary: Given that there is a well-known and long-standing animosity between Chief Brown and the Ontario Police Commission, does the provincial secretary feel it was appropriate that they were the ones who conducted this investigation? Does he feel we have a truly unbiased and impartial report here?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think that question belongs to the Solicitor General. I’ll draw his attention to the question.

PURETEX KNITTING COMPANY

Mr. Lupusella: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that women employees of Puretex Knitting Company Limited, through their union, spent two futile years in proceedings before the Ontario Human Rights Commission in their efforts to obtain the removal of the secret closed-circuit TV cameras by which they are constantly monitored at work, and in view of the fact that these employees are now on a lawful strike for the removal of these TV cameras and for improvements in their inadequate rates of pay and other proposals; what action does the minister plan as the government person responsible for the administration of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the person responsible for the working of the conciliation and mediation services of the government?

Two, what kind of action does the minister plan in order to ensure that the employees of Puretex Knitting Company Limited are treated as being free and equal in dignity and rights, without regard to race, colour, sex, and nationality or place of origin --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked, I’m sure.

Mr. Lupusella: -- according to the statement of public policy in Ontario in the preamble to the Ontario Human Rights Code?

Mr. Conway: In 10 words or less.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all with reference to the question of what efforts will the ministry make with regard to its endeavour to help settle that dispute, I would advise the member that one of our senior mediators, Miss Jean Read, has been and was involved, and will remain involved in those procedures when and if she is required and desired to do so by the parties. I’m sure the member knows that.

The second part of his question relates to electronic surveillance. As I mentioned the other day in the House in response to a question from the Leader of Opposition (Mr. S. Smith), I have been in contact with the solicitor representing the workers at the Puretex plant, and in a letter which I read to this House a week or two ago I indicated to that solicitor that I was willing to review the decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to order a board of inquiry if she would give me reasons, after having read the information given to her, that might justify such a change in decision. That indicates the degree of concern that was shown with regard to the particular complaint before the human rights commission.

With regard to the concerns that members on all sides of this House share with respect to oppressive electronic surveillance, I did take the opportunity of meeting with employees of that company and with the representative of the union, Madeleine Parent, last Friday; and on Tuesday I took the opportunity of meeting with the company and the solicitor for the company. As a result of those discussions and those meetings, I’m naturally trying to decide on a course of action.

Mr. Lupusella: A supplementary: Taking into consideration that the removal of the TV cameras is part of the bargaining package and that’s why we have a strike, will the minister at this point in time, intervene to bring about an effective solution to the problem by giving his personal support to endeavours by his mediation officers and the assistant deputy minister in charge of labour relations to bring the disputing parties together in new talks aimed at resolving the issues in contention?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Yesterday in estimates, and on other occasions, I clearly enunciated my distress, and the distress that I share with all members of the House, with regard to any electronic surveillance that is oppressive. I have indicated the steps that have been taken today in meeting with both parties involved. I have indicated to the House now, and to the member, that I am trying to determine what steps should be taken as a result of those meetings.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could indicate to this House, as a result of the discussions he has had, how long it will be before he can report back to the House on what he proposes to do in this horrible case?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It would be very difficult to set a time schedule for the plans that one might have, but I can assure the member that our concerns -- concerns we all share -- are as sincere and as deep as hers whenever electronic surveillance is oppressive.

Mr. Lupusella: Even the former minister was concerned about this issue two I years ago.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That’s the matter I am both dealing with and considering now. It would be very inappropriate, I think, to try to lay down a time schedule with regard to my plan.

Mr. McClellan: It has been two years.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. Havrot: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier, if I can get his attention for a second.

Mr. MacDonald: There’s always a first time.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for York South.

Mr. Laughren: He always listens when you speak these days, Ed.

Mr. Havrot: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Premier tell the House when the anticipated drop in natural gas prices resulting from the agreement between Ottawa and Alberta might take effect in Ontario?

Mr. Wildman: Plant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the members opposite that it wasn’t a plant, because I don’t know the answer to the question.

Mr. Laughren: That doesn’t mean a thing.

Mr. Conway: That just proves you don’t talk to the member for Timiskaming.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I do; I talk to the member for Timiskaming with great regularity.

Mr. Conway: How things have changed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member would learn something if he chatted with him. He would learn more than he learns from some of the people with whom he chats --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In answer to the question posed by the distinguished member for Timiskaming, I don’t know. But I would caution him --

Mr. Wildman: You have done that before.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- certain principles have been discussed with the province of Alberta that, because of the surplus supply of natural gas, there could be an interim lower price. Certain principles have been discussed; there has been no finality. We don’t know what the figures are. My understanding is there is a possibility that, while there would be a lower price for some of the new gas, it would be a blended price when it leaves the province of Alberta, which would then leave the local distributor -- or perhaps the Ontario Energy Board -- the rather difficult task of sorting out who is entitled to new gas at what price, and to the old, et cetera. In other words, it is a very complex issue and, when I or the Minister of Energy get some of the answers, we will share them with him and, after him, the House.

Mr. Conway: The Premier does sound like an English translation of himself.

An hon. member: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the member for Nickel Belt asked the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle) a question with reference to treatment facilities as outlined in the report of the International Joint Commission. I have a pretty extensive reply, and I would be glad to supply him a copy of that rather than read it. I have identified each and every municipality, and I will send it over to him at the completion of this answer.

I think it is fairly comprehensive. Most of the places identified are in the process having their plants enlarged, updated or whatever. I will supply that information.

I would like also to add, in fairness to the submission and for the information of the House, that I think Ontario in this instance is perhaps the envy of the other parties that were being reported on. I am referring to Quebec and the other states that are a part of the international joint agreement. So we are in good shape, I think, in this particular aspect, for sure.

Mr. Laughren: That’s not what the report says.

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think if the honourable member reads the full report and treats it on that one aspect, he will see I was dealing strictly with municipal treatment facilities. Yes, there are areas that need improvement. They were identified, and I am supplying the information in the progress report on what is being done. I was also suggesting that in balance all of Ontario, compared to those states, I think is quite good.

Mr. Laughren: Could I ask a brief supplementary on that?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be advisable if you read the answer, and then at a later time if you weren’t satisfied you could ask a new question.

PREMIER’S VISIT

Mr. Bradley: My question is of the Premier. When the Premier visits the city of St. Catharines on Monday, to bring the good news about the resources equalization grants and the commencement date of the new court-house, would he be prepared to announce at that time that the provincial government will make available on very reasonable terms to the regional municipality of Niagara, the building which presently houses, or which was built to house the Mack Centre of Nursing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of Health has been having some discussions with the local board on that last part of the three-part question. To answer the first two parts; yes, I am coming to St. Catharines. I am looking forward to it. I expect it will be a great visit, and I am sure that the honourable member will be there to hang on every word that won’t be said.

Mr. Eakins: Will the local member be there?

Mr. Roy: We’ll even invite you to Ottawa if you promise a new court-house.

Mr. Bradley: Could I ask if that was yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I thought my answer was abundantly clear.

Mr. Eakins: Not at this time.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Now that the minister and his officials have bad ample time to review more thoroughly the Reisman commission report on the auto industry, is the minister still convinced that the recommendations contained in that report will -- and I quote his comment last Friday: “Give us the share of industrial benefits commensurate with our contribution to overall North American sales”?

Does the minister think that his rather wishy-washy response last Friday to the report is the kind of message that he wants to give to Ottawa on our response, from the province of Ontario, to the commission and to the federal government, particularly in view of the fact that both the UAW and the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association of Canada have condemned the report and its recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I indicated last week, we were dissatisfied, in fact, at the lack of initiative and new ideas in the Reisman report with regard to getting our fair share of all those activities the member referred to.

I thought I was rather explicit and straightforward about that. I don’t know which part of my statement he is excerpting from, but the fact is I have made it quite clear that we were dissatisfied that there weren’t enough new ideas in there to see that we get our fair share of the action. I think we have been quite clear about that, and certainly I conveyed that, informally at least, when I was in Ottawa earlier this week.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Since the submission does not agree with the Ontario government’s recommendation of an investment fund, it doesn’t go along with that; it doesn’t even deal with the real serious part of the problem, namely the deficit of Canada with the US in the industry, indeed it makes the fundamental error, does it not --

Mr. Speaker: There is no question. Question?

Mr. Laughren: Would the minister not agree that it makes the fundamental error of dealing with trade with third countries rather than with the US when, in fact, the deficit is with the US, not with the other countries, and that those things will not resolve the problem we have? Finally, will the minister in no uncertain terms make a new submission to the federal government indicating that the recommendations of the Reisman commission are simply unacceptable to the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With regard to the first part of that question, may I say that I have not held myself out as a great defender of the Reisman report. May I say, however, that I suppose from Mr. Reisman’s standpoint, in an attempt to paint a fair picture of the benefits flowing from the auto pact, that in that sense it is not unfair for him to point out some of the benefits that have flowed from the auto pact in terms of trade with third countries.

Mr. Laughren: What about the problems? Less than $2 billion out of $20 billion.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: So in :that sense it is fair comment when he is assessing the benefits. In terms of whether it deals with the direct problem with regard to trade between ourselves and the United States and how much we actually have got, of course, the member is quite right, we aren’t getting our fair share of the action vis-à-vis the United States, and I think our submission, as the member quite properly pointed out, did point that out to them and asked for some direct assistance in that regard.

May I say I have repeated our request to the federal government to participate in an investment program by way of indicating our dissatisfaction with the Reisman proposals.

Yes, we will be saying more to the federal government, but in fairness to them -- and why should we be fair to them -- but in fairness to them, Mr. Homer has not seized the report and sun with it either. He said they are going to study it and look at it. Our intention at the moment is indeed to study the report further and make some further comments to Mr. Horner so that by the time he does respond he will have had the benefit of our views, for better or for worse.

I hope we get more out of our second set of submissions than we did from our first set of submissions to Mr. Reisman.

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing. Since there is downtown core redevelopment in the city of Barrie, and since I noticed in an article in this morning’s paper that the minister is going to review the development programs of the peripheral municipalities that have core revitalization so as to restrict that outside development of shopping centres, how does he intend to implement this? Is this a change in the policy of the government towards local municipal autonomy?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks yesterday to the Downtown Forum ‘78, I clearly indicated to the smaller municipalities, that is communities of 30,000 or less which will be in the downtown, main street development program, and communities of 125,000 and less which are in the business improvement development areas, that if their communities had shown a desire and an interest to get on with the downtown revitalization, and if there was some competition from peripheral malls that could be very detrimental to the advancement and improvement of those areas, the minister and the local community would examine the situation. If necessary, to make sure of the viability of the small downtown communities and to ensure they stay in existence in Ontario, I indicated the minister had the power to put on a ministerial zoning order to freeze peripheral development in order to give the smaller communities an opportunity to continue to be viable, rewarding and tax-returning.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: As part of any package, will the minister give some assurance that there will be additional assistance for downtown redevelopment so that municipalities can afford to proceed with this redevelopment of their cores?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’m sure the honourable member has been aware of the fact that this government initiated this program two or three years ago and has made available to various communities across the province some $30 million. We participated with communities like Cornwall and Sarnia and others to advance and improve their downtown cores, and indeed to bring in a higher assessment factor that will bring a rather interesting tax return for those communities.

At this moment we have taken a very active part, both in that program and in the main street program for smaller communities, to help them with the upgrading and improvement of their communities. This government is dedicated to that particular position and I can assure the House that we shall continue to push and assist municipalities in doing the very thing we have been carrying out for the last three or four years.

May I say that at the conference we are presently having at the Inn on the Park, the Downtown Forum ‘78, we have a registration of some 880 people, not only from the province of Ontario but from nine provinces of Canada, from the United States and from further distances than that, looking at the program Ontario has initiated and which has been so successful in so many communities. There are now 14 or 15 more communities that have clearly indicated their desire to participate. Their plans have been approved. It’s now a matter of getting on to discuss funding involving the municipality, the private sector and the government of Ontario.

It’s a program that we are indeed proud of; we are pleased with its success and we enjoy having the participation of many municipalities across this province.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Van Horne: A question to the Treasurer: Can the Treasurer tell us, in the light of his predecessor’s suggestion in the 1978 budget speech that some teachers’ superannuation funds might be invested privately, if he is prepared to table the evaluation report done by A. C. Becker and Company which examines this problem? Could he indicate to us if his ministry is further pursuing this by an in-house study, in addition to the external study that has been done by Becker and Company?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will have to determine whether I can table that study. I am more familiar with some of the other plans than that particular one. I am just in the process of getting some information on the teachers’ superannuation fund. Rather than promise I will table it, I will give the member an answer tomorrow.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary to the last part of my question: Is the Treasurer in addition to that doing internal studies or in-house studies?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes. I am not sure the word “study” is accurate, but certainly we have been looking at the parameters used for a number of the factors in the appraisal of the current status of the fund; because as the member knows, the contingent liability for future benefits depends very greatly upon a number of arithmetic estimates. Those can be interpreted conservatively and cut back the cash requirements or they can be interpreted quite generously and require very large cash reserves.

