The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRIBUTE TO RAY LAWSON

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the members of this House to mark with me the death of one of this province’s distinguished and able citizens, Ray Lawson.

Mr. Lawson served with distinction from 1946 to 1952 as the 17th Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. He brought to that position great charm and dignity and, with the assistance of his late wife Helen and his five children, deepened the public’s understanding and respect for our institutions of government.

Mr. Lawson’s appointment followed upon a productive and successful business career. With the family lithographic company serving as a base, he built a commercial empire that saw his appointment to directorships with firms engaged in diverse activities. His administrative talents and sense of patriotism were drawn upon by the federal government during the Second World War when he was asked to serve as president and then chairman of Federal Aircraft, the crown company engaged in building Anson trainers for the Royal Canadian Air Force. He was made an officer of the Order of the British Empire in 1943 for this significant contribution to the war effort.

The same talents and sense of citizenship were also placed at the service of the federal government when his term as Lieutenant Governor of Ontario ended. He graciously accepted an appointment in 1953 as consul general in New York where he earned the respect and affection of Americans for the diligence and great charm he exercised in the performance of his duties. Unfortunately, ill health forced his retirement in 1955.

Mr. Lawson, I am glad to say, had a strong recovery and continued active and in good health for many years, particularly as one of the country’s leading horsemen.

A distinguished son of London, Ontario, Mr. Lawson’s contributions to the life and vitality of his beloved province and country were truly significant and worthwhile.

I would ask members of the House to join with me in acknowledging these great contributions and expressing to his family and many friends our deepest sympathy in their great loss.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my leader and our colleagues we want to express our sadness at the death of the Honourable Ray Lawson.

He was, of course, highly regarded and a well beloved business person, a person on the public stage as Lieutenant Governor and later as our emissary from Canada to the United States.

I think he showed his great wisdom, as well as his sense of humour, when he used to say on public occasions that he lived by the great maxim, “Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy and wealthy.” We’re prepared to attest to his wisdom; the record would certainly attest to his many other accomplishments, but more than anything else, he was a man who was well respected and well beloved.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the flags are at half-mast today in honour of the death of the Honourable Ray Lawson, and I want to add my words to the words of condolence that have been said by the former leader of the Liberal Party and by the government spokesperson to Mr. Lawson’s family, and want also to mark in the record of this Legislature, the services that he performed on behalf of the people of Ontario and of the people of Canada as well, in his position in the United States.

He is one of a long line of people who have provided distinguished public service in Ontario and, as such, has been a model for those of us who have come after him. Perhaps he himself drew from the strong traditions of public service that have always existed in this province.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that a condolence book for the late Mr. Lawson will be placed in the front lobby of the Legislative Building at 11 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, April 9, and will also be there on Thursday, April 10, for those who wish to sign.

ENERGY ROOM

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the standing committee on resources development begins 15 hours of examination of my ministry’s 1980-81 estimates. Because of the wide range of activities now under way in the ministry and agencies under my direct responsibility, I thought it would be timely and useful to share with members the variety of programs the ministry now has under way. With this in mind, an energy room has been set up in room 230 of this building where members can review the publications, exhibits and films of the ministry, as well as meet with key staff. The energy exhibit will be open from 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Wednesday, April 9, and from 10 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 10.

WINTARIO COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I am able to announce here today that the 1980-81 Wintario community grants program, budgeted at $13.5 million, is in place and open for business. My ministry’s 18 field offices across the province and our head office in Toronto are accepting applications effective immediately. These applications will concern noncapital projects. The program does not include capital projects, and I expect to have more to say about our Wintario capital granting plans on Thursday.

When I announced a suspension of new applications under the Wintario noncapital grants program last February 14, I said we were calling a brief halt so that we could tool up for a new model year. We have done that and, as a result, this remodelled noncapital program is in closer tune with community priorities, contains firmer budgetary control, and has built into it some procedural streamlining that will mean faster and better services for our clients.

I think some of the best examples of changing priorities are to be found in the sports area. The new Wintario community grants program will provide relatively less money for equipment and relatively more money for coaching, and that suggests two things: first, there is an increasing interest in developmental programs, programs that build skills and capacities and leave long-term legacies; second, the fact that Wintario has invested so heavily in equipment in the past means that the need today is not so great. In other words, the program has done the job.

The Wintario community grants program has been put together in consultation with the people and in the spirit of its predecessors in the noncapital field. It exists to support the desires and efforts of local nonprofit organizations like community groups, municipalities and Indian bands. It is there to help them undertake special projects beyond their normal activities by matching, in general, dollar for dollar, amounts of money that they raise locally for such special projects.

There are some limits in the program. Applicants are eligible for no more than one grant per category in the fiscal year and there are ceilings on the sizes of grants in a number of categories but, taken as a whole, the program opens up an almost overwhelming range and number of splendid opportunities.

Some weeks ago I said local community groups and organizations play the fundamentally important role in providing cultural, recreational, sport and fitness opportunities to all the people of Ontario. I also said I was intent on designing a program that would be of particular attractiveness and long-term value to these groups. The Wintario community grants program that I bring to this House today fulfils that intention.

I have taken the liberty of circulating copies of this statement and appendices to all honourable members. I want to acknowledge the active and effective part that members of this House play in the Wintario granting process. There is an appendix attached to my statement and the appendix shows how much money will be allocated to each program area. It also lists the specific project categories within each program area. The budget for each program area is based on our own best estimate of what the demand for help in that area will be.

2:10 p.m.

I want to emphasize that the program will be highly flexible. If the demand in one area is greater than anticipated and the demand in another is lighter, we will be able to move money around to ensure it is being offered where it is needed most.

As I have suggested, one of the main thrusts of this program is developmental. Honourable members will notice, for instance, that there is an audience and membership development category in the arts area. In this category, Wintario will become the partner of such local nonprofit organizations as theatres and art galleries in their effort to build up subscription and membership lists. With good planning, good management and a little bit of good luck, a successful audience and membership campaign should mean greater long-term stability for those organizations.

Aside from the developmental thrust there are a number of other great possibilities, and I would just like to mention a few. The Wintario community grants program will support visits by major artists to communities throughout the province. It will help provide for the conservation of artifacts that are important to Ontario’s past. It will share in community group efforts to hold conferences that are designed to promote greater intercultural understanding.

It will help community information centres identify community information needs around the province. It will support domestic and international travel for championship sport teams. It will support studies of recreational possibilities for senior citizens who live in the rural parts of the province. It will support groups of disabled men and women in their efforts to further develop group leadership.

I’m confident that local groups will seize upon the opportunities provided in this new noncapital program, and I’m equally confident that all honourable members will support the 1980-81 Wintario community grants program, a program that will enrich the quality of all our lives.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to provide members with a status report on the Ontario small business development corporations program. It is now just nine months since the SBDC legislation was proclaimed, but in that comparatively short time the program has generated a great deal of interest and, more important, a substantial amount of investment activity. I am tabling for the benefit of members statistical information in SBDC registrations, investor grants and credits, capital and investments, and with the indulgence of the House I would like to touch on a few of the more significant results.

As of the end of March, there were 47 registered small business development corporations and ministry staff are reviewing an additional 18 proposals for registration at this moment. Sixteen SBDCs have made investments to date, and two thirds of the remaining SBDCs identified potential investments, which are in various stages of negotiation. In dollar terms, close to $8 million of new equity capital has been injected into a total of 26 small businesses. An additional 45 small businesses are under consideration as potential SBDC investments, in amounts ranging from $7,000 to $2 million.

With one exception, all of the investments made to date have been in manufacturing and processing businesses. The goods produced by these companies range from boats to solar heating panels, from specialized pumping equipment to electronic equipment to uniforms. A number of these firms were experiencing financial difficulty prior to the SBDC investment and we estimate that the investments made have saved close to 300 jobs. Ninety-five new employees have been hired so far as a result of SBDC investment, with the small businesses concerned projecting the hiring of 98 additional employees in the balance of 1980.

While the program has been highly successful and has in some respects exceeded even our optimistic expectations, I would prefer a wider geographic distribution of SBDCs and investments than has been the case to date. Twenty-six of the 47 registered SBDCs are headquartered in Metropolitan Toronto. Twenty of 26 investments have been made in small businesses located in central Ontario; that is, the Golden Horseshoe and the immediately surrounding area.

One other development I would personally like to see is a greater number of public SBDCs. To date, there have only been two public companies registered, with one more in the process of marketing shares to reach its minimum subscription level before proceeding to registration. Clearly, the current high interest rates, which have taken their toll in stock market activity in recent weeks, have also had an impact on the formation of public SBDCs. However, even with the prevailing interest rates, the 30 per cent incentive should make SBDCs an attractive investment vehicle.

I am hopeful that we will see the formation of more public companies when interest rates stabilize. In the meantime, the number of private SBDCs continues to grow. The trend has been for private companies to look to perhaps one or two investments, at least one of which has been identified before the company approaches my ministry for registration. I expect this will continue to be the typical case.

As to the immediate future of the program, I think more effort must be directed to the encouragement of community-based SBDCs outside the major metropolitan centres. My staff and officials of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism will be working to this end in the coming months.

ELECTORAL SYSTEM FOR METROPOLITAN TORONTO

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, when the government’s statement on the review of local government in Metropolitan Toronto was released, we requested the municipalities to submit their responses to our recommendations on the key issues addressed in the white paper. We have now received responses from most of the municipalities in Metro and have met with elected and staff representatives from these areas. In this consultative process the electoral system has emerged as the issue of primary interest and concern. It is to this issue that I direct my comments today.

As members know, the Robarts commission recommended direct election to the Metropolitan Toronto council. It was the commission’s evaluation that the primary flaw with the present system of election is that Metro representatives are not elected directly to their Metro council positions and are not, therefore, directly accountable to the electorate or their municipalities for their policies and decision-making at Metro.