As he knows also, we have set up, based upon 1975 or 1976 estimates” the number of dollars required to make the fund actuarially sound. If I am not wrong, I think we put $145 million aside in the latest budget for that purpose; I believe it is in my budgetary information. Unlike certain jurisdictions we are not treating it as a pay-as-you-go system; we are anxious, in the long run, to see those kinds of funds available for general investment, just as we have done with OMERS.

BOISE CASCADE DISPUTE

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Is the ministry taking any steps to monitor on a regular basis both the liquid effluent and the air emissions of the Boise Cascade mill at Fort Frances, given the fact the present management personnel now operating the mill during the strike may have little or no experience handling the equipment or the pollution control equipment? Does the minister recollect that the last time that company had management personnel handling the mill in 1974 there was a spill into the river and a conviction resulting from action taken by his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think there is any doubt that we are. I will be glad to correct that if I am wrung. May I make the assumption to the member that we are?

I had the opportunity to visit a good deal of that area about a month and a half ago. From conversations with the regional director, there is no doubt in my mind that not only is he monitoring that plant, but there is one particular plant which in his book is the epitome of good control and yet even there they continually visit and monitor.

I am fairly confident that my answer is correct. If I am wrong, I will be glad to tell the member here in the House.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: In view of the minister’s answer, could he report to me, preferably in the House -- if otherwise, that is all right -- on what kind of a regular basis; that is whether it is weekly or daily, and what kind of measurement is taken. As I understand it, the air emissions travel around and sometimes it is months between tests, although they are regular and there are special circumstances at Fort Frances at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If our current practice is to monitor less frequently than once a month I will advise in the House, but if it is more frequently than once a month I will report directly.

WINTARIO

Mr. McKessock: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Can the minister tell me why it takes five and a half months to get a decision on a Wintario application? In view of the fact that in some cases of international competition the approval of an application for expenses may be the deciding factor as to whether the participant may be able to attend or not, does the minister not think it is unfair and unacceptable to take five and a half months to get an application approved or rejected?

Mr. Nixon: Of course, it does.

Mr. Riddell: What about a year?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I would not agree that it takes five and a half months in every case to receive an approval. If the member opposite would bring to my attention the case he has in mind, and if the project has been approved, we will see to it that the money will be forthcoming. If it has already been approved, certainly the team will not be prevented from competing simply because there has been some breakdown in communications. I would be glad to take in hand the specific case which obviously he has in mind.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What steps are being taken to rectify these situations in the future so that this won’t happen?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I can only say we are constantly trying to speed up the approvals and the payments of the applications. I would hope the member who has raised the question, and everyone in the House, would bear with us at this time because there are some 18,000 applications on hand and it is a rather large-scale exercise, but certainly the objective is always to pay up and to process as quickly as possible.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister: Could the minister explain to the House why it took from November 30, 1977, when Sault Ste. Marie submitted an application for a Wintario grant for assistance in constructing a marina, to August 1978 before they received a letter from the ministry indicating they did not qualify until they had matching funds from the federal government? Why does it take that long to notify the city they didn’t qualify?

Mr. Laughren: Neglect of the north again.

Mr. Pope: You don’t know what you are talking about. Go up to the Sault and see what we did for them. You had better go up again and learn something.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to look into that project in detail. I would only point out that in many of these applications negotiations take place before a final application is either approved or rejected.

INSULIN PRICES

Mr. Young: I have a question for the Minister of Health regarding insulin price, which went from $2.70 in 1974 to $4.80 for 100 units in 1978. There’s now widespread fear among insulin users that with the end of the AIR regime the price of insulin will again take a significant jump. Does the minister have any information regarding the rumoured increase; and if it is coming what steps does he plan to take to block it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any pending increases in the price of insulin from Connaught Laboratories. I will make inquiries and see if any are planned. I would say that over the last few years particularly since a new management has taken over Connaught, and inasmuch as they are part of the Canadian Development Corporation activities, they have been increasing the prices of their commodities in a number of areas in order to break even. Previously they had not been. I will check into the matter for the coming months and see if any changes are planned.

Mr. Young: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: While the minister is getting this information, I wonder if he might determine whether it is true a brokerage firm now gathers the pancreas glands for Connaught, resulting in higher costs? Would he check to see if we are now exporting from Canada rather large quantities of glands -- some of which are going, I understand, to make soap -- thus creating a scarcity here? Thirdly, is the insulin which Banting and Best gave to mankind for $1 because they refused to profit from it now being used as a profit-making instrument to the detriment of a half a million Canadians who depend upon it for life itself?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the honourable member knows, a number of years ago when the university got out of the business and sold the facilities to the Canadian Development Corporation, all of the activities of Connaught became profit-making. The earlier part of the supplementary dealing with brokers; again that is something about which I have no knowledge but I will be glad to check into it.

TV TUBES

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) some time ago asked if I was aware that RCA Limited, Philips Electronics Limited, Canadian General Electric, Westinghouse Canada and Sylvania Electric Canada do not warranty receiving tubes for TV sets. He went on to ask about additional testing for those tubes before they went into the hands of consumers or repair shops.

The receiving tubes for television sets to which the member alludes are those tubes required for television sets not fully transistorized or operated by circuitry boards. This does not include the picture tube. Initially, it should be emphasized that Canadian General Electric and Sylvania Electric continue to manufacture these tubes in Canada, but similar to other large companies in the industry they must also import tubes from other countries.

All the large companies, with the exception of RCA, provide a 90-day warranty on tubes. Canadian General Electric, Philips and Sylvania sell to distributors, who in turn sell to the retailer, the servicing and repair business; the 90-day warranty is applicable down the lime to the customer.

Receiving tubes are date-coded several months into the future, which is deemed to be fully adequate to take care of shell life in the hands of the repair or service outlet. Companies do offer an optional plan to distributors for the purchase of tubes at a discount in lieu of warranty and distributors are expected to absorb all warranty costs.

RCA has a distinctively separate marketing plan, as they sell directly to retailers and service outlets at a discount price without any warranty. The warranty provision was discontinued about one year ago.

All large companies report the tubes are quality-controlled and production-line tested at the factory level, but no further testing of Canadian or imported tubes is done before selling. The tube failure rate throughout the industry is stated to be one per cent to three per cent, and is considered insignificant in relation to sales volume.

Further testing would not appear to alleviate the basic problem where distributors and retailers who buy at discount fail to extend the warranty on tubes to consumers and try to place the full blame on the manufacturers by alleging faulty products.

In addition, a great many retailers put a further warranty above and beyond that of the manufacturer on their tubes.

TOURISM

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I, too, have a reply to a question raised by the member for Algoma, this one regarding a consulting study commissioned by my ministry and federal tourism involving development strategies and opportunities for the Sault Ste. Marie-Wawa zone.

I would first like to point out that a major purpose of the study was to identify possible tourism investment opportunities of interest to the private sector. My ministry’s division of tourism is already working closely with a number of private sector groups examining the feasibility of specific opportunities for tourism investment in the area. Three examples which I can mention are Batchawana Bay, St. Joseph Island and King Mountain. These have potential as possible major tourism destination complexes.

My ministry, along with the Ministry of Northern Affairs, is assisting in the cost-study of the King Mountain development, paying two-thirds of the market feasibility study with the King Mountain development group paying one-third. I would also like to add that a tourism development advisory committee for Algoma has been formed and they have undertaken a number of initiatives.

This committee is made up primarily of business people who agreed to work together over a one-year term. They have contributed to establishing new tourism information centres at the Sault; have influenced Parks Canada to take over and preserve the Canadian Sault locks, and are working to have the Sault Ste. Marie airport upgraded to international status.

In response to the questions relating to the construction of the Pine Street Marina, I am advised by my officials that the city’s long-term plan is to expand the present 26 slips to an ultimate capacity of 200. It should be noted that the city has an agreement with the federal government for matching expenditures, and this agreement is not yet complete.

I believe my colleague the Minister of Culture and Recreation will deal further, and has dealt earlier, with the question of the Wintario grant, all in all a pretty commendable record for this government in the area of tourism in Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I think the answer was quite comprehensive. In the interest of fairness of time, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

HIGHWAY 403 EXTENSION

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), I would like to put a question to the Premier. Is he aware of the disappointment of the taxpayers in Brant, Oxford and Norfolk when they found that the Premier was not going to be present at the opening of the $15 million expansion-extension of highway 403, including the bridges over the Grand River?

Mr. Deans: More commonly known as the Nixon memorial.

Mr. Nixon: And might he also tell us whether or not -- since highway 2 in the area is the busiest, most heavily-travelled two-lane road in Ontario and is becoming a serious danger to the citizens in the area -- we can have his commitment that the extension of 403 to the east and the west will be very high as far as ministerial policy is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, observing your admonition not to wander, I understand there were really two questions, the first in the form of an observation.

Mr. Nixon: No, a question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought he asked if I was aware of their disappointment.

Mr. Nixon: Are you aware of it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Am I aware how disappointed they were? Yes, I am. I sense a growing resurgence of Progressive Conservative interest in that part and their disappointment at the Premier’s not being able to be in attendance.

Mr. Conway: After 75 years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly I understand it. I recognize it and I’m enthusiastic about it. I think it’s tremendous. It’s always nice to know you’re missed. The member should remember that.

In answer to the second part of the question, I certainly will discuss this with the Minister of Transportation and Communications so that it can be reported back to those same constituents who miss the Premier at the opening.

Mr. J. Reed: You have nowhere to go but up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You know where you have to go.

SECOND-LANGUAGE FUNDING

Mr. Roy: I have a new question for the Treasurer. Why would his ministry decide to cut off grants and moneys to the city of Ottawa to assist that municipality in the learning of a second language? That is something that has been established by his predecessor and something that was running in the range of about $100,000 per year, which apparently the present minister has now decided to cut down to $38,000 this year and to phase out over the next five years. Why would the ministry decide to do that when the money is put to good use in the national capital area, where we want to be able to deal and discuss matters with people in both official languages?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I’ll have to get the details because I’m not personally aware of that change in grants. One thing I would like to point out is in the cuts I am getting in the budget, involving the flow of federal funds to Ontario, some $34 million a year related to education in French was taken out by the feds. Whether it was part of that or not I don’t know.

Mr. Roy: Can I just ask a supplementary?

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

REPORT

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. McCaffrey from the standing general government committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill Pr9, An Act to incorporate the Macdonald Stewart Community Art Centre;

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the Township of Longueuil;

Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga;

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Ottawa Charitable Foundation;

Bill Pr47, An Act to revive Five-O Taxi Limited;

Bill Pr49, An Act respecting the Borough of Scarborough;

Bill Pr50, An Act to revive Homemaster Improvements Limited;

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr32, An Act respecting the City of London, be not reported.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr9, An Act to incorporate the Macdonald Stewart Community Art Centre.

Report adopted.

MOTION

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that in addition to the regular committee schedule the standing social development committee be authorized to meet on the evenings of Monday, December 4, and Tuesday, December 5, to continue consideration of Bill 163.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved first reading of Bill 190, An Act to amend The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

[3:30]

Mr. Swart: The purpose of this bill is to limit the types of development that may be permitted or exempted under the act until the Niagara Escarpment plan is approved.

Between November 30, 1978, and the day on which the plan is approved, only residential and agricultural development for which a severance is not required and additions to or alteration of existing buildings may be permitted, provided that the estimated cost of the completion does not exceed

$100,000.

The bill also amends procedures relating to appeals from the decisions concerning development permits. The appeal right is broadened to include a 30-day notice period during which an appeal may be made to the Ontario Municipal Board.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before proceeding with the orders this afternoon, may I draw the attention of members of the House to the statement indicating the business for today?

Instead of doing estimates this evening we will do legislation. The legislation to be called has been discussed, and perhaps later on this afternoon we can be specific with respect to its order. It will be legislation this evening rather than estimates.

ORDERS OF TUE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Epp, on behalf of Mr. S. Smith, moved second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Epp: I would like to indicate from the outset that I do this in the absence of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan), who is in hospital having a checkup. We hope there isn’t anything serious involved with that.

I have the pleasure of moving second reading of this bill because I think it is somewhat overdue in changing the status of the various boroughs to city status. The boroughs of East York, North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough and York have had the designation of borough since 1966. That followed the Goldenberg report, which was printed and published in 1965. In that report, Senator Goldenberg indicated that what should happen is that the various municipalities in Toronto, 13 of them, should be reduced to four municipalities and that each of those four municipalities should be called a city.

There was nothing in that report to suggest that they should be called boroughs. To support that point I want to read from chapter 11 of the Goldenberg report, the summary of recommendations which says:

“The system of Metropolitan Toronto government should be maintained with the consolidation of the 13 area municipalities into four cities as follows Then he suggested, the city of Toronto, the city of North York, the city of Scarborough and the city of Etobicoke. He does not suggest that they should be called boroughs.

Subsequent to that, the provincial government in its wisdom suggested that what we should do is have six municipalities, but that five of those municipalities should be designated as boroughs, with the city of Toronto retaining the designation of city.

If we go back into the English usage of the word borough, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines a borough in various ways. It suggests that a borough is: “1. A fortress, castle or citadel; 2. A fortified town; a town possessing municipal organization; any inhabited place larger than a village; 3. A town possessing a municipal corporation and special privileges conferred by royal charter; also a town which sends representatives to Parliament. 4. A property held by burgage, and formerly qualifying for the parliamentary vote. 5. The portion of a city lying outside the wall.”

I am not quite sure which particular definition the provincial government at that time felt was appropriate for the various boroughs, or whether they felt there was a wall around the city and that the outlying areas, the hinterlands and so forth, should be designated as boroughs and thereby, in a sense, giving them second-class status. Whatever it is, nevertheless., that designation was made in 1966.

It might be appropriate at this time to point out that the designation of “borough” is limited to Metropolitan Toronto. There is no other municipality within the province of Ontario which is so designated. Any municipality of about 15,000 people or more usually has the designation of a city, although there are important exceptions where large municipalities have retained the designation of townships. I suppose the best example of that, until a few years ago, was Mississauga and, more recently, the township of Nepean, which was changed by this House only last week to the status of a city.

If we look at the Robarts report, which was published in July, 1971, I believe, in that report Mr. Robarts said as follows at page 51:

“The commission received submissions suggesting that all area municipalities be called cities or that the city of Toronto be designated a borough. The term ‘borough’ is not found elsewhere in Ontario, having been devised in 1966 to describe the area municipalities within Metro that lie outside the city of Toronto. The term is now in common use and accurately describes these area municipalities as urbanized, primarily residential communities that will always have a strong, mutual interdependence with the central city of Toronto. In the commission’s view, then, the semantic distinction between the city and the boroughs reflects an actual distinction in their nature and should remain.”

He went on to say:

“The boroughs are treated as townships under many provincial statutes and receive grants and powers that differ from those of the city. The boroughs no longer resemble townships in their population level of urban development or governmental competence. In fact, they are full partners in the Metro federation, and all municipalities in this federation should he treated equally.”

In recommendation 4.3 of that report, he suggested:

“The constituent municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto be called the city of Toronto and the boroughs of North York, Scarborough, East York and York.”

Then in recommendation 4.4 he said:

“All distinctions between the powers and eligibility for the grants of the city of Toronto and the boroughs be removed from provincial statutes and regulations.”

Particularly with respect to the recommendation that he made there, it is my view that all these municipalities would like to be called cities. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a number of the members -- maybe all of the members -- have received correspondence from some of the mayors with respect to the wishes of the municipalities as reflected in the submissions they made to the Robarts commission last year and as supported by other information and materials they have distributed since then.

I would like to read two of those letters which members may have received. One, from the municipality of Scarborough, is addressed to all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Re: Appeal for city status for Scarborough.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I have been given to understand that on November 30, 1978, the Ontario Legislature will debate a private member’s bill to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act to give the five Metro boroughs city status. As mayor-elect for the borough of Scarborough and on behalf of council, I would urge the members to support and approve the bill as presented.

“My authority to act in this matter is recorded in a bylaw of the council passed unanimously in a meeting held January 17, 1977. It is also a matter of record that council in its formal brief to the Robarts commission requested city status and it follows that we supported that recommendation in our response to the government when the final report was released. The council of the borough of Scarborough has long taken the position that city status is desirable to strengthen our identity in representing a municipality now with a population of 400,- 000 and still growing at a rate of 15,000 persons per year.”

Now you recall, Mr. Speaker, that only a short time ago I indicated that municipalities usually get the designation of a city when their population is around 15,000, and here we have the borough of Scarborough asking for city status and its population is growing approximately at the rate of 15,000 a year.

Then we have another letter dated November 21, 1978, and it says:

“Dear MPP:

“As mayor of North York I am asking your assistance to properly develop civic pride and citizens involvement in our community. Towards this end I would urge you to support the private member’s bill to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Act which is to be debated on November 30. The amendment calls for the province to grant city status to the area municipalities in Metro.

“I feel strongly that the granting of city status to North York will help our council in its efforts to attract economic development and jobs. My council agrees with me. On two occasions, the province asked the area municipalities if they wished city status. On both occasions, North York council said yes.

“The borough of North York has a population of over half a million people, which makes us the fourth largest municipality in Canada”.

Mr. di Santo: Five hundred and sixty thousand.

Mr. Epp: Thank you.

“In light of these facts, it seems only logical and fair we be granted city status. It is foolish for our residents to feel that they have a Toronto postal address when they could be proud to be living in the city of North York. On behalf of the citizens and voters in North York, I urge all members of the Legislature to support this bill and to grant city status to our municipality.”

To just look at one other aspect briefly, I might say that one of the senior researchers spoke with all the mayors in the various municipalities last year -- Mayors Cosgrove, Redway, White, Flynn and Lastman -- and all of them were in support of city status for those boroughs.

I might also indicate that in the Robarts report, on page 51, the former Premier indicated that the present municipalities have populations as follows: In 1977 Toronto had a population of 678,101; North York had a population of 558,067; the borough of Scarborough had a population of 380,931; the borough of Etobicoke had a population of 293,464; the borough of York had a population of 139,612; and the borough of East York had a population of 104,102, for a total population of 2,154,279. And obviously, it is still growing quite rapidly.

[3:45]

I appeal to all members of the House to support this bill to give city status to the boroughs as indicated in Bill 138, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

I know the municipal representatives and the citizens of the various boroughs would like to have this equal status with the city of Toronto. I appeal to each one to support this bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member wish to reserve any time for the end of the debate?

Mr. Epp: No, I don’t think that will be necessary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. The reasons for the bill have been outlined by the member for Waterloo North.

There is a consensus among the mayors and the aldermen of the five boroughs, and in particular from the borough of North York, which was the second borough in Metropolitan Toronto, to ask that its status be changed from borough into city.

Before the Robarts report there wasn’t a need felt, at least in the municipality of North York -- part of which I represent; but when the Robarts report was published one of its major features affected directly the borough of North York. Sectors of the borough were slashed and aggregated to the borough of York, to York East and to Scarborough. The reaction among the people affected was quite genuine. I took part in several meetings at that time. Throughout those meetings I realized the people in North York had a sense of identity I hadn’t noticed before. Not only that, they wanted to live in North York because they thought that it was the part of Metropolitan Toronto where they had chosen to live.

As a result of the expression of dissatisfaction with the Robarts report by such an overwhelming part of the population of North York, the municipal council of North York twice passed a motion that its status be changed.

One of the funny aspects, as outlined in the letter the mayor of North York sent to all the members of the Legislature, is that a part of the people who live in North York, and myself, have a Toronto address, but we belong to a different municipality. However, that is not the most important reason the council of North York has decided, in its wisdom, that a city status would be more advantageous for the people of North York. A more serious reason is that at this point the definition of a borough is perceived by the people outside Metropolitan Toronto and in other provinces of Canada and abroad as a lesser and not very well defined municipal entity. Since North York is one of the boroughs where there is very valuable land and great potential for industrial and commercial development, the council of North York thinks if North York becomes a city it will be able to attract more industry and more business.

The advantages for the people of North York and for the workers of North York are obvious. At this stage we are developing, on Sheppard and Yonge, a downtown core which will be able to create 40,000 jobs -- jobs that are badly needed, especially at this time of high unemployment.

We think that under the present circumstances, and with the inability of the council of the borough of North York to attract business because of the perception I described before, this plan will take up to 10 years to be developed, which is quite a long time. We cannot tell young people to wait 10 years to get new jobs. On the contrary, we think if the status of the borough of North York were changed to the city of North York there would be a better identification of our municipality. Also, downtown core development will be accelerated because it will attract more investment and will attract more people who will be interested in that magnificent development.

There is only one negative aspect which has been outlined by the member for Waterloo North, and that is the slight difference in grants that cities receive in comparison with townships and boroughs, but this is a difference which affects the borough of North York in a minimal way. In fact the reduction of grants is related only to the construction of bridges, and at this point the municipality of North York has only one major bridge project, between Finch and Steeles, Weston and Islington on Ormont Drive. It’s a bridge that was planned in 1975 at a cost of $2 million. Under the present rules and statutes, the borough of North York would lose $300,000. That was one of the reasons that both times that the council of North York passed a motion that the status of the borough be changed, they put one single condition on it, which was that the city of North York was not to lose grants.

It shouldn’t be difficult for this Legislature to support this bill because there are no costs attached. There is only recognition of municipal entities, which as the previous speaker said have earned the status of cities. North York has a population of 560,000 people, making it the fourth largest municipality in Canada, we think the status of city is warranted. Therefore I ask members to support this bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m going to take part very briefly in this debate. I see the mover of the hill is away; I sincerely hope he is all right and has no serious problem in the hospital. My voice is just about gone today, but I’m still going to take part in the debate, regardless of the laryngitis, because I really want to set the record straight.

The designation of borough for Metropolitan Toronto was something that was rather unique and rather different, in that it came to the fore as we were studying the reorganization of Metropolitan Toronto, as my friend said, back around 1966.

He is quite right. There are no other boroughs in Ontario, but there are other municipal boroughs of very significant status elsewhere. There are boroughs around the city of New York which are very large and significant. I believe that the term borough has been used in England. In other words, the use of the term borough for a large urban municipality is not a unique thing. It has been used. As I recall, and I was around in 1966, we were looking for some terminology that was a little different, that could fit in with the city and the boroughs in this unique arrangement we call Metropolitan Toronto.

In legal status, these municipalities are townships and enjoy all the rights and privileges that go with townships, plus some others which they have gained over the years under the Metro act. We are actually at the point today, however, where there is only one significant difference in status as far as grants are concerned, that is in the bridge grants. Bridge grants for townships are 80 per cent and for cities 50 per cent, I believe. Therefore in the last number of years the boroughs have enjoyed township status as far as bridge grants are concerned. I guess they have got just a little under $600,000 in the period from 1972 to 1978 because of that subsidy status which they would not have enjoyed and which 40 or so other cities in this province do not enjoy. In other words, there are cities that are smaller than the boroughs which do not enjoy the 80 per cent bridge grants. While they were called boroughs they also enjoyed that one special provision as far as grants are concerned.

To bring the situation up to date, I certainly feel the areas are justified in wanting to change their names from borough to city. When I became Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and responsible for the administration of the Municipal Act, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act and many of the affairs concerning municipalities, I had discussions very early in the game with the mayor of North York. I indicated that I certainly had no objection to the name of the borough of North York being changed and it being called the city of North York.

The mayor and I have been carrying on discussions about this and deciding how and when it could be done. We haven’t completely agreed because the matter of grants is still there. We have been discussing that and I want to tell the members of this House that I intend to continue discussing that.

In the last few days, because I knew this bill was coming up, I have also discussed it with every mayor in this Metropolitan area -- including the mayor of the one city here, the city of Toronto -- and the heads of the municipalities in the other areas. To varying degrees they may or may not wish to change to city status. The borough of Scarborough of which I represent a part, passed a resolution -- which wasn’t passed, I might tell my friend, quite unanimously; it was about 11 to 3 rather than an unanimous vote -- to change from borough to city status -- actually a majority vote by a fair margin.

I have had discussion with them. What I have indicated to them and what I want to tell the House about is that if any of them wish to reaffirm their position that they would like to change from borough to city status, we would be happy to sit down with them and effect that. The question is how do we effect that? If the members would consult section 148(a) of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, they will find out. I will read it so that all may know what it says.

“Notwithstanding section 148, upon the application of the council of an area municipality that has the status of a township municipality, the Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs” -- under the act that we passed last week that becomes the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs -- “may by order erect the area municipality into a city municipality and may direct the name the newly erected municipality shall bear and the date when the erection shall take effect and may provide for any matters that he considers necessary for the establishment and carrying on of the newly erected municipality, including the composition of its council.”

[4:00]

Quite obviously, the power to change the boroughs to cities now rests in this piece of legislation. All that is required is for them to request the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to take action and to cause an order to be produced that will change their status. If I take that action and mention any terms that I might want to, as the legislation gives me power to do, this change can take effect.

I would therefore like to tell the House that I am fully confident that North York will become a city very shortly, as soon as the mayor and I have a chance to have another discussion or two, and that probably Scarborough and some of the others, if not all of them, will probably change to cities very shortly. But I also have to say to my friend -- and I know he believes in deregulation and certainly in the principle of not having needless legislation on the books -- that, therefore, we do not need this hill. I think it would be folly for the House to pass a bill when the matter is already taken care of in legislation that was passed in this House in 1974.