Mr. Warner: The minister got that part right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Direct election as proposed by the commission was premised on a major reorganization of the geographic boundaries within Metro and the composition of the constituent municipalities. Very early on in the government’s review process, municipalities and the public protested that altering the boundaries of Metro was unnecessary and undesirable; that more problems would be created than the reorganization could be expected to solve. The government, in fact, stated shortly after the Robarts report was released that it would not entertain any major boundary changes.

Based on the submissions we have received since the release of the white paper and on our consultations with the municipalities, we have concluded that a strong consensus for the changes proposed is lacking. The form of direct election proposed is not readily acceptable. There is an apprehension that the approach to direct elections suggested in the Robarts report may create a climate that is conducive to confrontation between Metro and its constituent municipalities. Metro Toronto has been relatively free of this kind of situation.

Mrs. Campbell: Where has the minister been?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I say to my friend that if she thinks very clearly on all the things that have happened over the last number of years she would agree with my statement.

Under the circumstances, it is our feeling that it may not yet be the time for this kind of change to be considered. We feel that less may be gained and more confidence and good spirit lost if the government proceeds at this time to legislate changes for Metro of such a fundamental nature.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Much of the success of the Metropolitan Toronto experiment has rested on a foundation of goodwill and a spirit of co-operation among its members.

It is our view that the metropolitan system of election is working well. Metro is viewed with more than 25 years of experience as a very successful form of urban government. This is particularly the view from all other parts of North America that have experienced the problems of rapid urban growth and change and have not been able to respond as well as Metro.

Metro does have a form of direct election -- a kind of double direct election at the present time -- in that 20 of the 37 members are elected to Metro council by virtue of election to their local councils. Nevertheless, the point is still made that the present electoral system in Metro may be confusing for some citizens who are not fully aware of their representatives on Metro council.

2:20 p.m.

We intend therefore to provide an amended form of ballot for the municipal elections in Metro. It will be required that the ballot indicate, where applicable, the office for which the election is being held and the office that will be held as a result of the election. Practically speaking, this will identify the 20 mayors and controllers who are automatically members of Metro council. This will draw to the attention of electors who some or all of their Metro council representatives are.

For most of the municipalities, ex-officio representation is only part of their total representation on Metro council. The remainder either are selected from among the members of the local council, as in North York and Scarborough, or in Toronto are the highest pollers in their wards in the election.

Thus it is proposed also that each municipality in Metro post notice in the polling place indicating in straightforward language the way in which its Metro council representation is determined. It is hoped that these provisions will heighten interest in and awareness of the responsible politicians on Metro council.

An argument is put forward that a form of pure direct election would somehow guarantee a Metro-wide view of issues by its members. We do not accept that argument. Members of all our representative systems -- be they federal, provincial or local -- are drawn ultimately from local constituencies and face the pressure of local concerns as they meet their responsibility to deal with broader community issues. To suggest that a new direct system is the only approach to achieve such broader perspective is in our view false. We think the record of achievement in Metropolitan Toronto attests to the fact that over the years the members of Metro council have looked beyond their own backyards and have assumed and carried out their responsibilities for the broader community, and that they will continue to do so in the future.

At the same time as we have considered the electoral process in Metro we are also cognizant of maintaining balance in the representation system. The government proposes, in view of shifting population ratios, that the city of North York and the borough of Scarborough should have their representation increased at the Metro council by one member each. In the past four years the populations of both North York and Scarborough have continued to rise while the share of population for the four other member municipalities has declined. It is time to recognize those changes in the makeup of Metro council, and therefore we will be introducing legislation next week to this end.

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF HERBICIDES

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to inquire of the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker, whether the minister has had a chance to read the four articles to which I referred him the other day on the subject of 2,4,5-T as a definite health hazard in human beings, based on studies in Sweden and in England?

If he has read these studies or if he has been briefed on them, is he now prepared to change the position regarding the spraying of 2,4,5-T, which I gather must be imminent, given the spring season being upon us? If he has not read these articles, would he undertake to assure the House that he will not allow the spraying of 2,4,5-T until he has read the articles and has prepared a refutation, if he desires, here in the House to the articles in question?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I have with me today the chairman of the Pesticides Advisory Committee. He is in the lobby and I would be more than pleased if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) wished to speak to him about these specific matters. He has read two of them and taken those to advisement, and he has sought out the other two. We have seen the abstracts of these articles, but we want the other two articles which are in transit to us at this time. There have been no permits issued to this date. Depending a little bit on how soon we get the articles, and we think they will be here soon, we will deal with that matter at that time.

Mr. S. Smith: Although I would be very happy to meet the gentleman in the lobby, the minister is here in the House, so by way of supplementary, would the minister therefore give an assurance to this House, and through us to the people of Ontario, that he will not allow any spraying of 2,4,5-T to occur until all the articles have been examined by him and by his staff?

If he decides to spray despite those articles, would the minister undertake to provide a detailed refutation of the implications of those articles here in the Legislature prior to spraying? Surely once it has been sprayed is not the time to find out that it constitutes a hazard to health? Surely he must read the articles first and make his decision accordingly?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As I said, we have read two of them and I think there is a good deal of scientific evidence that should be considered. I think the advisory committee does not see any reason to change its advice to me based on the first two. They will have the other two right away and they will deal with them at that time. I don’t expect there will be any permits issued until that happens.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) disagreed with his position against publicizing the locations where 2,4,5-T will be sprayed in northern Ontario this summer, stating in Sault Ste. Marie last Wednesday evening that, “Northerners should be advised where it will be and not be kept in the dark”?

Does the minister agree with his colleague’s position? Is he now prepared to commit himself to table in this House all applications for ministry permits to spray 2,4,5-T this year?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, may I say again the applications will come in and there will be no spraying unless a permit is granted. We have said we will give the locations of those permits; we have said that.

If an application comes in and is denied, of course, there is no spraying. Conversely, how would we know where they might be contemplating spraying? We don’t. It will be known when a permit is applied for and then a permit issued. At that same time we are more than prepared to tell the members opposite where those permits have been issued. I don’t know what more we can do.

Mr. S. Smith: I trust when the minister gets up to answer this he will deal with the question he was asked by my friend from Algoma (Mr. Wildman), which is whether he would table the applications so that we will know where the applications pertain to.

By way of my last supplementary on this, I specifically want to ask, since the minister now admits his Pesticides Advisory Committee did not even read two of the four articles and is now waiting for them to arrive -- perhaps the committee read them when they weren’t here; I gather they are waiting for them to arrive in order to read them for the first time -- since he now admits he has not read those articles, how can he be so confident in the advice the committee gave him, since it should have known of the existence of those articles, and will he simply undertake not to spray 2,4,5-T until we have had a chance to debate here in the House his refusal to go by the implications of those articles?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Dr. Cooper has not only seen a great deal of this particular literature; he has also worked with 2,4,5-T. As a matter of fact, he told me not more than 10 minutes ago that in his early years he was literally drenched with 2,4,5-T. He is not a young man. I am sure he is as conscious of the importance of this as anyone else. He will continue to monitor not only this literature but all of the literature and make the recommendations on behalf of the committee to us, reviewing all of the literature. He is not going to put his total emphasis on one or two papers.

There has been a tremendous review of the literature, there will continue to be a review of the literature and I don’t think it would be appropriate to take one piece of literature and say that is the definitive piece when there are many other pieces of literature that have been reviewed at great length. I think the committee will continue to do that, as it properly should.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary Mr. Speaker: Will the minister give a clear yes or no to the question of my colleague from Algoma, and the written question of my colleague from Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes)? Will he or will he not table in this House, in advance, the applications he receives for spraying? Does he not find a contradiction between the ad hoc approach he now seems to be taking and the general statement he made some time ago about it being okay to spray the stuff across the province?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I have always said, on the advice of the committee, it was material that could safely be used, given the very strong, stringent recommendations of that committee. That has been my consistent approach all of the time. It is under very controlled conditions. It is in use. It is not just indiscriminately sprayed. It never was intended for that and never will be. I don’t know why it isn’t readily understood that it is a material that is used, not just sprayed.

I will take under advisement whether or not to table the applications. I don’t know the numbers of those. Certainly, I am quite prepared to tell the member if the applications have been approved, but I am not going to give a yes or no answer on that question today.

RADIO SHACK

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), on the matter of Radio Shack. Is the minister aware of reports in the press which indicate that Radio Shack has fired or laid off four out of five members of the executive of the local of the United Steelworkers of America, the executive that succeeded in negotiating a collective agreement with Radio Shack after Radio Shack was convicted of bad faith bargaining, intimidation, the use of paid spies and a number of other matters?

If the minister is familiar with these press reports, surely he agrees that this attempt to move back to medieval warfare, which seems to be the motivating force behind Radio Shack’s behaviour, is not to be tolerated in Ontario. What is the minister prepared to do to see to it that these union executives get their jobs back?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with representatives of the trade union at Radio Shack. It appears that six full-time and seven part-time union members who were strikers were not recalled on a temporary basis. Seven full-time and five part-time, plus 14 students, who were not involved in the strike, have similarly not been recalled.

The issue is really whether or not those workers should all have been recalled and then laid off on the basis of seniority. That is a matter that has now been placed as a grievance. I think the member would agree it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment at this time in view of that procedure.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary, since the minister refers to the current labour legislation which allows a company like this, with a lengthy anti-union record, to fire or lay off workers who participated in the organization of a legal strike and then to force them to go to arbitration to try to come back, which may take a very long time to do, would the minister consider changing the law so companies that are found to behave in this way, companies which dismiss employees basically for union organization and are then found to have to take back the employees, are automatically subject to a very stiff fine so they won’t go through this business of figuring they can last the year and maybe the employee can’t? Isn’t it time to change the law so there is an automatic provision of a stiff fine for those companies that are found to have dismissed people because of their union activities?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, I don’t think there can be any argument about the fact the Ontario Labour Relations Board made a decision about the activities of Radio Shack, which I think was considered to be just in those circumstances. The board should be praised for coming out in that forthright way which led to a negotiated settlement.

As to whether or not the failure to recall these particular people has been inappropriate or has been contradictory to the collective agreement reached, I don’t think there is any doubt there is a mechanism to resolve that. That’s the grievance procedure.

I don’t know that there is anything wrong with the grievance procedure. It’s my view that in the light of Bill 25, which we passed last year -- I might say with some resistance from one of the opposition parties -- we now have in this province one of the finest grievance arbitration procedures in North America. I don’t think we need to be ashamed of it; we have the opportunity within that system to resolve grievances properly and efficiently.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that the real key to the people who have been fired at Radio Shack is the fact that he is dealing with not only the president of the union but members of the negotiating committee who have the responsibility in a difficult situation of trying to bring some order out of the chaos in that plant? Is the minister also aware of the agreement with the union that people would be called back, based on seniority, on April 7? Yet several days prior to that, notices went out to the leadership people in the plant. The intent is obvious. Can the minister duck the fact that they are trying to remove the leadership before they get into negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to duck anything. I am simply telling the member the facts as I have obtained them. They may not be complete and there may be more information. My problem now is to decide which matters are going to go before an arbitrator and whether it’s appropriate for a minister to comment on any action of either party when that’s the very essence of the matter that will go to grievance. I will be glad to review it in the light of the comments the member has made.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister ensure that these proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board are dragged out as long as possible so that when reinstated with back pay to the time of the loss of jobs the back- pay packet will be as big as possible?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, does the honourable member want that in writing or will a verbal assurance do? I think there’s general agreement that processes and procedures before the labour relations board at this time are proceeding very rapidly and very efficiently.

USE OF ASBESTOS IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour about his responsibility for communications between the Workmen’s Compensation Board, Ontario, and the occupational health people in his ministry, communications which have not worked effectively in the past.

In the case of the death of Clifton Grant, is the minister aware that last October, when the WCB claims investigator met with the Scarborough Board of Education and that borough told the WCB investigator that they were planning a mass physical examination of all the employees involved in the same type of work as the deceased, the claims investigator’s notes which came to the inquest said specifically, “I indicated that I felt it would be dangerous to overreact in this particular situation as it seemed to be quite isolated and that possibly the worst thing that could be done would be to create a panic situation”?

Is it the WCB’s policy to discourage remedial action being taken by employers in cases where there is clear evidence of asbestos exposure, including excessive exposure that leads to death?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is not board policy to do so, nor does the board have any influence over what will be investigated and what orders will be issued with regard to occupational exposure.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the occupational health branch of the ministry is now aware of the death of Clifton Grant and the fact that his death was due to asbestos exposure in the Scarborough board, will the ministry now undertake comprehensive physical and medical examinations of all other school board employees across the province who may also have been exposed to asbestos in the line of their duties? Will the ministry also move quickly to establish the health and safety committees among school board employees which school boards have been resisting across the province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The matter raised by the leader of the third party is a matter that I have already put to my staff for consideration and I will be glad to report to him when a decision has been reached. Certainly that was my first reaction too, that all shops in boards of education should be reviewed. We are now looking into the feasibility of that.

Mr. S. Smith: If you consider this supplementary, Mr. Speaker, would the minister explain why, in view of the opinions expressed by exports in occupational health in Hamilton, blue asbestos is still being used at Johns-Manville Canada Incorporated? Why will the minister not, in fact, eliminate the use of that particular type of asbestos?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, it is claimed that blue asbestos has value, particularly in the manufacture of cement piping. It’s also true that a number of countries have reviewed the appropriateness of the use of blue asbestos. In two European countries it has been banned. In some other countries use has been limited.

In North America at the present time, to my knowledge, its use has not been banned, although I understand two provinces in the west are at present looking at some limitation on the use of it. In this province I am told that less than 10 per cent of the asbestos used in the Johns-Manville plant is of the blue type, and that is a matter I will be discussing with the president when I meet with him this week.

Mr. Speaker: That supplementary would have been okay in the United Kingdom, but it is not okay here.

Mr. Cassidy: A final supplementary: Could the minister comment on the communications problems between the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the occupational health authorities in his ministry with reference to the death of Ted Gardner, who worked for York Board of Education, whose claim for asbestosis was accepted by the WCB more than two years ago and who is subsequently deceased? Was there no communication in that case with the occupational health people in his ministry?

How many other cases are there across the province where workers have been injured or have died because of asbestos exposure and where action also has not been taken by the occupational health authorities within his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I outlined in my statement last week, it clearly had been felt by staff that the particular work place involved was not one that was covered. We went over that last week. I have outlined -- I hope very clearly -- what I believe to be a firm resolution of the matter so that it will not happen again.

I don’t want to dispute the fact that there are some difficulties with communication. I think we have resolved a lot of them. I meet with the board regularly. For instance, tomorrow morning I am meeting with it for two hours to discuss any unresolved difficulties. That is a regular meeting.

I also have asked Professor Paul Weiler to review the issue of whether there is any value in integrating WCB and our own occupational health and safety branch in any way that might eliminate the slightest possibility of a slip-through problem like this. I am well aware of the situation, and I like to think I am doing everything reasonably possible to correct it.

FORD CASTING PLANT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to put to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) arising out of the impending closure of the castings plant at the Ford Motor Company operations in Windsor. In view of the fact that there now are 2,269 Ford workers in Windsor who are on indefinite layoff at engine plants one and two and at the foundry, and in view of the fact that a further 840 workers will be laid off for the closure of the castings plant, bringing the total to more than 3,100 workers, could the minister explain why we will be getting only 2,400 jobs at the engine plant? Is this loss of 700 jobs what we as taxpayers paid for when the government of Ontario agreed to put up its share of the $68 million in grants that are going to Ford in Windsor?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will allow my colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), to answer the details when he returns but the honourable member is trying to mix apples and oranges.

First, I understand that the company is protecting the 800 jobs of the people in that plant. Second, the member knows we are at one of the historical lows in the industry and to comment that we are getting a new, modern, up-to-date engine plant in Canada, which I hope will address the parts imbalance, while at the same time complaining about a general reduction in the whole industry, is to mix apples and oranges.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question: What I am complaining about is that there are 3,100 jobs that are about to be lost or where people are on indefinite layoff in Windsor today. Surely the minister can be more exercised about the problem than that.

Is it not the case that when the grant was given to Ford, the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself said 2,600 new jobs would be created? What is the story now? Is it not the case that we are losing at least 700 jobs in net terms despite the opening of this engine plant? Why is it that the government did not insist that when new jobs were created in return for the grant, old jobs would not be lost at the same time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As I said, my colleague the Minister of Industry and Tourism, whose proper preserve that issue is, will address those parts of it; but I would suggest to the honourable member that we did see to it that, once the automobile industry returns to its normal, healthy state, there will be more jobs in Windsor at the Ford company than there were, because of the Ontario grant to help that engine plant.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer assure this House that grant conditions were such that Ford was obligated to maintain a certain level of employment for the moneys provided to the company? Also, can he assure us that the 2,750 new jobs that are created will be in addition to the jobs that exist at present in the Ford Windsor casting plant?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the one thing I will assure the honourable member of is this: I am as interested as he is in seeing the basic imbalance in the various auto companies in Canada versus the United States addressed.

I don’t have the details, so I can’t tell which companies are in the best position and the worst position, but I think it safe to say that at least two of the Big Thee have a major and permanent imbalance in that area and that we in Canada have to work hard with our federal colleagues to see that this is addressed.

My second letter to Mr. MacEachen in Ottawa -- as I think I mentioned to this House a while ago -- was on this very topic. Very early in March I addressed him on the imbalance both in parts specifically and, most important, in in-house parts in the industry in the Big Three -- I believe Ford and Chrysler will have problems in this area if one looks at their balances of trade -- and secondly on the question of the huge part of the North American business being taken by imports right now, which is totally out of our area. I would hope this is an area where we can all co-operate and worry about getting our fair share in this country and on this continent.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Treasurer if he remembers a statement that was made last week, on April 1, and maybe there is some significance to the date that the Minister of Industry and Tourism made this statement: “To be fair, certain of the steps we have taken assure that at least 2,500 to 2,600 new jobs will be secured in Windsor. That is already on the books.”

Does the minister not realize that as of a week ago his government had no idea what Ford Motor Company was planning, no job guarantees, and that as of yesterday the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had not even been notified by Ford that these layoffs were coming? Has this government been notified, and what kinds of meetings has the minister had with Ford to tell them that this province, along with the feds, gave them $68 million and the minister expects the jobs to stay in Windsor?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that question should properly be addressed to Industry and Tourism. They have those discussions.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Treasurer if he has paid the full amount of the grant to Ford? If he has not paid it all yet, would he withhold it until such time as they will guarantee the number of employees they will have when we give them the grant?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look at the terms of the contract on that basis.

DREE ASSISTANCE

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, to the Treasurer: In view of the needs of some areas of the province to have some initial opportunity to attract and assist industry to locate and even expand, will the Treasurer review with the federal officials the qualifications for DREE assistance?

I am thinking in particular of the county of Haliburton, which desperately needs assistance since it is not considered in northern Ontario for provincial consideration and not in eastern Ontario for DREE purposes. Will the Treasurer ask for a review of qualifications to include Haliburton, whose needs are much more critical than even Muskoka, Victoria or Peterborough, which the Treasurer has spoken of before?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in this case I am ad idem with my colleague.

INCREASE IN SOCIAL INSURANCE

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton).

In view of the fact that 12,255 Canada Pension Plan recipients won’t be able to take advantage of the increases in family benefits and Gains payments that the minister announced last week, and since this is a blatant way of cheating the poor and the needy, doesn’t the minister think it is unjustifiable that those people, who are unemployable or disabled, live on $238 or $286 a month? Doesn’t he think that decency requires at least that they receive the equivalent of the income they lost from January 1, 1979, until now, and that their incomes be tied to the cost of living with an automatic indexing mechanism?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, just to make sure I understood the question, I believe the honourable member said there were a number of persons on Canada Pension who would not be able to take advantage of the increase in the family benefits allowances in this province; is that correct?