What I wanted to do today was to bring the members up to date on what we are doing and the negotiations that are going on, and to point out that I see the negotiations, at least in certain of the boroughs, coming to fruition very shortly. I would then suggest that the proper course of action for us in this House would be to veto the bill as an unnecessary piece of legislation.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with the words of the previous speaker with regard to the evolution that is taking place concerning the desire of these areas to become cities. One has to wonder in situations such as this whether this evolution would take place without the introduction of such a private member’s bill, which clearly expresses the wish of these municipalities to attain city status.

I listened to some of the work of my colleague from Waterloo North, who read some of the letters that had been received on the subject, giving encouragement to this Legislature’s acceptance of city status for what now are called boroughs. I was particularly impressed with the theme that ran through all those letters, and that was the desire of these municipalities to enhance their identity or their concept of identity. I suppose this is a subject that has not been dealt with in any detail by the previous speakers, and I would like to deal with it because I happen to come from a riding that has experienced very profound identity change in recent years.

For instance, in the regional municipality of Halton, as it is now called -- no longer is it Halton county -- we have various local municipalities. Some of the towns that had their identity up until the advent of regional government were officially obliterated, and yet we find a sustained swell of objection to that obliteration, an inability of the citizens to accept or grasp or comprehend a new identity in a larger sense.

One wonders, in observing the repercussions from the introduction of regional government in my riding, whether there is not a natural status of a natural state that occurs when people band together, for whatever reasons, and become a municipal area, whether it’s a village, a town or a city. It seems that in this kind of expression in the regional area what was left out of that formation was the recognition that people have to identify with something. They have to belong to something. They are proud of their town. They are proud of their city. They are proud their roots are there.

Metropolitan Toronto has one unique social aspect that perhaps sets it apart from many of the great cities of the world. That uniqueness has been commented on by visitors to this city for many, many years. That is that we in Metro Toronto are a composite of communities.

Mr. McClellan: What do you mean, “we”? You don’t live here. You are one of the visitors. You are welcome to visit here.

Mr. J. Reed: All right, I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I’ll give that “we” to someone else, because I come from the outer periphery.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He was born here.

Mr. J. Reed: I was born here, as a matter of fact, but I now come from the outer edge. I’ll reword it: Those in Metro Toronto comprise a group of communities or villages or towns within this great metropolitan area. It is that comprehension of the smaller size that gives much of the colour and the vitality, much of the cleanliness, much of the civic pride to this thing we call Metropolitan Toronto.

It seems to me that giving these boroughs city status, as they have requested, is simply conforming to that basic desire of people to belong to an entity, to be able to identify with a kind of entity they can comprehend. I believe in that sense this bill is worthy. It is a step in the right direction.

Finally, the thing that must be considered is that the local people want it. It is their decision; it is their desire. And because the local people want it, I think we have a responsibility to give it to them.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, for all of the reasons that have been given, I think there is merit in the proposition that the boroughs within the regional government of Metropolitan Toronto should be elevated to cities. I would add just on reason which I suppose is implicit in some of what has been said, and quite apart from all the historical rationalization and explanation that might be given about the appropriateness of the word “borough.” That is that it is viewed to be a little invidious that you should have in the granddaddy of all regional governments, namely Metropolitan Toronto, one city and then a number of other municipal corporations that appear to be somewhat different, somewhat less.

The day will come, not too far down the road, when the population of one or two of them may well become larger than that of the city of Toronto. So I have no objection to the idea that the name “city” should become an appropriate one and a permissible one for the boroughs.

However, having said that, I am profoundly unhappy and dissatisfied with this bill. It seems to me that if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) wanted to do something of a substantive nature, something that was more than just symbolic, something that is beyond the sort of bread-and-circus kind of approach to the problems and appealing to the desire to keep up with the Joneses, even though you’re smaller, to be of the same status with somebody that is bigger, many other things could have been done. Many important things could have been done in terms of for example, provincial grants and things of that nature.

I was fascinated in taking a look at the latest figures to see that provincial grants represent only 30 per cent as a percentage of local revenues in Metropolitan Toronto. Throughout the rest of the province it is 47 per cent. Other factors come into the picture, but the net result is that outside, average property taxes throughout the rest of the province are only $468. In Metropolitan Toronto the average property tax is $704. That’s about a 50 to 60 per cent higher figure. It seems to me that’s a far more important kind of thing than the symbolism of changing the name from borough to city.

Ironically, as has been pointed out by the minister, while this bill indicates the grants will continue for a 10-year period as though they were boroughs, even though their title has changed to that of being a city, at the end of the 10-year period they will lose some of that grant advantage they now have, at least in relationship to bridges. So 10 years hence this bill would make the boroughs worse off, taxwise.

It doesn’t tackle the basic problem. Ten years from now it will even make it worse, because 10 years from now the grants for bridges, albeit a small portion of the overall financial requirements of the boroughs, will drop from the 80 per cent they’re now getting to the 50 per cent they will get as a city.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will forgive me for this exercise in parochialism if I move to the position of the borough of York for a moment. As I’ve been reminding the minister the borough of York shares not only the problem of inequitable equalization, but it has a particular problem of a grossly inadequate assessment base. This was examined by John Robarts and he made a recommendation that the boundaries should he extended to provide an adequate assessment base, therefore an adequate assessment mix and therefore some relief for its grossly inequitable tax burden.

The government saw fit to reject that recommendation. It has come up with no alternative. Theoretically, conceivably, in its reconsideration of equalization grants it’s maybe going to meet the problem in the borough of York. But I have a horrible fear and suspicion that in meeting the broad problem of equalization grants, now that they’re frozen, the particular needs of the borough of York, which were the preoccupation and the concern of John Robarts and his commission, are going to get lost in the shuffle. I fear they will be treated like others when our problem is really somewhat greater than others.

There were so many other things the Leader of the Opposition might have picked upon if he really wanted to do something about problems in Metropolitan Toronto, in the boroughs all across the metropolitan area. One thing of great concern across the metropolitan area is the fact we have an appointed chairman rather than an elected chairman. Last year we brought in an amendment to implement the Robarts recommendation that the chairman of Metro should be elected. The Liberals opposed that.

There are a number of other things. Robarts proposed there should be a three-year term for council. Perhaps that is as important as a symbolic change in the name.

Mr. J. Reed: Are you going to fund the campaign for Metro chairman?

Mr. MacDonald: They also suggested elections in the second week of October so we won’t get caught in one of our early blizzards on November 13 or 14. We missed it this year. It came just a day or so afterwards.

He also suggested legislation authorizing campaign expenditures disclosure bylaws and payments of subsidies to candidates; that has been ignored. He suggested a mandatory salary review for councils each June; that has been ignored. He suggested termination of direct elections to Hydro and public utilities commissions and control by Metro council of the police force; that has been ignored.

All of these much more substantive and meaningful matters, in terms of affecting the lives and the operation have been ignored in favour of changing the name from borough to city.

I don’t have much more to say about this. I’d just like to make one comment with regard to the minister’s observation, namely that this is in the mill. The government can make the change by just an amendment to the existing regional government statute. I hate to remind the minister there have been many occasions on which it has been suggested to us that, in a bill we are bringing forward, the government has this in mind and is going to proceed with it; and two, three, four or five years afterwards, the government hasn’t proceeded with it.

[4:15]

If the government intends to move, let it move. This bill will become redundant at the time when it moves. If perchance this bill goes through the whole process and the government hasn’t moved, it will be implementing something that the government has no objection to.

The only other point I would like to make is with regard to the bill itself and the broader political significance of the bill. I would say to the members of the Liberal Party, if this is an example of the new interest of the Liberal Party in Metro affairs --

Mr. McClellan: Spare us.

Mr. Epp: It’s a continuing interest.

Mr. MacDonald: -- if it characterizes their interest in municipal affairs, if they are going to be indulging in symbolism and tokenism and ignoring the substance of the issue, the results for them in Metro will be no better in the next election than they were in the past.

Mr. J. Reed: Are you feeling embarrassed this afternoon?

Mr. McClellan: Not at all, if this is the best you can do.

Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, I was making a few notes as we went along. I think there have been some good points made. Perhaps I could start at the end, if you will.

The member for York South talked about the opposition’s symbolic gesture and thought there was nothing more than that behind this bill. I concur. I find -- and maybe others do -- there is almost a note of sadness in there and what I think is this almost constant paranoia to try to make an impact within the greater Metro area.

I have said before, and I will say again, that if the opposition party spent more time appreciating the very good Metro member they have and worried less about what they are going to do at the next election in this town, they might all be better off.

It is a symbolic gesture. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that of the 560,000 people within the borough of North York, I don’t think we could fill this chamber with any who are gnashing their teeth, wondering whether they should be called a borough or a city, or who care.

Mr. J. Reed: We’re just listening to the people: that’s all.

Mr. McCaffrey: The point surely is that the mayor of North York does care. The mayor and a significant number of his council in the past have cared enough to request that this name change be undertaken.

As someone who has had no municipal experience -- and I defer to those members in this chamber who have -- notwithstanding that, I have gone out of my way to meet with these good municipal people within the borough of North York. Some of them are concerned that this be done and some simply don’t care. I respect those who do want it undertaken and their responsibility to their electorate, and I think we should undertake to do it.

I think the key to this matter was stated by the minister very simply. I won’t repeat his quoting of section 7 of the 1974 act, but it makes it very clear that the power to undertake this change does now rest in the legislation. Equally important, the minister himself has given an undertaking to accede to this request; so, in my judgement, the matter is resolved.

Mr. J. Reed: Where are the results?

Mr. McCaffrey: On that basis, I think the bill can quite properly be vetoed.

Mr. Ruston: You veto all of them anyway; so it doesn’t make much difference.

Mr. J. Reed: Sure; you might as well.

Mr. Ruston: You vetoed your own member’s bill list Thursday.

Mr. McCaffrey: We’ve shown no preference when it comes to vetoing a bill.

Mr. MacDonald: That one should have been vetoed.

Mr. Ruston: It was a good one to veto, because it was no good.

Mr. McCaffrey: The member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed) talked about the pride -- and I see this in my own borough of North York -- that it is increasingly coming to the fore. People have this feeling of pride and respect in their own municipality. I think that in part is reflected in its desire to be called a city. I go along with that.

I think I share this part of his view, that when responsible and competent elected municipal people have indicated that that is something they wish, we should undertake to meet their request for that.

If it were not for the fact that it is clearly redundant, I would be voting in favour of it. We simply do not need this bill. On that basis, it is not my intention to vote in favour of it.

Mr. J. Reed: Support it and the bill will become redundant.

Mr. McCaffrey: I don’t have anything substantive to add; I think it has been covered.

It was a real delight for me to hear somebody from the third party, the member for Downsview, talk about his own desire to attract new investment into this province and into this borough.

Mr. McClellan: We’re always talking about that. You just never listen.

Mr. McCaffrey: I don’t really know whether there is going to be any new investment brought into the city of North York as a result of that name change.

It’s interesting to note that he made reference to the Yonge-Sheppard Centre. There are a lot of people up there who would just as soon not have this new downtown happen. Many of them would like to see the old neighbourhood maintained just as it is. There are others who are looking forward to seeing the rapid growth in the Yonge-Sheppard Centre over the next decade. But the desire for new investment in the borough, in the city and in the province is not something that the third party alone has.

The matters of changes, if required, in the bridge subsidy ratios is something that has been discussed. It is such a small point I’m not even going to make reference to it, other than to say the minister has indicated that that is a part of the ongoing negotiation that he is having with the mayor of North York. I know that these two responsible people will work this matter out to their mutual satisfaction very soon.

Mr. Ruston: I would like to speak very briefly on this bill. Coming from a rural area I suppose it may seem strange that I would want to speak on it, but since Metropolitan Toronto is the capital of the province I think that makes everyone in Ontario interested in what it’s all about. Having been here for 11 years, one has a feeling for it.

If you drive in as a stranger you’ll perhaps see a sign, although not too often, on some of the main streets. Anyway you can tell where you’re going from one part of the city to another, Mr. Speaker. You’ll see the borough of North York or whatever the case may be.

I can think of other cities that adjoin one another. I think of Waterloo and Kitchener; they are cities and they are side by side. You can go from one to the other. There doesn’t seem to be any problem there and yet they’re both classified as cities. So I can’t see too much wrong with having the same thing in Metropolitan Toronto.

The population of some of these areas, compared to the city of Toronto itself, is even larger. It seems to me that they should have the same status as a city proper. I can see no reason at all why they shouldn’t have exactly the same status.

I suppose 90 per cent of the people who come into the metropolitan area from my area would say that they were in Toronto, although they may have been in Scarborough, East York, North York or Etobicoke. Many of them feel it is one big city and they just say they went to Toronto for the weekend. In some cases they may never have been in Toronto proper, although in most cases they would have been because of the exhibition, Maple Leaf Gardens and places like that which draw people in from outside areas. But a great many of them stay in areas outside the city proper and while they assume they were in Toronto. in effect they weren’t.

But I think that changing the name borough to city does give them a status that is comparable with the city of Toronto itself.

I think this is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. I heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say that this could be changed under a section of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, but this solves the problem and has them all in one bill. However, it would appear, in the way of all private member’s bills, this one will be blocked by the government. All the rest of them have been, when we spend our Thursday afternoons here. The press comes out at times and makes a big spiel about it. Every once in a while you may get a letter from somebody that says: “Please support bill so-and-so, the private member’s bill coming up on Thursday afternoon. It’s very important.” I just write a letter back and say, “I appreciate you advising me of your concern and your interest in this bill but private member’s bills never become law in the province of Ontario.” I think there was one exception. It was so minute that no one paid much attention to it I guess. It was the one regarding election advertising in weekly papers on Thursdays. That one did become law but it was the only one.

I tell them the only way that particular legislation will become law is for the government to bring it in itself and pass it. I just tell them I am sorry to say that that’s our method of operation in the Ontario Legislature. I suppose it will be the same with this bill. So more or less, we are just spending an afternoon visiting one another; that’s all we are really doing.

Mr. Young: I realize that our time is limited and I don’t intend to participate for too long in this debate. I do want to say that when the word “borough” was applied to our municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto, there was a bit of a trip-up. People found it awkward. Certainly the word borough has a long history in Britain and in New York, hut as far as Canada was concerned, this was a brand new term and people didn’t quite understand it; they didn’t understand what it meant. They had difficulty in comprehending what the thing was. In North York, most of the people who refer to North York still call it the township of North York, as it used to be before the word borough came in.

I presume the word “city” is much cleaner and neater and more concise and will be quickly accepted by the population in that borough and across Metropolitan Toronto.

I had a bit of a scare for a while, Mr. Speaker, when the Robarts commission made its recommendation. It put me and my home directly into the city of Toronto. You can imagine the kind of consternation I felt at that time because perhaps no worse fate could befall a North Yorker who has been there for years than to be transferred to the city of Toronto or to the borough of York, as was threatened for so many of our people at that particular time. There was an eruption of public resentment against those new boundaries because in North York we believed, and I had a bit of a part in this, we created over the years a borough with a good record of service to the people and the kind of place, as history has shown, where people want to live. We had it there. I think most of us in North York were delighted when that part of the boundary change was deleted. I am still a citizen, thank God, of the borough of North York. I hope I will soon be in :the city of North York, because my support is there. It strikes me as extremely sloppy research on the part of the leader of the official opposition to introduce this bill when the same result could have been achieved by the representation the minister made today. That is just a little bit of insight into the kind of thing that is going on in the official opposition.

Baying said that, I want to ask the minister why in the world all of us got letters from the mayor of Scarborough and the mayor of North York asking that this bill be supported. In other words, if this kind of information, which the minister brought out today in this debate, had been given the mayors with whom he has been dickering all this time, then surely they would have known this bill was not necessary. They would have known it was a very simple matter to deal with the minister and get this change from borough to city.

Why didn’t the minister tell Mayor Lastman and Mayor-elect Gus Harris that this matter was a simple matter? Why did he allow them to go through all the agony of trying to get us all to support this bill so that this result could be attained? I spent a couple of hours in the borough hall yesterday in North York and there certainly was no understanding of this procedure at that time. I found also that while all the people there didn’t care what happened as far as the name was concerned, the elected people certainly did care and were anxious for this change to be made.

[4:30]

I’ll vote for this bill, although I understand the government party is going to veto it. I’d support this change at least. But I still ask why the minister did not make clear to the mayors the procedure that was necessary, and why all this fuss and furore over this bill, be it supported or vetoed, at a time like this.

Mr. Acting Speaker: This concludes the debate on this matter.

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. M. Davidson moved second reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Coroners Act, 1972.

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the children in Ontario who suffer from hypopituitary dwarfism, I it is my privilege and pleasure to present Bill 149. I do so because I for one am aware, after a year of study, of the problems that exist, not only with the children themselves but with the families of those who are involved with these children.

I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, you would have made a ruling regarding debate on this bill prior to the debate taking place, but not having heard such a ruling I intend to continue and put forward the case as I see it.

I first became aware of this problem back in November 1977 -- approximately a year ago. I must confess that up until that time I was as ignorant of the situation as it existed in the province as no doubt are most of the people in Ontario. I guess one never takes the time to sit down and consider why it is that certain people look to be certain ways in our life, nor do we ever take the time to anticipate or figure out whether there are ways and means that we could help these people.

On November 12, 1977, I believe,. I received a letter from a woman in my riding by the name of Mrs. Linda Geiger. It wasn’t a letter to myself; it was a letter that had been directed to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). In that letter, Mrs. Geiger pointed out the problem that her 16-year-old son was having with regard to getting a serum in order to treat him for what she referred to as growth hormone deficiency, a term that is probably more acceptable and more recognized by people in Ontario than is hypopituitary dwarfism.

Having read the letter, I contacted Mrs. Geiger to find out a little more about this problem and why she was faced with this difficulty. After having had the opportunity to sit down both with her and her son, Brett Watson, I took upon myself to gather more information regarding this problem. Through Mrs. Geiger I was put in touch with a number of other people who were also having this same difficulty.

The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) at approximately the same time sent out to each member of this House a memo relating to a young girl in his riding who was having the same problem. I appreciated that memo from the member for Grey-Bruce and I had the opportunity to discuss with him very briefly the problem with regard to the young lady in his area. I found she had been waiting approximately four years to get onto the treatment program in order that she could have the injections required to help her grow.

Some of us who have never been faced with this kind of problem probably could never visualize the difficulties that are created, not only for the children, but also for the families. Hypopituitary dwarfism is, I guess one could say, an accident of life and results from the malfunction of the pituitary gland at an early age. As a result the child ceases to grow.

When I first met Brett Watson he stood about four feet, five inches tall and weighed approximately 60 pounds; he was 15 years of age. He had reached his maximum height. He probably would have put on an additional few pounds, but he would not have grown any taller. He would not have gained that much more weight, either. In other words, at 15 years of age, having suffered from growth hormone deficiency, he was considered full-grown.

This was reported quite widely in the newspapers and particularly in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of November 21. Mr. Speaker, I know you can’t see the photo that appeared there, but it is a picture of Brett playing street hockey with his younger brother. If you were able to look at that picture without really understanding what the picture was trying to say, you would suggest that the bigger of the two was the older of the two. In this case, it’s not true. The picture I look at shows a 15-year-old playing hockey with a 12-year-old, and he stands approximately a foot and a half shorter.

There are many children throughout Ontario -- 60 that we are aware of -- who have been diagnosed as suffering from growth hormone deficiency. Many others perhaps suffer from growth hormone deficiency, but because of the lack of public awareness have not as yet been diagnosed as such. Most parents who consider their child to be a slow-grower, as it is known, just wait for the time he will spring forth, or sprout up. Suddenly they realize when he attains the age of 12 or 13 that he is not going to do this and that there may be, or is, something definitely wrong. It is at that time they take their child to the doctor to find out what the problem is, and, after a series of diagnostic consultations, find that their child suffers from hypopituitary dwarfism.

I find it rather strange that the government, on Monday last, would introduce a piece of legislation very similar to Bill 149. I don’t find it strange that it would do that at this time, because I’m quite sure Bill 149 and all of the press, et cetera, leading up to Bill 149, and the public pressure that has been generated as a result of Bill 149, has put the government in the position that it was necessary for it to introduce its own legislation. I find it very discouraging that the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry), who on Monday expressed such a keen interest on the part of the government and said that this was a very important issue and should be dealt with immediately, is not in the House today hut rather is in Sault Ste. Marie politicking on behalf of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Gregory: That’s not true, he’s right here.

Mr. Rotenberg: He’s here. He’s in the House.

Mr. M. Davidson: If that is the case I would like to think he is listening to this debate --

Mr. Williams: Withdraw.

Mr. Eaton: He’s at the justice committee, I think.

Mr. M. Davidson: -- so that he will understand primarily what it is. I would not like to think that he simply moved the government bill in an attempt to undermine the private members’ hour as it exists within the House today.

Mr. Kerrio: They’ve already done that by blocking all the votes.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. McClellan: There is no point of order.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Williams: I think the charge that was laid was out of order.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. M. Davidson: In order to accommodate the member for Oriole, if I was wrong in my accusation then I apologize.

Mr. Williams: That’s what I was asking for.

Mr. M. Davidson: On the other hand, I still infer that in order to get themselves off the hook the government party found it necessary to introduce legislation prior to this debate, or it would have found it necessary to pass and approve this bill at this time because of public pressure.

If the government cares to deny that I can stand here and show the members countless numbers of signatures, copies of which have been sent to the Solicitor General by the people who have gathered them, the thousands and thousands of people throughout the province who have responded to Bill 149 anti to the petition placed before this House in February.

Mr. Eaton: Take credit for what’s been done, don’t be critical.

Mr. M. Davidson: And might I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it is not the member for Cambridge nor the bill that has created this. It is the general public’s keen awareness of a problem that has existed in this province for a good many years, and of the government’s failure to do anything about it up until this time.

That is a matter of fact. In 1968 the matter was raised in this Legislature and nothing was done about it. In 1973, when Morton Shulman was a member in this House, he also submitted a private member’s bill. Nothing was done about it. In February of this year, to be exact, I presented a petition which 5,164 people had signed. Nothing was done about it.

In June of this year the Toronto Sun reported that I intended to put forward a private member’s bill dealing with this problem. Nothing was done about it as far as the government was concerned.

Only when Bill 149 was introduced into this Legislature and the public pressure began to come forward did the government of the day decide to take some form of action and that is the reality of it all. Only then did it become interested.

Mr. Gregory: The bill was wrong. Accept that your bill was wrong, that’s all. It had to be corrected.

Mr. M. Davidson: My, bill is not wrong. I spoke during the presentation of the government bill. I indicated at that time, and had indicated to government members previous to that, that I was prepared to move an amendment that would allow for objection.

I want to make it very clear to the government members that on Monday evening or Tuesday evening last, I tabled with the clerk an amendment to Bill 149 that deals with objections. I might add that amendment, word for word, is taken out of the government bill. In fact Bill 149 and Bill 186, as it is now known, are exactly the same in intent and purpose. So therefore I see no reason why Bill 149 cannot be passed and enacted.

This is not a problem faced by many people throughout Ontario. My reasons for not putting forward a means of objection in my bill were very clear. In any given situation there are those who would object.

In my own mind I question whether anyone who raised an objection to allowing a pituitary gland to be used for the production of serum, if they were then faced with the problem other people of this province are faced with, would object to theft child receiving that treatment simply because they did not donate pituitary glands because of their beliefs. I doubt that. I doubt that very much.

At the same time, I can understand that there are groups within our society which do have within their religious beliefs reasons to object, and I can accept that also. I can accept that and I was prepared, as I said earlier, to move that, had the government allowed this bill to go to committee.

I did not object to the government bill. In fact I used its exact wording to ensure that the government would he prepared in fact to take this bill seriously. I want to get something out of the government speakers on this bill today. I don’t really care what they do with Bill 149 today, providing they can assure me that the government legislation as introduced on Monday will be enacted and passed prior to the Christmas break. If they can do that, then I don’t care what they do with Bill 149.

On the other hand, if they are not prepared to do that, then I will fight them right down the line to ensure that Bill 149 somehow or other gets through this House. Because it is not something that I or the caucus members whom I represent are prepared to play politics with. There are too many kids out there in the province who have waited far too long for some kind of action on the part of the government. All I ask them now is to pass one of these bills before December 15 and we will have helped those kids. If I have time left, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve it.

[4:45]

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has six minutes.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this particular bill. There are probably two major aspects to the bill, both of which have to be examined before one can make a judgement on whether to support it. It is rather unfortunate that when a member has accomplished something, as this member has in getting the government to bring in legislation, he has to be so political about it.

Mr. Deans: So political?

Mr. McClellan: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Eaton: I think the member came in with very good intentions on this bill. He’s not the only one who has been involved in this sort of situation. I can speak very personally of it; neighbours of ours have had that situation and have been supported by myself, amongst other people in the community, to obtain the necessary serums; they also respect some of the rights of other people which perhaps the honourable member doesn’t in this particular case.

It’s always interesting that members such as the one who introduced the bill talk about the rights of people and then are prepared in a situation like this to tread on the rights of some. I think the honourable member’s intentions in this bill are good --

Mr. Deans: Support it then.

Mr. Eaton: -- they are right -- to see that the pituitary gland is used, wherever possible and in any circumstances where it can be obtained, where it does not tread on the rights of other people. I think this is what brought about the introduction of the government hill. Many of us support the honourable member’s intention. Many of us feel, as he does about it. But we also see the legal part of it and the need to respect the rights of those who have some other beliefs in the treatment of the human body.

I believe the bill that has been brought in by the Solicitor General can fill this need and can see that there is the provision of the pituitary gland in almost every possible situation. But it leaves that right, the right of the individual’s family who have some beliefs that the body is not to be interfered with in any way, to be able not to have that gland taken out. I am sure some of my other colleagues will speak more particularly on that part of it.