Mr. Di Santo: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I don’t know what point he is frying to make. It seems to me that all recipients of family benefits are eligible for a 10 per cent increase in their allowances. I know of nothing that would prevent that by virtue of their being in receipt of Canada Pension.

Mr. Di Santo: A supplementary question: I wrote to the minister March 3, and he knows that whenever there is an increase in Canada Pension disability there is a decrease in family benefits. Because the minister considers family benefits and Gains are a supplement to other incomes, and since it is six years that the provincial government has been unable to negotiate an agreement with the federal government, doesn’t the minister think it is unjustifiable that these people live much below the poverty level? Is the government prepared to remove, unilaterally, the ceiling on its benefits?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The ceiling on our benefits was not unilaterally imposed, I suggest to the honourable member, and I am not in a position to lift it unilaterally. I think the honourable member has indicated he does understand that the family benefits program in this province is intended to be a guaranteed level of income to certain individuals through a program agreed upon between the federal and provincial governments. He understands, I believe, the reasons why, when there is an increase in the Canada Pension -- for disability, I presume he is referring to -- that out of necessity, and by virtue of the agreement between the federal and the provincial governments, we must adjust the provincial benefits in order to maintain the total income at that guaranteed level.

If I were unilaterally to pursue what the honourable member has suggested, we would automatically lose federal cost-sharing for that program, and that is something we cannot afford at this time. It would mean we would lose 50 per cent of the amount that is being paid to those persons in receipt of a disability pension in the province at this time. I don’t think even the honourable member, had he the responsibility of making that decision, would really advocate that course of action.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister saying he would lose all the federal portion of cost-sharing with regard to that program if he stopped the practice, which is at present the case, that whenever the Canada Pension goes up according to its indexing provision, Ontario then pockets the difference? Ontario has been simply pocketing the difference since our Gains level is not, as the minister knows, indexed to the same cost of living as the Canada Pension.

Is he saying that if we actually indexed Gains so that it moved in conjunction with Canada Pension, Ontario would lose all of the federal share of the cost-sharing program? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I think that would not be the case. I think it would be the portion of the increased amount that would not be eligible for cost-sharing. I would point out to the honourable member, though, that one ought not to be misled. He might recall a year ago in January when, more by coincidence I suppose than by design, both the provincial assistance and the federal Canada Pension adjustment took place within the same month, that concern did not arise.

What has happened in this fiscal year is that there was not a coincidence of the two dates. It has raised this concern, which has happened from time to time, not necessarily with respect to this particular increase but with respect to other federal assistance, and so on. I suggest to the honourable member that it would be desirable if our increases could always coincide with the federal government’s; but I would also point out to him, as he knows well, that it has not been the policy of this government to index provincial benefits, and I think given his knowledge of the financial circumstances of the federal government of this country it was a wise decision this government took.

We will continue to review the levels of benefits in this province, as we have done. I think the member ought to bear in mind that the increase that has recently been announced has been very well received by recipients in this province. Unfortunately, those who do receive Canada Pension benefits have experienced approximately a two-month delay in the announcement of this increase. That is not a serious problem.

CHIDAMO HOUSING PROGRAM

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle). In view of the allegation that money has been wasted on the Chidamo program, the federal government-sponsored housing program for the native peoples in Port McNicoll, will the minister ascertain whether any provincial money is involved in this program? In view of the fact that the agreements were signed for the purchases of the houses at approximately $30,000, and now they’re being asked to pay in the area of $50,000, will the minister see what he or the government of Ontario can do to attempt to resolve the problem, in co-operation with the federal government?

Is there any provincial funding in this program?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I believe there is, Mr. Speaker, but I’ll certainly look into it and make sure, if there are funds available from the province, that the funds will be allocated to this housing program.

LETTER BY POLICE COMMISSIONER

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in the continuing absence of both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), I would address my question to the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker).

Would he care to tell this House what the position of this government is with reference to the letter of Mr. McKay, and his continuing intransigence in these matters of offensive statements? Is the government prepared to declare now that he is ineligible to continue to serve on the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Police Commissioners?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that’s a matter the Attorney General, or the Solicitor General, will consider when he arrives back. He will probably be able to speak to the member on that matter when he addresses the House next week.

Mrs. Campbell: Since it doesn’t seem to be the practice of either of these gentlemen to answer these questions, would the minister draw to his attention the question which I have raised; and would he ask him to respond on whether this is the appropriate time to review the police commission in Metropolitan Toronto, with a view to making it more representative of the various facets of this municipality?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I’ll see to it the matter of the police commissioner and the letter is brought to the attention of the Solicitor General. He will be able to take whatever steps are warranted. I will mention to him as well that the member would like him to respond specifically to it.

USE OF ASBESTOS IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson). Will the minister table, before the end of the week, the names of those schools that are asbestos-contaminated, as well as the projected costs of the cleanup?

Will she now take steps to put teachers under the protection of Bill 70?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as I suggested last week, I will attempt to bring together the information we have from all the testing programs that have been carried on thus far. When that information is available to me, I shall share it with the House.

As I’m sure the member knows, there have been discussions going on between the Ontario Teachers’ Federation, the Ontario School Trustees’ Council and the Ontario Association of Education Administration officials regarding the appropriate kind of regulation legislation, in terms of occupational health and safety for teachers, under the same rubric as, or a similar rubric to, that of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Those discussions are proceeding, and I believe there will be something forthcoming from them in the near future to ensure that equal protection is available to teachers.

3 p.m.

Mr. Ziemba: Since there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, and there have been complaints about dust at E. C. Drury School for the Deaf since last September, and in view of the minister’s claim that she has attempted to dissuade school boards from using asbestos, why did she take no action at E. C. Drury, a school run directly by her ministry?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think there is a little misinformation out and about regarding the E. C. Drury school. In fact, testing has been carried out. The results of that testing are expected to be available tomorrow.

This morning, the superintendent of that school called together all the teachers within the school and held a meeting. They had a very co-operative discussion, and it was decided to close the nine boys’ shoprooms in the school, the areas in which there appeared to be a problem.

Mr. Wollaston confirmed that the nine shops in question are vented to the outside and there is no intercommunicating air circulation with other rooms in the school. Three of the nine rooms do have some flaking as a result of workmen working fairly closely adjacent to that part of the building. That area has been tested. The superintendent of the school circulated a letter to all parents apprising them of the room closure and of the other precautions which are to be taken.

Mr. Wollaston has been instructed by my ministry to proceed with spraying of the nine areas today. That is happening, I believe, this afternoon or tomorrow morning. In addition, the entire staff of the school has agreed to carry on with useful programs in the remaining related rooms within that building and not to use the nine that are closed until all the spraying can be completed.

AMBULANCE ATTENDANTS’ TRAINING

Mr. Bradley: I have a question of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), Mr. Speaker. A recent television documentary program, called Heart Attack: Prescription for Survival, revealed that hundreds of unnecessary deaths occur in Ontario each year, mainly because ambulance personnel are prohibited by law from offering certain kinds of paramedical aid to the people they pick up on their route.

In view of this report and in view of other supporting evidence that points out this particular fact, is the minister thinking of initiating legislation which would permit ambulance personnel to carry out cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Is he also thinking of establishing this as a definite qualification for all those who work in ambulances? What is the situation at present?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the member that that is already policy. To date, 81 per cent of all ambulance attendants in Ontario are qualified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. For the member’s edification, I will send him a copy of the letter which I sent to the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) last week in answer to a letter he sent to me on the same subject.

Mr. Bradley: I thank the minister for that answer. It is encouraging.

First, are all personnel who ride in ambulances going to be required, by a certain date, to have this particular training? Second, is the minister thinking of having his ministry initiate a public education program such as is available in, for instance, the city of Seattle, where approximately half of the population at present has CPR training and, therefore, is able to assist those who have had a heart attack in the very crucial first four minutes?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have just taken another look at my letter. It’s not 81 per cent, but 93 per cent of the existing attendants who are qualified in CPR. Among those, approximately 400 are fully accredited CPR instructors and take part in programs in their communities.

We also encourage the carrying out of courses in CPR with St. John Ambulance or the Red Cross around the province. This is something that we have promoted extensively and would like to see happening even more in high schools. I have been in correspondence with my colleague the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), about that and about all aspects of first aid.

I think, though, that this will answer the member’s inquiry: It is our intention to have all of our staff qualified.

It is not quite five years since the emergency medical care attendant diploma was introduced in the province, and one ongoing concern we have is to bring these people up to EMCA standards eventually. We are discussing this, through our various liaison groups, with the ambulance personnel. More than 1,000 of the staff were, in effect, grandfathered. We want to bring them to something approaching the EMCA qualifications before we start looking at going even further.

I think we should be proud that we do have one of the best qualified and best organized services on the continent.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can I assume that in the minister’s reply to me, a copy of which I haven’t seen yet, he is going to allow the 93 per cent of the ambulance staff trained in this regard to practise that training in the near future; and if so, when?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member apparently is operating under the false impression that CPR is not allowed to be used. They do use it on a regular basis. I have had personal experience of that. I have seen it done.

HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS IN URANIUM MINES

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, in 1970-74, during the debate on Elliot Lake, Stephen Lewis warned that fatalities would reach epidemic proportions. Is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) now aware that there are apparently 109 fatalities from lung cancer in Elliot Lake and some 500 silicotic and presilicotic cases? Is the minister now prepared to advise the federal authorities that, unless workers come under provincial legislation, Ontario will not send in its inspectors to investigate because we do not have, as I understand it, legal status to enforce any of the recommendations made by his inspectors under Bill 70?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the coverage afforded workers by Bill 70 should be universally available to miners including the uranium workers in Elliot Lake.

As I indicated in a response I gave some three weeks ago, the federal government has told us that it will make a decision on that matter by the beginning of May. I have made it clear to them that we will have to review our position if they fail to comply with that, and that is the position I still take.