Your legislation --

Mr. Deans: You know he’s going to amend the bill. Why are you talking like this? He has already told you he’s prepared to amend it.

Mr. Eaton: Okay.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Eaton: Nobody interfered while he was speaking. Why doesn’t the member for Wentworth keep quiet?

Mr. Speaker: Order: The member for Wentworth doesn’t have the floor, and every member has an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Deans: Absolutely right; and interjections are accepted here -- they always have been. You were one of the worst ones when you were over here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You are out of order.

Mr. Eaton: An attempt was made by the government to do on a voluntary basis what the honourable member is trying to do in this regard. In 1975, before we got the voluntary submission, there were 3,700 contributed; in 1977, 5,700. The attempt was made to get this done on a voluntary basis. It fell short.

I believe further action is necessary. The honourable member’s bill is directed at that action, which I think is good. However, as I said, it does interfere with some individual rights. As a result of this pressure, and the pressure of members on our own side, further action is being taken at this same time by the Solicitor General. I don’t think there is anything wrong or hypocritical in that. It has been brought to a head by the member’s action and that of other members.

Mr. Cunningham: Certainly not yours.

Mr. Eaton: The member may sit there and say, “Certainly not yours,” but there are a lot of us who have some feelings about it and have talked about it, too.

Mr. Cunningham: You didn’t do anything until the member brought this bill in. Your government did nothing.

Mr. Eaton: I am giving him full credit for it. I am saying there are other people who are interested. The member can sit there and be as hypocritical as he wants. Where was he on the issue?

Mr. Cunningham: I supported the honourable member’s bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Cunningham: You did nothing until he presented his bill.

Mr. Eaton: I think we have something here that is important. I recognize the feelings of the people involved in this situation. I have been involved with it with a couple of them. I have gone to bat for it, too. Not to have something compulsory right then, but we worked at it before when we were getting the voluntary aspect of it. It didn’t succeed. There is nothing wrong whatsoever in admitting that.

Here we have taken a further step. The member has come in with something that is compulsory. There are some people who have strong feelings about that. We are respecting those feelings, but at the same time allowing a much greater number of pituitary glands to be taken and used.

Once again I say I think the legislation that has been brought in by the Solicitor General will replace and do the same thing the member has attempted to do in his private bill. If that private bill had been there alone, I personally would have supported it. But as I once again say, there are members who have other feelings about it. I think we are respecting those feelings; we are respecting the feelings of some people. But we can meet the need of the young people who need the pituitary glands and the serum that is developed from it.

So let the member take full credit for it, but he should not be critical of the fact it has now come in as government legislation. It is going to serve the needs of those young people, and I think that’s what we are interested in.

Mr. J. Reed: You are really embarrassed on this one.

Mr. Nixon: Have you been able to get more than one speaker?

Mr. Blundy: I am very happy to rise and speak in support of the bill that is before is, Bill 149.

Mr. Breaugh: Excellent.

Mr. Blundy: I do so with the understanding, and of course with the complete intention, that the bill would go to committee. It could be amended at that time to take into consideration the rights and religious and moral beliefs of some of the people of Ontario, who have every right to be considered in this legislation.

I want to give full merit to the member for Cambridge for having introduced this bill. He was, of course, driven to do so by the inaction of the government over the last 10 years, which knew the importance of this matter to the children of Ontario who happen to be afflicted with a malfunctioning pituitary gland and did nothing about it.

It has been said they were hoping it would all be done voluntarily, but these things often don’t happen in a voluntary manner and do require some government intervention. I deplore the fact the government has not intervened before this time.

To make it even more unusual, as soon as a private member’s bill to this effect is introduced in the House, the government says, “We must run right in immediately and put in a bill that will do this, so we may take the credit for it.” I think they are making sort of a small issue of it, but I think they are being small in having conducted themselves in the fashion they have.

To discuss the merits of the hill, there is no other way the people who suffer from the growth hormone deficiency can be helped. It has to be this way. The suggested bill says that wherever under the Coroners Act a post mortem examination or autopsy is conducted, the pituitary gland will be taken. That is very good and it will provide hopefully, sufficient pituitary glands to fill the needs of the children of Ontario for this serum.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, from many years of experience in the funeral services business, that there are at least 10 times as many autopsies performed with the full consent of the family and with the understanding and support of the attending physician than there are under the Coroners Act. If there is a real need for more pituitary glands, than is going to be provided by autopsies under the Coroners Act, there is also the hope and the future possibility of having a great many more pituitary glands taken in these voluntary medical autopsies that are performed daily in the hospitals of Ontario.

I really believe that we have to turn our attention to those people living in our province who for moral or religious reasons believe this bill is not going to be able to protect them sufficiently. I believe we all ought to signify, while we are able to do so, our willingness to donate not only this organ but many organs that can be used in years to come to help less fortunate people than ourselves. I believe that simply saying that we have no objection to the removal is sufficient, although there are certain people, because of religious beliefs, who believe that an absolute and straight out-and-out consent should be given, either by the deceased or by his family members after his death, before any part of the body is removed. We must protect their rights.

Therefore, I would look forward to the opportunity to discuss and vote on an amendment to this bill when it comes to committee. I fully support this bill because I know we will have to go that route of protecting those people who have made known to us and to many other people in the province that they wish to have a definite say in whether this gland should be removed or not.

I congratulate the member for Cambridge for having done what he has done in introducing this bill in the face of non-action on the part of the government over the past 10 years. I will vote in favour of this bill and hope that it will go to committee so that we will have the opportunity to amend it. If it is blocked by the government, as I suspect it might be. I will certainly vote in favour of the bill that has been introduced at the last minute. at the 11th hour, by the Solicitor General.

I want clearly to let everyone know that the people of Ontario are looking at us in the Legislature today honing, and in many cases praying, that we will look to the needs of these children, pass this bill and put into effect the ability to take this very, very important gland for the treatment of children now suffering and children yet unborn in this province.

Mr. Lupusella: I’m pleased to rise in support of the bill introduced by my colleague from Cambridge, Bill 149. I would like to convey my appreciation to my colleague for the task which he has been undertaking to present to the government a long petition. I am up tight about evaluating the position taken by the government to introduce a different bill which eventually is going to block the bill introduced by my colleague.

Today and yesterday I had the opportunity to see a long article which appeared in one of the Italian daily newspapers, Corriere Canadese. It is not my intention to discuss the medical value of the problem because it seems we are all aware of the necessity of changing the Coroners Act, in order to solve this problem. The 50 children across the province who are at this moment in great need can at least get the proper treatment through the amendment of the act.

For your information, Mr. Speaker, the article was a long one. It seems it affects different communities across Ontario. In particular, I was quite shocked on reading this long article in the Corriere Canadese which emphasizes the problem affecting one Italian family, Mrs. Clorinda and Mr. Pirro Alfredo.

They have a child who is 22 months old.

They have been interviewed by the Corriere Canadese and they have expressed the real problem of their child in relation to its height. The child looks as if it is six months old.

In other words, it seems there is a general consensus in the Legislature about the validity of such a change which should take place by amending the Coroners Act. I really don’t understand the attitude taken by the government when such a petition was introduced by my colleague in the Legislature.

I want to quote a memorandum, dated March 6, 1978, sent by the Ministry of the Solicitor General’s office to Dr. Stewart, deputy minister in the office of the Premier, in reply to the petition which was introduced in the Legislature.

“A couple of years ago this matter was considered in the form of an amendment to the Coroners Act which would permit pathologists to remove pituitary glands in cases coming to autopsy pursuant to the coroner’s warrant, if there was no contrary intention of the deceased known at the time of the death, or if the next of kin did not object.”

This particular memorandum emphasizes the problem considered a couple of years ago. If there is someone playing games in this Legislature, it is the government by trying to stop the bill introduced by my colleague, the member for Cambridge.

[5:00]

They were aware of the problem a couple of years ago. They knew there were families across the province with children in great need. Some of them are waiting until the Coroners Act is amended to get such relief.

As I stated before, if there is someone playing games, it is the government because it did not initiate any immediate action to change the Coroners Act so those children could get immediate relief.

This memorandum goes back two years. The government was not really serious about this particular matter, until there was public pressure and until the media really was interested in this public concern. The government was then able and willing to introduce a bill to amend the Coroners Act and stop the bill introduced by my colleague. So if there is this political game, of course, it’s not coming from our side because, at least, we have to appreciate, as the Solicitor General said in his statement dated November 27, 1978, and I quote:

“I congratulate him,” -- the member for Cambridge -- “for that action, but I must say the government’s amendment differs substantially. The government is strongly opposed to the mandatory or compulsory removal of pituitary glands under any circumstances. Our bill prohibits the removal of the glands where the deceased or the deceased’s family have expressed an objection.

The principle which I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that even in this particular circumstance, if the government were serious about the amendment of the Coroners Act, they were supposed to initiate action two years ago when they were planning to amend the Coroners Act and they knew that such problems existed across Ontario.

My colleague has been emphasizing the value of this bill. It is a humanitarian bill which this House and the members belonging to each party should consider. It is a humanitarian bill and I would be really upset if the members belonging to the government side of the House are going to rise to stall the principle and the bill introduced by my colleague.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to convey my appreciation to my colleague for raising this matter in the Legislature and I hope that all members of this Legislature will rise in support of Bill 149.

Mr. Rotenberg: I would like to start off by commending the member for Cambridge for making this a major public issue and for drawing the problem to the attention of the public because there certainly is a serious problem. He has circulated a petition widely and he has certainly made a number of people aware that these glands are needed. I would like to question the petition a little bit, because I’ve had a number of letters from petitioners, and quite properly. I’ll read one of them to you.

“I support the amendment to the Coroners Act which would allow the pituitary glands to be removed during a legal medical autopsy provided that the next of kin do not object.”

I have had three or four letters only and each one of them seems to be under the impression that the bill before us made a provision for the objection of the next of kin. I’m pleased to hear that the member for Cambridge has, in effect, said that however this goes forward he would allow for objections from the next of kin.

The problem before us is that more glands are needed. There is no argument about that. I don’t think this should become a political issue. I don’t think it should be a matter of who brings forward the bill. But, Mr. Speaker, the problem is how do we get more of these glands to the children who need them? The bill, as before us, says it is compulsory that they be taken at an autopsy. Even the amendment proposed, or the bill proposed by the Solicitor General, indicates, in a way, that their removal is compulsory unless someone opts out.

I’m sure that some of the members in the House are aware, and I’d like to make all members of the House aware, that the taking of these glands is very much contrary to the religious beliefs of some people, and it’s contrary, in some people’s minds, to their own civil rights.

If I can go back to the first chapter of Genesis, chapter 1, verse 27:

“So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them I .” Then you go to chapter 2, verse 7: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,” and so on.

In the minds of some people in my religion, and there may be others, man is holy and the human body is holy and man came from dust and must return to dust and the entire human body must be buried. There may be only a minority of people in the province who feel this way, but I think we have to consider their views as well as the need for these glands. There are some people who feel there is a civil rights issue involved. Just who owns a human body after the person is deceased? What rights does the state have to take all, part, some or any of a human being without the prior consent of the deceased or the next of kin?

There is really a contradiction of two very basic principles: the need for the glands for dwarfism, which I do not deny and certainly we should do everything we can to accelerate the number of glands available; the contradiction of that very important and very worthwhile principle, the principle of human, religious and civil rights of some people in our province. If these were the only two alternatives before us, I could see there would be a major problem for members of how to handle the situation. I submit that there is another way.

The proponents of this bill, on all sides of the House, have said, “The voluntary donation of glands hasn’t worked; we have to go compulsory.” I submit that yes, the voluntary donation hasn’t worked and the reason it hasn’t worked is because it hasn’t been handled properly.

I asked the Solicitor General’s department, of the 9,000 to 10,000 mandatory coroner’s autopsies, how many people donated and how many people refused? I get kind of a fuzzy answer back. People don’t exactly refuse but the coroner just doesn’t get around to asking in most of the cases.

I submit that if the coroner took the time and the trouble -- and it is time and trouble for the coroner’s office in the various municipalities -- to go to the next of kin before the autopsy and say, “Can we take the pituitary gland?” and explain why, I would venture to say that the vast majority of people who now haven’t been asked would accept. Instead of getting 4,000 or 5,000, we might get 8,000 or 9,000.

Then there is the thing on the driver’s licence to implement the Human Tissues Gift Act. I have a photostat of the consent form. All it says is, “If you wish to donate your body or any part of your body for transplant or other humanitarian purposes after death, please complete the form below.” There’s a signature. On the back it says that if you want further information, write the chief coroner. I venture to say that of five million on six million or seven million drivers in the province, not one or two or three per cent of them even know there’s a need for pituitary glands and therefore haven’t signed the form.

Mr. Martel: But if you sign that, they give the whole body to medical research.

Mr. Rotenberg: One can sign for all of it or one can indicate --

Mr. Martel: They give the whole body to medical research.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor please.

Mr. Williams: Read the form.

Mr. Rotenberg: If the member from Sudbury would listen, one can sign for all of one’s body, or part of one’s body, or any particular part of one’s body. One can sign only for glands, only for corneas, only for kidneys, or only for the heart.

Mr. Martel: But if you sign for the whole body, it doesn’t go for transplants.

Mr Rotenberg: I submit that the Solicitor General’s office hasn’t done its job well enough; hasn’t publicized it. If with the driver’s licence, they put in the envelope a little brochure -- I wish the member for Cambridge would listen because I think he should push this -- saying, “Fill out this form;” just with the publicity generated on the need for these glands and a request, “Will you donate your glands?” and have them sign the form, I’m sure we would get thousands of signatures from those who have no religious or civil rights objections.

In these two bills before us we are talking only in relation to coroner’s mandatory autopsies, of which there are 9,000 to 10,000. I inquired between the coroner’s office and the Ministry of Health and I found out that there are some 10,000 to 15,000 voluntary autopsies done in hospitals. Every one of these needs the prior consent of the deceased or the next of kin. Every one of these needs consent. By just a little amendment to the voluntary autopsy consent forms in the hospitals, by adding another line or another signature saying, “Will you in this autopsy donate the pituitary gland because of ... ”

I’m sure that of those 10,000 to 15,000 autopsies, they will get far more than needed.

Mr. Kerrio: Is that what the government is going to do?

Mr. Rotenberg: I’m speaking for myself. This is the private members’ hour.

Anybody, I submit, who would consent to a voluntary autopsy -- 99 per cent -- certainly would consent to having the pituitary gland donated to a needy child.

There is the matter of corneas. For a few years, you remember, Mr. Speaker, there was a shortage of corneas for transplants. Whoever did the publicity work on this did an awfully good job. My understanding is that there is now a surplus of corneas because the need was publicized; they were asked for and they were given.

I submit that we can get pituitary glands in the same way if we ask for them, if the coroners ask for them in every case, if people ask for them in every voluntary autopsy case, if the requests are sent out with the driver’s licence and we give it publicity. I think we should stick with voluntary consent.

This bill as proposed and the Attorney General’s bill as proposed is contrary to the Human Tissue Gift Act which is now the law of this province and requires consent, instead of going by force and saying, “You must do it.” I submit Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General’s bill is not sufficient --

[5:15]

Mr. Foulds: Are you going to vote against the Attorney General?

Mr. Rotenberg: You are darn right I am going to vote against the Attorney General’s bill.

Mr. Lupusella: Wait for another two years.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General’s bill requires an opting out, not an opting in. It is all very well to say, “You will take these unless someone objects.” Today there is publicity about it, but five, six or 10 years down the road if someone’s relative has an autopsy, how are they going to know they are supposed to opt out? Maybe we can fix up the Attorney General’s bill so every next of kin must be informed and has a right to object.

If that is the case I will support the bill. But unless and until there is a mandatory notice to the next of kin that a piece of the body may be taken, I cannot support any bill of that nature.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether either of these bills is necessary, because under the Human Tissue Gift Act --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is just one bill before the House at the moment.

Mr. Rotenberg: One bill before the House and one just proposed. Under the Human Tissue Gift Act, with consent any part of the body can be taken. With consent pituitary glands can be taken. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to this House, before we pass the member for Cambridge’s bill, even in its amended form, and before we consider the Attorney General’s bill, which is an opting out, not an opting in provision, we should at least, on the part of the government, and I will admit that maybe the government, or the Solicitor General, the coroners, and the Health ministry have had some shortcomings in publicizing the need, going to the public, and going to the hospitals for private autopsies, and putting a request on driver’s licences. If all these things are done, I submit compulsory removal is not necessary. The bills are not necessary.

If a bill comes in which provides for the mandatory informing of the next of kin or prior consent from the deceased, I will support it. If a bill comes in that does not give the notice to the next of kin, I think it is a violation of civil rights, a violation of the religious rights for the minority of the people in this province. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, when there are other ways to do it, we should not be taking that step.

I finish where I started, Mr. Speaker. I commend the member for Cambridge for bringing it forward. I hope that between all the ideas that have come forward this afternoon we can work out a system of getting sufficient pituitary glands for all the children in this province who need them -- yes, even for all the children in this country who need them -- without trampling on anybody’s rights.

Mr. McKessock: I rise in support of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Coroners Act, 1972, to allow the coroner to remove the pituitary gland, to allow a person suffering from a growth hormone deficiency the opportunity to grow.

Although private members’ bills don’t become law too often, I disagree with my friend from Essex North (Mr. Ruston) when he says that we are wasting our time in debating them. I feel we don’t waste our time on private bills, and I think this has been proven many times in the past. Even though they don’t become law they give the members a chance to promote issues and pressure the government into taking action on those issues.

Two days before my bill, a private member’s bill on the Niagara Escarpment was debated, the government took action on the issue. Now the Attorney General, a few days before this bill is debated, puts a bill in place that will replace this bill.

When I met with the Premier about my bill, I told him if he preferred to bring in a bill to do the same thing as mine that was okay with me. What I wanted was action on the issue, and I didn’t care who got the credit.

Mr. Gregory: That’s different. Some of you guys want publicity.

Mr. McKessock: The same thing is true here today.

I don’t think we care who gets the credit for bringing in this legislation, but to have the legislation put in place to allow the coroner to remove the pituitary gland so that certain children who would not otherwise have been able to grow will now have the chance to grow and live a normal life. That is what is important.

I have been sent a copy of an article from the Toronto Star which states, “Tim Needs Help to Grow.” Besides Tim there is Michael Walsh and Susan Maxwell from near my home. Their parents contacted me over two years ago requesting legislation such as this.

This Star article says: “Tim Rodomar is seven years old and has to stand on a chair to reach the cookie jar. The problem is when Tim is 27 years old he’ll still have to stand on the chair unless he gets a supply of the growth hormone his own pituitary gland has stopped secreting.”

I also have statistics here that were sent me over two years ago pertaining to the pituitary gland issue. At that time, back in 1976, there were 9,000 coroner’s cases in Ontario. This would supply more of the gland than is needed in Ontario. At that time Canada processed 13,000 glands -- that was in 1975 -- at a cost of $60,000. Canada supplied enough growth hormone for 159 children. At that time, 42 children still waited for the growth hormone and had to wait up to 18 months.

To buy enough growth hormone from Sweden for these 159 children would have cost $900,000. In 1975, it cost $21,168 to support three children in the London area who were on the Swedish program. Canada has the basic material and the productive capacity to process this hormone, so why pay Sweden such a fantastic sum of money when we can process the same thing in Canada?

This issue has not been brought in today for the first time. It has been going on for years. I am certainly pleased that it has been brought before the Legislature today and that action is going to be taken on it, whether it be in the form of a private member’s bill or in a government bill. It is certainly long overdue. I think this shows what private members’ bills actually do, forcing the government to take action.

In supporting the bill, I’d like to end by quoting the last paragraph of a letter I received from a concerned citizen: “You might thank God it is not your child who is afflicted in this way. The cure hangs in your hands as our elected representatives.” I urge every member to support this bill today.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 149 for reasons that have already been mentioned many times by people here. It’s a simply-solved affliction which we are hoping to ease. There seems to be no way, aside from such a legislative move, that we can provide for enough serum to be produced so that Ontario children and, indeed, Canadian children who are suffering from growth hormone deficiency can receive the treatment they need.

I’m amazed by the comments, particularly the comments of the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), concerning this bill. We all know that this bill was tabled as a private member’s bill. Certainly my colleague who introduced it was anxious to let the public know about the introduction of the bill and to have the public express to us as MPPs concern to have the bill approved. In fact, so vast was the support for the bill as it was introduced to the Legislature that the government decided it would finally take a move of its own and introduce its own version of the bill which we will see as Bill 186, I believe.

We have then a righteousness and an indignation spewing forth from the member for Middlesex about how it’s terribly important that there be no political stand taken on this bill. Every act we do in here is political. Certainly my colleague meant the public to be aware of the introduction of the bill and meant to generate public and political support outside this chamber for the passage of the bill. To say to my colleague that he has been political on this bill is absolute nonsense. It is strange talk coming from a member of a government which has taken a highly political step, which is to try and pre-empt the bill before us now, and try and say that in fact the initiative for this measure when it comes will come only from the government.

Why wouldn’t the government for once allow the private members’ hour to work in a positive way, allow the initiative undertaken by a member of the opposition to receive public support and public approval and approval in this House and accept it for what it is, a good initiative, thought out and prepared and brought forward in a good way, a useful piece of legislation?

My colleague has offered, openly and before the member for Middlesex spoke, that his bill, when it got to committee, should be amended if there were the need, if it were felt by committee members that there were indeed a need for protection of the religious and civil liberty views of certain members of the public.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, really, how much fuss can one make before and on such a matter? How can the member for Middlesex declaim this behaviour as being political? I simply don’t understand his attitude. I find it rather repugnant.

I would point out to the member for Middlesex that under the Coroners Act as it now exists, if the coroner or the police have reason to believe a post mortem should be performed, there is no necessity in Ontario legislation for seeking consent from anyone and for good reason. There is a good reason; we had that put into our legislation.

There are people whose consent night be sought in such a case who, in a murder case, might be implicated in a murder. It would be most unwise to say that the coroner didn’t have the power without seeking permission of close kin to do a post mortem. Since that measure already exists in our law for good reason, I for one see no reason why it shouldn’t be amended in this amendment to the Coroners Act.

I will support the bill with great pleasure and I commend my colleague for having done the work to bring it before us with public support.

Mr. Williams: The bill before us today is without question a humanitarian bill and the lofty motives expressed within that bill are without question. The sponsor of the bill has clearly identified the magnitude of the problem and has reported incidents to us to well illustrate the nature and the magnitude of the problem. He has identified individuals with whom he has had personal association. We have had a number of articles in news periodicals in recent weeks and months that have highlighted the seriousness of the problem and how it indeed afflicts a number of children in this province, which, while small, is entitled to have their affliction remedied when we know there is a means of doing so medically.

Some of the previous speakers in the House today have identified some of the articles that without question are heartrending. One of the members was referring to the article in one of the local Toronto dailies that featured in a very heartrending fashion the dilemma of the Rodomar family. One can’t help but feel compassion in that type of situation. One cannot help but be aware of the great deal of mental anguish and suffering that the families of children such as Tim Rodomar are experiencing.

[5:30]

I think that the news media, the sponsor of this bill and others who have brought this problem to the attention of the people of Ontario in this fashion, who have heightened the awareness of the people of Ontario to this problem, have indeed performed a very worthwhile and humanitarian service. My concern is that while there is no question about the motives of the bill and its intent, the methods of attaining the goals and clear objective of that bill are to me objectionable and repugnant.

My strong personal convictions are that the human body, alive or dead, is inviolable. There is no greater individual human right than sole discretion and control over one’s own body or the right of the living legal representatives of the deceased to have absolute control over the deceased’s body. I feel strongly that a human body, alive or dead, in total or in part, is not the property of the state. I think really this is the broader, more difficult issue we have to deal with.

No one is debating here today the intent and purpose of the legislation. No one is arguing against it. It’s the manner as to how to accomplish the end purpose that is in dispute and in debate because there are other individual rights that are being challenged. I have enunciated them to you, Mr. Speaker, as I see them through my own strong personal convictions.

I have expressed these personal convictions to the Attorney General as well, because he has shown an interest in this matter. I have great reservations about the measures that are being taken by this government in the form of another bill that is being presented for the very same reasons, because I feel the matter of consent is of paramount concern and consideration in this matter.

My colleague from Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) spoke at some length about personal religious beliefs which must not be imposed upon or tampered with, and which I respect, of course, as do the other members of the House. I have stated my own personal convictions, and I am sure they are convictions that are indeed a reflection of those expressed by many other people.

There are two rights at issue here and neither one of them must be trampled upon. There is one option, Mr. Speaker, that I see open to us, and that is the one that has been enunciated upon by the member for Wilson Heights. This government must display a stronger initiative in encouraging the people of this province, individually and collectively on a voluntary basis, having become aware of the nature and scope of this problem, to voluntarily assist these children who are indeed afflicted by this hormone deficiency.

The Human Tissue Gift Act, about which the member for Wilson Heights spoke at some length, is exactly, Mr. Speaker, what it’s title says. It is a voluntary right to give a gift of life by donating human tissue either inter vivos or by the willing of same through a declaration as authorized under the Human Tissue Gift Act, So long as the right to give is left with the individual, then surely no one can speak against the right of the individual to make that individual decision and to make that gift of life to someone who has a very serious physical handicap and who, by reason of such donation, perhaps would eventually come to lead a normal life.