Mr. Martel: Can the minister indicate whether it is true that when his ministry sends something to the federal Department of Labour, that department is ineffective because the Atomic Energy Control Act supersedes the Labour jurisdiction in that area? If that is true, what action does he intend to take to ensure that the committees that were recommended will be formed, that workers can leave the work place when they think there is danger, and that there will be regular and proper evaluation of the workers’ health in that community?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As the member knows, there are two parts to health and safety in uranium mines. One part deals directly with uranium which, it is quite true, does come under the Atomic Energy Control Act. The other has to do with general occupational health and safety in other areas. It was in January 1978 or January 1979 -- I can’t recall which -- that the federal government advised us they had occupied that field. It is in response to that that we have been in negotiations with them.

My recollection of events -- and I will have to check this with the records -- is that we haven’t had any problem with regard to the willingness of the Atomic Energy Control Board to co-operate with us, but I will cheek that out again to make sure.

CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question for the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that, as a result of an Ontario Supreme Court decision of approximately one month ago, the vocational rehabilitation branch and the Social Assistance Review Board of the Ministry of Community and Social Services is no longer accepting applications for financial assistance to children with learning disabilities?

If that is correct, to what extent will the Ministry of Education become involved in assisting parents of those students?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to ask my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton), if such applications are no longer being received. It is not my understanding that this is so at present, but I will discuss it with him.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the minister aware that inquiries made to the deputy minister’s office, by parents who have been told this, have been advised the only way out for them is to ask for a purchase-of-service agreement from their local school boards?

It is my understanding that a purchase-of-service agreement can only be made between two publicly funded boards, not between a publicly funded board and a private board? If that is the case, what should parents do in the light of such advice?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not aware of this, nor am I aware that such information has been transmitted from my deputy’s office. I would appreciate having the name of the individual who gave that information, because it is not my understanding that this sort of thing has been a statement made by any part of the Ministry of Education.

We have had discussions with the Ministry of Community and Social Services over the past 12 months to try to find the appropriate resolution to a problem which quite honestly, in my personal view, is inappropriately based at present in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but that problem has yet to be solved. I will attempt to find the information for the honourable member and will report to him.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker I will redirect a supplementary to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Has there been any change in the ministry’s policy with respect to funding services to residents of the province who need learning disability programs under the vocational rehabilitation services branch of the ministry? Has there been any change? Is there a moratorium in effect?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such decision. I would be quite concerned if that has been communicated to the public in any way without my being aware of it.

Where some confusion might have arisen is that there was a court decision recently, which I myself have not yet seen. I have asked for a copy of the reasons for the decision. It may have arrived by now in the ministry. There was some concern that the interpretation of the decision of the court might have the effect of making it illegal for us to continue to use the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act as a means of funding children with learning disabilities.

As soon as I heard that, as I say, I requested a copy of the reasons for judgement so that I could have our legal staff assess that to see if that was their opinion as to the import of the decision. I haven’t received it.

I know of no decision which has even been recommended to me that would have the effect of changing the ministry policy. If that is being communicated by any of the staff of my ministry, I would certainly welcome information as to where it is coming from, which area or regional office it is being communicated from, so that I can pursue it immediately.

INTEREST RATES ON STUDENT LOANS

Mr. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson). Last year I raised the matter of the interest being charged on Ontario student loans, which was one per cent higher than the prime rate. I am wondering what action the minister has taken on that since I asked the question.

Specifically, I would like to ask the minister about the plight of a young woman by the name of Menka Doutsas, who attended the University of Windsor; she is now out of the university because of illness, is collecting mother’s allowance and is having to pay $30 a month on a $333 income on mother’s allowance, $26 of which goes to interest. Of course she will never go back to university because she is afraid to death to get further in debt.

What is the minister doing to help such people and to build in incentives for low-income people to go to universities through the Ontario Student Loan Program?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I wonder which question the honourable member wishes answered, Mr. Speaker.

The first question he asked was related to the interest rates applicable to the Ontario Student Loan Program, which was devised as a specific supplementary loan program for students when the federal government failed to move after three occasions to increase the ceiling on loans and to modify some of the terms and conditions. Because it was a very small loan program, the same kind of beneficial rate could not be negotiated with the banks as for the Canada Student Loan Program. Indeed, I gather that the banks are having some difficulty at present with the Canada program and are suggesting there should be a move to the same level as the Ontario program.

The rate of interest for Ontario student loans was always about one per cent above prime. That was perfectly fine when that level approximated the Canada student loan interest rate. In the past year it has become increasingly difficult, and we have been providing information to the financial award administrators, trying to help them dissuade students from utilizing the Ontario Student Loan Program unless absolutely necessary because of the high interest rates. We have not been able to renegotiate with the banks any different interest rate at this time.

The second question which the honourable member asked of me was whether we were doing anything to try to help students from low-income families to attend university. I would remind him that the entire philosophy of the modifications to the Ontario Student Assistance Program in 1978 was based specifically on helping students from low-income families. As that grant is available to them before any requirement for loan is made of the student, young people may be able to acquire their first degree without ever having to go into debt. They are also eligible for loans as well. With the grant, and with the Canada Student Loan Program hopefully amended as a result of the federal-provincial task force which is in place at present, those students will be helped even more than they are right now.

Mr. Cooke: I am amazed. The minister said last November she was concerned; now she says everything is fine. What does the minister suggest this particular student do? There are thousands of others in her condition who are in the same predicament. This person is on low income and is paying $26 a month in interest and will never go back to university because of the disincentive.

Is the minister aware of studies that indicate students from low-income families will not go into debt to go to university? They are afraid of debt. What is she going to do to open up our university system to low-income students?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The honourable member has obviously not heard what I said. I said I was concerned about it; I did investigate whether a modification of the interest rate could be achieved, and it could not be achieved. We could find no way to achieve it.

In addition, I have simply said -- and I wish the honourable member would listen -- that our grants program is specifically related to attempting to help those students from low-income families or students who have low incomes themselves. It has been successful, when the vast majority of students who are assisted by the program come from families with gross incomes for the total family below the median income of Ontario. It would seem to me that indicates a very large number of students, who might otherwise have difficulty because of their low incomes in achieving their first university degree, are being helped to do just that.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) and of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

Can the Deputy Premier confirm to the House that the government does intend to appeal the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which declared certain portions of the Residential Tenancies Act unconstitutional? Can he confirm that appeal is going to take place?

Second, if there is to be an appeal which likely will not be heard until the fall, does the ministry intend to have proclaimed those other sections of the act not found to be unconstitutional? There are certain areas in there with respect to the central registry, as well as the relief from a service which is no longer provided, such as cable television, which would be of great help to tenants in the present circumstances and which of course should not wait for the number of months which no doubt will pass us before that appeal is dealt with.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to draw this question to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and have him report to the House on Thursday.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Premier suggest to his fine Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that he take a course of action that is something less than simply sitting on his hands waiting for this so there is some sort of an appropriate legislation in place very quickly to make sure tenants are getting the kind of protection they should get?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I hardly have to remind this House that the minister to whom reference has been made is not one with a reputation of sitting on his hands. He is a man of action and no doubt will want to be here on Thursday, promptly at 2 p.m., to respond to these comments and questions.

INDEPENDENT GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) aware that the major oil companies now are exerting an additional squeeze on the independent gasoline distributors by requiring a much earlier payment for the gasoline? This, of course, follows a squeeze on the supply to the independents.

May I inform the minister of a letter I have here, from British Petroleum Canada to Robbins Fuels in Fenwick, which is dated January 25, 1980, informing Robbins that the maximum payment period of an average 43 days after delivery has been reduced to 22 days? Verbally, it has been told it is going to be reduced further than that.

Does the minister know these accounts include both federal and provincial gasoline taxes which don’t have to be turned over to the respective governments until a much later time? Will he investigate and take action to protect these independent distributors?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with that particular correspondence which the honourable member has, but I will be very glad to have a copy of it so I can follow it up.

As the House will recall, and the honourable member will also recall, his leader drew my attention some months ago to the plight of the independent dealers. Following those particular comments and that exchange in the House, I did have the opportunity to meet with some of the independent dealers who have since formed an association, as I reported to the leader of the third party. We have been working with them on a number of matters, which of course, is in their interest.

As I say, I haven’t had this particular problem drawn to my attention but, if the honourable member will let me have a copy of what he’s referring to, I should be very happy to follow up with the independent dealers’ association to which I have already made reference and to see where we might be of some help.

Mr. Swart: First of all, may I tell the minister I will provide him with a copy of that letter.

Does the minister realize this further advanced payment of gasoline tax contributes to a situation whereby the major oil companies continually have something like $25 million to $50 million of the independent distributors’ and retailers’ money to use between the time they get it and the time they turn it over to the respective governments? Does he not think there’s really something unfair about those independent distributors and retailers subsidizing the major oil companies? Is he prepared to step in and get that money at an earlier date for his own use as a government or preferably to delay the payment by the retailer or the distributor?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I certainly would want to say at this stage, as I have said before, that the government is very supportive of the recommendation in the Isbister report that made some reference to the need in this province to keep alive and healthy, economically, the independent dealers of this province. It’s actually very important. I, as the Minister of Energy, would view very seriously anything that could be interpreted in any way as an attempt to minimize their involvement in the economic life of Ontario.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker. I would like to file my dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton), and I would like to debate it at the earliest occasion.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has given written notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer from the Minister of Community and Social Services, and this matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS REPORTS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 33(b) of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, the undersigned members of the assembly hereby petition that sessional paper number 186, tabled October 15, 1979, be referred to the standing committee on resources development for such consideration and report as the committee may determine.

This may provide an opportunity for that committee to investigate the notification of closure and the loss of some 650 jobs at the Firestone plant in Whitby.

LEGHOLD AND BODY TRAPS

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in the form of 932 individual letters supporting the private member’s bill to be debated on Thursday afternoon as it relates to leghold and body traps, and I wish to table this petition.

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETING

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 10, 1980.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RAILWAY FIRE CHARGE REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Maeck moved first reading of Bill 38, An Act to repeal the Railway Fire Charge Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, my ministry has over the past two years undertaken an intensive review of Ontario’s tax statutes. As a result of this ongoing review and in line with our commitment to deregulation, tax simplification and reducing paper burden, several tax statutes have been repealed and the filing requirements simplified by other statutes.

As the Railway Fire Charge Act has proved itself to be outdated, discriminatory and of very little significance, I propose the repeal of this statute.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Germa moved first reading of Bill 39, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prohibit mining activities in bodies of water that serve or are likely to serve as a source of community drinking water. The bill provides for the issuance of permits to authorize mining activity that is in the public interest. Mining activity undertaken without the authority of a licence is constituted as an offence.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, the chairman of the resources development committee has asked me to mention in the House, because of lack of notices, that the resources development committee will sit tonight at 8 o’clock.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the answers to questions 32, 47, 48, 49 and 77 and the interim answers to questions 38 to 42, 43, 45 and 46 standing on the Notice Paper.

3:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to conclude the remarks I began last week. The focus of my speech last week was on the economy and the government’s industrial strategy. I would like to conclude that by pointing out that, since I spoke last week, interest rates have reached 17.75 per cent for mortgages -- an utterly unbelievable and exorbitant rate -- and who knows what they will hit next week.

However, in the brief amount of time allotted me today, I would like to devote my attention to the throne speech in terms of a key item that was missing -- which caused me considerable disappointment and, I think, disappointed many people across the whole country, not just this province -- namely, the lack of any initiative to resolve the situation in Penetanguishene.

Here is a situation that has been lingering for probably more than a year and a half now. We are still faced with the same niggardly, obdurate, obstinate, if not obstructionist, attitude by the government. We are quibbling over less than $500,000. We are offering second-rate solutions -- compromises that obviously don’t satisfy the basic needs and aspirations of the Franco-Ontarian minority. On the verge of the referendum, we are still toying around with compromises of portable classrooms and talking about deadlines based on interim solutions for a period of a year or two. Almost 114 years after Confederation, we are still trying to resolve a problem like this. It makes one wonder when the people next door to us are debating whether they are going to stay in Confederation and we are still not resolving the situation in Penetanguishene.

Mr. Martel: The member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay) said it was resolved.

Mr. Samis: He did. If he goes to Penetanguishene and talks to the people involved, I strongly suggest he will learn otherwise.

I am not going to go into the details of the various proposed compromises et cetera.

Suffice it to say that the eyes of Canada are on this Legislature to see how we are going to resolve the problem. In the context of the referendum, what we do in Ontario is watched extremely closely by our neighbours to the east.

Let me state clearly that the 33 members of this party believe that the francophone population of Penetanguishene are entitled to a completely separate, autonomous, independent school of their own like those in other communities around this province. I dare say the members to the right would agree with that. I hope the good people of Quebec realize that there are at least 60 members of this Legislature -- if not 67 members -- who support the Franco-Ontarian population of Penetanguishene in their long struggle for an independent high school.

What goes on here has ramifications outside the province. We believe in that school because we think their aspirations are legitimate; we believe they are entitled to it. But it also has an effect on Quebec. For example, last week there was a big article in the business section of the Toronto Star. It was headlined “Ontario Antagonizing Quebec: Chamber Head.” This was an interview with Mr. Roger Phillips, president of Alcan International Limited, who said he was shocked “when Education Minister Bette Stephenson ruled out a permanent French-speaking school as too costly. Phillips said: ‘While Ontario’s intentions might be good, its image is bad in Quebec. It’s a matter that goes away beyond dollars and cents.’”

This government has made some progress -- we acknowledge that on this side -- in terms of courts, government services and health services. Obviously, that progress is not being recognized outside this province for one simple reason: Penetanguishene. Nothing could illustrate better how this whole situation has been simplified than the fact that the Premier of Quebec came here wearing a badge bearing one simple word, “Penetang.”

If anything is an albatross around the necks of the federalist forces in Quebec at this stage in history, it’s that one word, “Penetang.” For example, the Positive Action Committee -- which is composed mainly of English-speaking Quebeckers -- felt it necessary to write to the largest-circulation French-language paper in Quebec, La Presse, to state their views on Penetanguishene, headlined, “Le Comité d’Action Positive appuie les francophones de Penetanguishene.”

I would like to quote from this briefly; it is a letter written by Storrs McCall and Alex K. Paterson, who are coprosidents of the Positive Action Committee. They say, and I think they dramatize the issue quite effectively:

“Pour le meilleur ou pour le pire, Penetanguishene est devenu une ‘cause célèbre’ en matière de droits linguistiques des minorités. C’est pourquoi les décisions qui seront prises en ce qui concerne une éventuelle école secondaire francophone auront de vastes répercussions, au niveau de l’interprétation que leur donneront certains groupes et du fait qu’elles créeront un précédent pour l’établissement d’écoles francophones en Ontario et ailleurs. Les décisions que prendra votre gouvernement dans le cas présent, Madame le Ministre, seront importantes non pas seulement pour Penetanguishene, mais pour tous les Canadiens qui voient dans notre aptitude à encourager la survie des minorités linguistiques le gage du maintien de l’unité canadienne.”

They are saying that what we do in this province and Penetanguishene affects the people in Quebec and the federalist forces in Quebec, and makes their cause that much more difficult to fight.

I would suggest that when we talk about rights of minorities -- and I want to emphasize this -- we are saying that school should be granted based on the intrinsic argument and needs of the population, and not in the context of the referendum.

The government should heed the following words: “We simply do not believe that supporting French-language rights is the price we have to pay to keep Quebec in Confederation. We support those language rights because it is right, it is decent and it is a moral imperative in a free and pluralistic society.” That was the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) speaking in North Bay. It’s kind of ironic that a member of the cabinet would say that when one looks at the record of this government on the Penetanguishene issue.

I would hope that the Premier (Mr. Davis) and his cabinet would pay some attention to one of their key advisers on the whole question of national unity, Mr. H. Ian Macdonald, president of York University. In one of his speeches, he said: “If by our behaviour we cannot say to the people of Quebec that we want to preserve French-language rights in Ontario, than it is difficult for me to believe that the French-speaking citizens of Quebec will consider that the rest of Canada truly wants to preserve a place for them.”

He is also quoted as saying in a speech last month: “The future of Canada will be determined largely by our attitude of mind, and our attitude of mind must be progressive, compassionate, innovative and creative.”

If this government had followed the advice of Mr. Macdonald in the question of Penetanguishene, this issue would have been long resolved. We wouldn’t have this albatross placed on the necks of the federalist forces in Quebec, and I don’t think we would have to debate it any longer. I suspect that if a bill were introduced to resolve it, as eventually was done in the case of Windsor, it would pass without any difficulty on the opposition side.

It’s extremely frustrating that we have to go through this battle time after time, every time the minority in Ontario wants its rights to be fulfilled. The spotlight in the Quebec press is on every one of these battles, and it’s always put in the context of, “Look what it’s like outside of Quebec; look what Confederation means there.”

Surely a tremendous gesture of goodwill and understanding, and a positive contribution to the national unity debate at this stage, would be for the government to give that school to the francophone minority, to recognize their aspirations, to quit all this playing games with bricks and mortar, temporary classrooms and portables, et cetera, and to resolve the issue once and for all. I suspect Ontario then could hold its head high as a partner in Confederation. It would help the federalist cause. It would prove Ontario’s interest in the question of minority rights and in trying to make Confederation work for the minorities across Canada, whether they be in Quebec, in Ontario, in Manitoba or in New Brunswick.

Before concluding, there are two matters I would like to touch upon briefly which I think my constituents would want brought to the attention of the Legislature. One is the increasing concern in our community about the imminent possibility of a closure of a chronic-care rehabilitation hospital in the city of Cornwall, MacDonell Memorial. Many people are concerned about the rising cost of health care in terms of premiums they pay. We have lost almost 200 active treatment beds in the city of Cornwall over the 1970s. As we enter the 1980s we will have almost 200 fewer active-treatment beds, and now we are faced with the possibility of the MacDonell Memorial being closed.

3:40 p.m.

The people of Cornwall feel strongly about the high quality of health care they have received at MacDonell Memorial Hospital. The Religious Hospitallers of St. Joseph’s have played an active and strong role in terms of health care services in our community. I would ask the government to reconsider its plan. It’s not the two existing hospitals which are forcing this move; it’s the Ministry of Health with its budgetary restrictions and the straightjacket it is imposing on the local hospital board.

We’ve had enough cutbacks in this province. We’re getting tired of handouts to the big corporations and to people who want to buy new cars, while our hospitals are told they have to cut back further and further. Now we have to close a hospital because we don’t have the money to support it. We can give away $100 million to a pulp and paper company, $29 million to the Ford Motor Company, $65 million more to the manufacturing sector, but we tell people there isn’t enough money to maintain that hospital.

People are wondering what the priorities are in this wealthy province of Ontario when we cannot sustain a hospital of that sort.

There is a final, local matter I would like to address. Since tourism is a major industry in our area, many people are deeply concerned about the fate of the only live theatre in our area, the Prince of Wales Theatre in Upper Canada Village.

There is an imminent possibility that the theatre will not open this year. It has been in operation only two years. Last year it was tremendously successful at the box office, as well as artistically. If one travels east of Kingston, the opportunities for live theatre are almost nil outside of Ottawa and Kingston. It’s something we desperately need in our area as a stimulus to tourism. It’s a stimulus to the heritage of the area, because the play is based on the unique Loyalist heritage of the Seaway valley. It’s an extremely educational and gratifying experience.

Getting something like this started is not easy. The people involved in the Prince of Wales Theatre, the committee and Mr. George Blackburn, have done a tremendous job. It would be a tragedy if we let them sink without any assistance this year. It’s something Ontario can be proud of.

It’s going through a difficult period now. I would plead with the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) not to let the Prince of Wales Theatre go down this year, and to do whatever he can to see that, as closely as possible, it is attached to and integrated with Upper Canada Village to make it more viable, more accessible and more visual to people passing by.

The people of eastern Ontario suffered long enough without a facility of this sort. Every major report on tourism in our area suggests the need for such a theatre. We have it; don’t let us down. We need something like this desperately in terms of our summertime tourist development.