Historically, this matter is not new. It has apparently been well known to the province and to Legislatures that have been here before us. It has been known to the medical profession. Apparently in the 1970s, or prior thereto, it had been a practice, unofficial as it was, for coroners to take the pituitary gland and to use it for this specific purpose, albeit without the knowledge and consent. Apparently at that time it was the medical profession itself which made the provincial officials aware of this problem, by reason of which this unauthorized practice was stopped.

Apparently, in 1974, the Solicitor General of that day had proposed legislation; but again at that time the question of it being presented with the all-important voluntary donation provision being therein was the critical issue at point. The issue is no less important today than it was then, and it is a matter that surely must be fundamentally the most important issue to be considered in our wanting to support the intent and purpose of this humanitarian legislation.

A proper method for implementing this proposal has to be found that will he one that will be acceptable to all people in our society.

Mr. Martel: Put it in the regulations.

Mr. Williams: Therefore, while I, along with all of the other members of this House, support the intent and purpose of the legislation on humanitarian grounds, I must on the basis of personal conviction find the present method to be objectionable and the bill in its present form one that cannot be supported.

Mr. Wildman: Why do you guys play politics with a good bill?

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Williams: I would hope that, as this matter unfolds, ways and means will be found to find a satisfactory solution to this matter that will be satisfactory to all the citizens of this province.

Mr. Cunningham: I, too, support this legislation, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that members of all parties would support the legislation in the spirit in which it was put forth. I commend the member for Cambridge for bringing forth a bill which I think reflects the spirit and purpose of private members’ time.

The government has been aware of the problem that has been very well articulated by the member for Cambridge and other members of the Legislature. It has been aware of the problem for a long time. It was only after the member for Cambridge tabled his legislation to be debated in private members’ hour that the government was prompted at the last moment to bring forward a bill in the name of the Solicitor General.

Quite frankly, the inaction of this government, fully aware of this problem and of the solution that is available to them, has been at the expense of a number of young people; I suppose it has rendered them a lot shorter in life, and it is certainly very unfortunate.

If I could digress, Mr. Speaker, I am five feet and six inches tall. I refer to myself as being of medium stature.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You don’t exaggerate.

Mr. Cunningham: Occasionally, if I could try to be somewhat humorous I find there are certain limitations. I can’t centre a basketball team -- there are a lot of things I can’t do. I couldn’t even play defensive halfback for the Argos. Rut, Mr. Speaker, a child who is going to grow to the height of four-foot-four or four-foot-five or four-foot-six, somewhere around there, is in a considerably worse position. I would say to the honourable members of the Legislature that some serious consideration should be given to seeing this bill implemented now.

I would hope that we wouldn’t hide behind the technicalities described by the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) and the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), who really reached, I must say, the height of some of the inane comments he has put forth in the Legislature in the past; today, actually, was just about the height of it.

I would hope that some serious consideration would be given to supporting this bill and seeing it go to committee so that some changes may be made and the bill implemented by the time we leave. I say that to you in a constructive fashion and I implore you -- and I think I’m speaking to members opposite at this time -- not to block this bill.

I saw the government whip take off. I guess he decided maybe there weren’t 20 members here and he should get them. I’ll tell members opposite, if they block this bill they have all but destroyed private members’ hour in my view. This place will be a lot poorer for it.

We have a good piece of legislation here. I think that with a minor amendment it would serve the unfortunate children who suffer from this deficiency very well. If we are going to take their problems into consideration, I think this bill should be passed today and that it be debated before we leave here at Christmas so that we might give to those children and their parents a Christmas present that would cost the taxpayer absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Cambridge wish to use his remaining time now?

Mr. M. Davidson: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would first of all like to thank the members who have participated in the debate today. I think I have learned from the debate that in all cases most members are in agreement with the principle of the bill. There are those who do have some objection to the manner and form in which it was written; but as I have pointed out earlier, in order to cover those objections I have tabled an amendment with the clerk which is exactly the same wording as appears in the government bill.

There are several things, however, which I feel I must add to the debate. One is that the member for Middlesex indicated that in 1977 there were some 5,700 glands donated to the program. He failed to mention that the requirement at that time was 10,000; and to this point in 1978 donations through the Human Tissues Act are down by something like 32 per cent. Rather than gaining ground in that direction we are in fact falling behind.

There is no question at all. Even in the statement put forward by the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) on Monday, a paragraph reads as follows: “Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that about 10,000 pituitary glands are needed for this purpose annually in Ontario. At the present time about half the number needed are available through donation. The magnitude of the problem is the same today as it was five years ago and we are convinced it will almost certainly be the same five years from now unless this significant initiative is taken.”

I think the government is also aware that the donation program, as good as it is, is not providing the number of glands required and it does not appear that it will.

The member for Wilson Heights, I must admit, prior to this debate approached me and discussed some of the objections he might have to the bill. I thank him for that. It is because of that I was prepared to move an amendment to the bill, had it been allowed to go to committee, that would hopefully have covered some of the objections he pointed out.

I feel, as he does, that there are people who do have religious beliefs and other beliefs which should be protected. I was prepared, and still am prepared, to see that that is done.

[5:45]

The member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) in a side comment across the floor indicated I had put forward this bill as a means of gaining publicity.

Mr. Breaugh: Cheap shot.

Mr. M. Davidson: I want to make it perfectly clear, as I’ve said earlier, that I am not really concerned which bill passes in this House, be it Bill 149 or 186. What I am concerned about is that prior to the Christmas break one of those bills is read for the third time in this House and enacted.

I will close, Mr. Speaker, by reading very briefly from a brief that was submitted to the government. It reads as follows: “The NDP member for Cambridge is tabling a private member’s bill on this subject in the current session. All parties’ support is urgently required for this bill or some revision of it which will let these children grow.”

I urge members of this House to do that. Let these children grow. Pass this bill and let’s get on with the job of providing them with the serum they so desperately need.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to get involved in second reading?

Mr. Martel: I want to make one point. It’s a concern expressed by a number of members, particularly the member for Wilson Heights. I would ask him to consider that all the fears he has can be covered by the regulations. He knows the Legislature well enough. He knows full well that most of the legislation we pass is merely the bones or skeleton, and that the regulations provide the protection he would want to see in such a bill.

I would ask him not to oppose the bill but rather to work with his colleagues to make sure the regulations cover the fears he’s expressed this afternoon.

Mr. Rotenberg: It’s got to be in the bill.

Mr. Deans: It can’t get in until you go to committee.

Mr. Mattel: If we go to committee we can get the regulations passed and the guarantees the member wants. That’s the way the process works in here.

Mr. Wildman: You can amend it in committee; let it go to committee.

Mr. Speaker: We have about four minutes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Inasmuch as we do have four minutes, would the House concur if we called some of the private bills that were referred to the House from the general government committee for third reading.

Mr. Speaker: If no other member wishes to speak to the balloted item, Bill 149, do we have unanimous consent for some third readings?

MACDONALD STEWART COMMUNITY ART CENTRE ACT

Mr. Worton moved second reading of Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Macdonald Stewart Community Art Centre.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Roy moved second reading of Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

OTTAWA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. Roy moved second reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Ottawa Charitable Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWNSHIP OF LONGUEUIL ACT

Mr. Belanger moved second reading of Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the Township of Longueuil.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved second reading of Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

FIVE-O TAXI LIMITED ACT

Mr. Ruston, on behalf of Mr. Bradley, moved second reading of Bill Pr47, An Act to revive Five-O Taxi Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BOROUGH OF SCARBOROUGH ACT

Mr. McCaffrey moved second reading of Bill Pr49, An Act respecting the Borough of Scarborough.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

HOMEMASTER IMPROVEMENTS LIMITED ACT

Mr. MacBeth moved second reading of Bill Pr50, An Act to revive Homemaster Improvements Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

RULES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order that I consider to be quite important at this stage; and I think it should be decided upon now rather than later.

You will recall early in the week, when the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) introduced a piece of legislation similar to the legislation that we have just finished debating, introduced by my colleague from Cambridge, it was suggested by myself and others that there may be some question as to the appropriateness of proceeding with one or other of those pieces of legislation in the light of a number of circumstances, not the least of which was rule 41 on page 22 of the standing orders that we currently work under.

I wonder, in order to make clear to everyone the possible consequences of a variety of different actions, if we might ask for your guidance. I ask you to either accept, or to at least offer some comment on my interpretation of rule 41, which says: “No motion or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can be again proposed during the same session.”

There are only three ways that we can deal with the bill before us, the bill of my colleague. We can pass the bill; we can oppose the bill and, therefore dispose of the bill; or the vote on the bill -- and I hope this, of course, would not be one of the options -- the vote on the bill could be blocked by 20 members rising in their place.

Mr. Nixon: That would never happen.

Mr. Deans: I want to put to you, sir, that if the bill passes, then the matter would not have been decided upon during this session and that it would, therefore, sit on the Order Paper, go to committee, and it could then be dealt with further in the event that it were the wish of the government to do so. if the bill is defeated, the matter would then have been decided upon. If the bill were blocked, it would go off the Order Paper and would, therefore, have been decided upon. The bill would have been before the Legislature, the decision as to whether or not that bill would proceed in this Legislature during this session would have been decided.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Wrong.

Mr. Martel: Oh yes.

Mr. Deans: I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a very unfortunate precedent if anyone were to rule otherwise, that under 41 --

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s a rule for debate when you are doing bills in committee, you know that.

Mr. Deans: No, wait a minute; under 41 it says clearly no motion or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can again be proceeded with.

Mr. Martel: Motions and questions.

Mr. Turner: Keep quiet Elie.

Mr. Deans: I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in order to proceed with a piece of legislation which requires a motion, the mover must say I move that something take place and that is a motion. It is a motion that the bill be proceeded with.

I urge you to be extremely cautious in how you deal with this bill. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, whether you can find some other interpretation, an interpretation which would negate what I said.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Very easy.

Mr. Deans: When this bill is blocked -- as it appears it will be judging from the numbers of Conservatives who have suddenly appeared in the ranks -- it will have been the decision of the Legislature with regard to whether or not this bill should be proceeded with.

Mr. Turner: Are you jealous? Where is your leader?

Mr. Martel: Right on.

Mr. Deans: That, sir, having been decided upon, I can see no other English usage that could make it otherwise.

Mr. Turner: How would you know?

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member is anticipating something that has yet to happen.

Mr. Deans: I am worried that if it happens we are in trouble.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member is quoting standing order 41: “No motion or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can again be proposed during the same session.” Of course the provision of 36(f) says that, “if objection to a bill or resolution being voted on is received either from one-third of the members by written petition to the Speaker at least 48 hours in advance, or from 20 members standing in their places when the question is about to be put to a vote, then the item will not be voted upon.” So the blocking does not allow the House to decide the question.

Mr. Eaton: No decision is made.

Mr. Deans: Would you permit me to ask you a question, sir? I am asking this in all good faith, believe me. Would you explain to me how you can draw the distinction between “voted upon” and “decided upon.” I put to you that the bill need not be voted on, I don’t deny that, but the moment the bill is removed from the Order Paper it has been decided upon.

Mr. Speaker: No; the provisions of 36(f) give several options to the House as to whether or not they wish to proceed.

Mr. Foulds: On the point of order: Before the House leader outlines the business for this evening and for next week, I would like to make the offer, contrary to the spirit of the blockage we have just had that this party would be prepared to proceed with Bill 186, the Solicitor General’s bill, which embodies the principle of the bill of my colleague from Cambridge, either this evening or Monday evening, and proceed with it forthwith.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Sufficient members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 138.

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT

Sufficient members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 149.

Mr. Martel: Vote for the total destruction of the private members’ hour.

[6:00]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to provisional standing order 11, I wish to indicate the order of business for the remainder of this week and next week.

Tonight we will have the balance of the third readings and concurrence in supply, except supply for the Ministry of Education. Then we will turn to Bills 74, 75, 188, 11 and 137.

If I might be allowed the opportunity, I will have to speak to the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) about his attendance, and I do respect that offer. If we can we will work it in either tonight or Monday, depending on his availability.

Friday morning, December 1, committee of supply to consider estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

Monday, December 4, in the afternoon, continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. In the evening, budget debate, to have the contribution of the newly-elected member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson); then Bills 148, 179 and 168.

On Tuesday, legislation; Bill 147, second reading and committee stage; Bill 137, finish second reading and committee stage; then Bill 11, if it isn’t finished tonight, followed by Bills 122, 187, 183 and 184. Then, of course, anything we haven’t finished from the preceding Monday evening.

Wednesday, December 6, general government, resources development and administration of justice committees meeting in the morning.

Thursday, December 7, in the afternoon, private members’ public business; ballot item 40 standing in the name of the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory); and ballot item 44, standing in the name of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). In the evening, debate on sessional paper 245, the report from the standing procedural affairs committee on agencies, boards and commissions.

On Friday, December 8, committee of supply carrying on with consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

Mr. Martel: That is just unbelievably low, Bob.

Mr. Makarchuk: It is not one of their finest hours.

The House recessed at 6:03 p.m.