There are other topics I would have addressed but, because of the time, I will ignore them at present. But I would like to mention the fate of people on fixed incomes in this province, something which bothers me immensely, and the inadequate increase that was given them last week.

There are a variety of other matters, but I will leave them in order that other people can participate in the debate.

Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to have this opportunity of entering the debate on the speech from the throne. Before doing so, I want to say how good it is to see the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) occupying the chair. I suppose if I were where I might otherwise be, I would be there and he would be making this speech today. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak occasionally from this desk, rather than from the position the member for Essex North now is occupying.

I also want to say how much I enjoy my association, in the chair of the House, with the member for Perth, (Mr. Edighoffer) who regrettably is not here today because of responsibilities in his own riding. Both he and I take a great deal of enjoyment in reflecting the glory of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and the manner in which he presides over the affairs of this House. Because he does it with such dignity and control, his fame has become known throughout the Commonwealth in this regard and I think the member for Perth and myself do reflect somewhat the glory that he brings to his position. I am delighted to have the honour which the House bestowed upon me as deputy chairman of the committees of the whole House.

However, when one has a duty of that nature, it puts some restraint upon one, particularly when it comes to partisan matters. I will admit that I try to avoid being partisan in most of my conduct about this place. Occasionally it is a little difficult, but I do try to do so, as do, of course, the Speaker (Mr. Stokes) and the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edighoffer), but in doing so it does put one in a certain amount of jeopardy in his own riding. Some of my electorate feel that I have either died or have been appointed to the Senate.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I’ll bet the member doesn’t know which is the worst.

Mr. MacBeth: I don’t know which is the worst. But to allay the feelings that may be out in the riding, and to assure my constituents that I am still alive, it gives me pleasure to take part in this debate.

On a noncontroversial start, I would like to say a few things about the riding of Humber. It’s bounded on the south by the Queen Elizabeth Way and on the north by the MacDonald-Cartier Freeway, which flanks the west bank of the Humber and goes over to the street we all know as Kipling Avenue. It’s mainly a residential riding of people of moderate means but reasonably able to look after themselves. It has a few provincial buildings within it; not very many.

The Ontario Food Terminal is the very southern boundary, and it is a good and active place. I think it contributes to the riding, not only in the way of jobs but also in the general industry and atmosphere it brings. I know there is some suggestion that it has outgrown its facilities there and should be moved elsewhere. I am sure if it is moved we will be able to find good use for the land, but on the whole they have been good citizens of Etobicoke and we have been pleased to have them there.

I am not speaking of Etobicoke now, sir; I’m speaking of the riding of Humber. On the northern boundary we have two provincial institutions; one is the health laboratory, and the other is the water resources laboratory. They’re both very fine buildings and they enhance the neighbourhood. Beside them is probably the only industry I have in the riding of any size, but it’s a good one. It’s the Labatt’s brewery. I’m sure that all of us from time to time don’t mind enjoying some of the products they put forth.

But, as I say, for the most part it is a residential riding. It does contain three golf courses. I mention this simply because I have expressed fears from time to time that reassessment may make it difficult for the continuing existence of private golf clubs.

Those golf clubs not only look after the membership there, but they also serve the whole community. In the wintertime they are open to the use of the young people. They do provide an excellent greenbelt. They’re an attractive thing to have in a riding and, as I say, an asset, not just for the people who are members of that club, but also for the entire riding, as well as for those who back on them, who live beside them or close to them. I reiterate here that I hope nothing is ever done by way of the revision of assessment that will affect in any way the ability of those clubs to carry on.

Incidentally, they do pay a portion of taxes, business tax and otherwise, as well as a fair amount of sales tax. They are also good contributors to my honourable friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), in one of the industries that he supervises; so they’re a good asset to the community.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I missed that. What was that?

Mr. Martel: What is the contribution?

Mr. MacBeth: What is the contribution? They occasionally have reason to put in an odd order with the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. They do support the province in many ways.

The riding makes the usual citizen demands upon the public Treasury of this province, but for the most part I think it’s a paying community rather than a receiving community, and I’m happy that is the ease. As I say, it is a good community, and the people in that community are good solid citizens.

3:50 p.m.

Speaking of solid citizens, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to two citizens we have recently lost, both of whom passed on last month. One of them was Ozzie Waffle, a name that some members may recall. He was reeve of the township of Etobicoke, my immediate predecessor in that office.

He was a great salesman for Etobicoke. He put Etobicoke on the map in the days of its expansion. I guess there wasn’t a conference around Canada he didn’t attend and make well known where he was from. He was a builder in Etobicoke, a man of optimism. Latterly, he had been a very courageous chap, suffering through a debilitating disease that kept him handicapped for the last, I suppose, 10 years of his life, and yet despite that, he carried on as best he could and continued to contribute to the welfare of the community.

Then too, a former mayor, the first mayor of Etobicoke, who was actually my successor, passed on just a few days ago. I am referring to Ed Horton, who was a Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs under the Hepburn government. He was from Elgin county and one of the bright young men that Mitch Hepburn brought in here to get affairs straightened away at that time during those depression days.

When Ed left the provincial government here, he occupied two deputy portfolios. He went to Ottawa, where he served the community there, and then came back and went into private enterprise. He liked that, but the call was still for public service. He was deputy reeve of Etobicoke for a while. He went on to Peterborough in business and then came back to Etobicoke and became the first mayor. He, too, was an energetic man who did a great job in bringing the combined Lakeshore communities of New Toronto, Mimico and Long Branch into the township of Etobicoke under the new name of the borough of Etobicoke. I would just take this opportunity to pay tribute to two great Etobians who have recently passed on.

There are a few matters of concern in the riding of Humber. When I made my maiden speech in this House, I referred to a kind of pollution we have in Etobicoke -- noise pollution. We are bothered by our proximity to the Toronto International Airport. We also have the two highways which I mentioned, one to the north and one to the south, passing through. They create, as do any of those facilities, a certain amount of nuisance and a great deal of noise.

That still exists. The day I made my maiden speech in this House in connection with noise pollution was the same day the then Treasurer, Darcy McKeough, announced the beginning, in 1972 I guess it was, of the plan to move the new airport to the east of Metro Toronto. In a sense, we thought that was the answer to some of the problems we have from airplane noise. Of course, we all know what has gone on since. Toronto International continues to be a busy airport and, in the interests of Ontario, it must continue to be that.

Some of these noise problems still exist, but some are inevitable. It is inevitable that, if the airport its busy, the country is busy. If the railways are busy, the country is prosperous. But the broader community served by the railways, by the highways and by the airport must do its best to alleviate the problems that are brought about by the proximity and the use of the railways et cetera. That responsibility, in part, rests with the provincial government. In a couple of instances I will now mention, I don’t think we are doing all that could or should be done.

The first instance involves a little community in the riding, called Kingsview Village, immediately south of Highway 401, between Kipling and Islington avenues. It has been there a long time, a long time before highway 401 was put through. Because it is a collection of private homes that back on to that highway and not densely populated, it has a low priority as far as a noise barrier from that highway is concerned.

We have spoken to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). He has heard a delegation from Kingsview Village. He has promised he will do what he can. I hope that matter will be rectified in the near future by the erection of a noise barrier, despite the fact there are a limited number of people affected, mainly because they have put up with it for so long and, as I say, it is a case of them being there before the highway was.

The other matter also affects the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and has to do with the building of a third line on the CP Rail main line from Toronto which goes out to Chicago or Windsor. That line is a two-track affair. The province wants to put a GO service along there, which I support and which would be a good thing and serve a broader community. At the same time, CP Rail is telling the province, the Canadian Transport Commission and I guess the government in general, that to accommodate the GO service it must have a third track there. That possibility of a third track is upsetting to the people in the neighbourhood of Montgomery Road, who are objecting to the noise pollution and, of course, the danger, because Montgomery Road serves a good many community facilities including Etobicoke Collegiate, Our Lady of Sorrows separate school and the hockey arena, as well as a swimming pool. There is a great deal of youthful traffic at that crossing.

If the province wants to put that GO train along there, and it should; and if one of the conditions of the railway is that it become a three-track affair, then it is up to the province to make sure that does not proceed until a grade separation is built and some kind of noise berm, or whatever is technically best, is erected along that part of the track so the broader community will do its part in alleviating some of the pollution that must inevitably come from the use of that railway track.

We still have a few school problems continuing in the riding, mainly in the separate school system, which is still growing. Again in Kingsview Village, I refer to St. Maurice separate school. I am just going to take a moment to read part of a letter I have received from Mr. Botticella, who is the president of the Kingsview Village Ratepayers Association, setting out some of the problems as regards school accommodation:

“As you are probably aware by now, St. Maurice School of Kingsview Village has recently been plagued by overcrowding. The school, which was originally built to accommodate 300 students, is now populated by 522 students. At present there are 227 students in six portables and, if recent conservative projections are correct, the number will increase to 306 by 1982.

“Parents are duly concerned that the mushrooming of portables (from six to eight) in the school yard is not only unsightly, but totally unacceptable in terms of the effect they will have on the physical and mental safety of our children and their educational needs.”

That letter goes on and is considerably longer than that, but I also refer to a secondary school called Don Bosco, where a priest by the name of Reverend Father Mohan is principal. Father Mohan is a most energetic and cheerful leader, and I say leader in the true sense of that word. He has developed a great school spirit in the Don Bosco school. At the same time, the original building is not much better than a portable and there are more portable classrooms than there are in the original, rather portable building.

These are problems in our school system within my riding. I wish the Ministry of Education would supply sufficient funds that these things could be rectified. I know the problems there, however, and what I am asking of the Ministry of Education is to try to work out more co-ordination between the public school system and the separate school system in regard to school accommodation in the Metropolitan Toronto area, because I do believe more could be done.

4 p.m.

I know the public schools in Etobicoke in particular have empty classrooms. I know these empty classrooms are not always situated where we might like to have them, but they are there and I think greater effort could be made to try to supply the needs of one from the surplus of the other. I guess it’s up to the Ministry of Education to do that if the local authorities can’t get together themselves. That is the request I make of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

We have three good hospitals that serve Etobicoke riding. In Metropolitan Toronto all the hospitals serve everybody, and I don’t mean to say that the other hospitals in Toronto don’t serve the riding of Humber. St. Joseph’s particularly is one of the Toronto hospitals that gives us great service. But we have three newer hospitals, Humber Memorial, Queensway and Etobicoke General. None of these is in the Humber riding, but they are the ones we look upon as serving Humber. They are all excellent hospitals, relatively new, and are well-staffed with qualified nurses and doctors and other health workers.

I am sure the ministry is doing its best to supply the beds we need, but sometimes I think the ministry looks at the problem as an overall Metro problem and in doing so there are pockets that go unserviced. I feel that Etobicoke, and these three hospitals particularly, are being somewhat lost in the overall Metro picture and there is a need for some 400 chronic-care beds in Etobicoke. Again I am asking the Ministry of Health to take a look at those three hospitals to see whether they can look after the demands they have upon them. They are growing hospitals serving the community well, and I think they could have a little more assistance. One area most people agree the province should not be cutting back is hospital beds.

I am being a little critical of the various ministries, but I do want to pay a compliment to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which recently gave a grant to Etobicoke Community Centre. That centre has been carrying itself financially for many years. This year, for the first time, it ran into a little difficulty and needed some help from the ministry. The problem was that it hadn’t been on the list before and the lists were closed. Thanks to the minister, concessions were made, and it was decided that those who had been able to look after themselves should not be prejudiced or punished because they had looked after themselves; so a very much-needed grant has been received which will allow the Etobicoke Community Centre to continue the good work it is doing.

We have a few cultural and recreational problems which need some attention. The Etobicoke Olympium is doing a great job; it could do a better job if it were able to expand some of the area it already has but which is unfinished. We could help a great deal there. We have the great Etobicoke Philharmonic Orchestra under the leadership of Eugene Kash which is doing a great work but of course could use a little help from the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. We also have an Etobicoke arts council, which is supervising all of these things and likewise could use a little help from the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. Of course, we will be speaking to the minister concerned.

Having dealt with a good number of local concerns, let me pass for a minute to a very close concern that I have spoken about before; it is our procedure in regard to private members’ bills. As I have said before, I am not very happy that, in dealing with private members’ bills, we must often deal with very important matters in what amounts to an hour or perhaps an hour and a half at the most.

I think of all the time we spend here looking over estimates in committee. I think of the hours that were spent on the Treasury estimates; in this past year it amounted to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the two critics more or less having a fireside chat about the matter with very few other members in the House -- I think there were fewer in the House at that time than are in here new. Yet we spent hours on the Treasury estimates. I think of a back-to-work order bill for the Toronto Transit Commission when I was Minister of Labour on which I think every member of the opposition spoke -- of course, they had a right to do that and I think it is proper.

But it gives me great concern that on a bill such as the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) put forward the other day on cults, or a similar bill that the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) put forward, Bill 3, the most any of us had to talk on that was 20 minutes for the introducer and 10 minutes for the other members.

That matters of that import should be dealt with by this House in an hour or an hour and a half and then have to vote on it seems to me a great restriction on the freedom of expression which we brag about here and to which we all think we are entitled. It doesn’t give full discussion as far as the public is concerned and, more particularly, it doesn’t allow an individual member to tell the electorate his position on that bill and why, or how he voted as he did.

I am suggesting that the procedural affairs committee should look at it. Maybe they can cut some time out of the estimates. I am not sure that the government wants to spend more time on private members’ bills, and I know a good reason why they should not. Yet I think it’s the consensus of members of this House that they would like to spend more time on private members’ bills. If that is so, I think it must arrange, at the expense of something less important, that more time be given for the discussion of private members’ bills than an hour or an hour and a half. This limits somebody who has a great deal to say about such important matters to 10 minutes.

I have spent a few minutes on the parochial affairs of both this House and my own riding. I would like to turn now to matters of national concern.

These days we hear a great deal about, and are somewhat upset by, the term “sovereignty-association.” The definition of sovereignty, I guess, is being supreme as far as power is concerned. If you are sovereign, you are supreme in power; also, it bears a certain connotation in regard to the monarchy. I don’t know why so many of us get upset over the term “sovereignty-association.” I say, “What’s new?” Confederation in 1867 was just that. It was an alliance of supreme powers, and I would remind the House that, at the time of Canadian federation, neither the federal nor provincial parliaments enjoyed supreme power in that the mother government at Westminster still retained a great deal of the powers unto herself; so Confederation was just that -- an amalgamation or a joining together of supreme powers, or sovereignty-association.

In Canada we enjoy a Confederation of sovereign provinces, sovereign in their own right, and not a unitary system as is enjoyed in Britain, where there is one government that has responsibility for everything. Here, it is a sovereignty-association where the provinces are sovereign over certain matters and the federal government is sovereign over others.

Turning to the controversy and the terminology between Parliament and the Legislative Assembly, there are some people who make much of this issue, who try to suggest that the Legislative Assembly is something less than a parliament. I have a good parliamentary intern, Mary-Beth Currie, who is working for me. She has done some work, and I would like to read a few of her notes into the record, because I think it is important at this time when we are talking about sovereignty-association.

I am reading notes from F. F. Schindeler’s History and Protocol of Provincial Legislative Bodies and Responsible Government in Ontario. It refers to section 69 of the British North America Act which provides: “There shall be a Legislature for Ontario consisting of the Lieutenant Governor and of one House styled the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.” The first session of the provincial legislative body was termed “The First Session of the First Parliament” in our various journals. However, in 1879, the heading “Fourth Session of the Third Legislature” was adopted. This was corrected in 1952 and now the original terminology is used. Before Confederation, members of the assembly of the province of Canada were designated by the initials “MPP.” After Confederation, since the BNA Act provided for provincial legislative assemblies, members should have the letters “MLA” following their name. The Legislative Assembly made MPP the official abbreviation on April 7, 1938. I am going back, because some people talk about the Legislative Assembly as being perhaps somewhat lower than the Parliament.

4:10 p.m.

In 1868, the federal government disallowed an act giving the Ontario assembly the same parliamentary privileges, immunities and powers that the federal government enjoyed and which were equal to those present in the House of Commons in Britain. The federal government held that, since a legislature was not a parliament, the power to give itself privileges did not inhere in it by virtue of its status, since it had only those powers granted it by the BNA Act, and this act made no provision for parliamentary privileges at the provincial level.

However, in 1876, the Legislature passed a new act claiming these same rights and privileges, and this legislation has remained in force to this day without interference from the federal government.

Quoting from Alex C. Lewis in Parliamentary Procedure in Ontario, he defines the first minister as Prime Minister; that is: “The Prime Minister is the King’s chief minister and his spokesman in the Legislative Assembly.” He also says: “The rights of the provinces, that is the old provinces of Upper and Lower Canada and of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, are of course of longer standing than are the rights and powers of the Dominion authority, dating back to the day when those provinces derived their authority direct from the crown.”

I would like to read from a book called What and When is Parliament, in a chapter referred to as “Whereas and Whatnot.” It was written by W. Heighington in 1934. I may add as an aside that Heighington was a member of this House for the riding of St. David. He is quoting the words of the judicial committee of the Privy Council in one case which wrote that the power of a provincial legislature is “as plenary and ample within the limits prescribed as that at Ottawa or Westminster itself.”

It refers to a judgement of Mr. Justice Riddell in the Ontario Supreme Court, in the case of Florence Mining Company versus Cobalt Lake Mining Company, a 1909 case, where the quotation is: “The Legislature within its jurisdiction can do anything that is not naturally impossible and it is restrained by no rule, human or divine.”

In the Township of Sandwich East versus the Union Natural Gas Company, a 1924 case reported in Ontario Law Reports: “The powers of the Legislature of the province are the same in intention, though not extension, as those of the Imperial Parliament. The Legislature is limited in the territory in which it may legislate and in the subjects; the Imperial Parliament is not -- and that is the only difference.”

Parliament is defined thus: “A national legislative and, in some cases, judicial assembly, especially that of England, later of the United Kingdom.” Or: “A meeting or assembly of persons for conference or deliberation summoned by the sovereign’s authority to consult on the affairs of the nation and to enact and repeal laws.” A legislature is held to be “the body of men in a state or kingdom invested with power to make and repeal laws; the supreme legislating power of a state.”

Heighington goes on to say: “Although it is specifically termed ‘Parliament,’ Ottawa is really a legislature, just the same as in England. ‘Parliament’ is a Legislature.”

He suggests that it is almost invariably the practice of judges to refer to what should be done by the legislature in reference to correction of legislation: “Here, as elsewhere, it must be recognized that, in British countries at least, every Parliament is a legislature and that no actual term applied to that body which performs that function can alter or correct this conclusion.”

As regards the definition of “legislature” versus “parliament,” rights were acquired by Ontario and Quebec in 1792, and sections 65 and 129 of the BNA Act preserved those powers formerly exercised by those two governments. Section 129 says specifically that, unless otherwise stated in the BNA Act, powers in the Canadas, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia shall continue in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as if the union had not been made. It also makes it clear that, in respect to these matters, only the provincial Legislature has the authority to abolish or alter.

Section 92 outlines the powers of the provincial government. He goes on: “Thus, from an authority based on custom and usage, ample judicial precedent and also statutory authority, the position of the provincial Legislature should surely not be open to these attacks. Summoned at the call of the sovereign, supreme in legislative powers, meeting for conference and deliberation, reinforced by the authority just mentioned, it should now be apparent that, certainly among the older provinces of the Dominion, and probably among them all, the provincial Legislature is properly termed a ‘Parliament.’”

MPP corresponds more closely to the steps in our constitutional development and Heighington says, “MLA should be relegated to oblivion.” That’s the last note of this author -- that MLA should be relegated to oblivion. I don’t feel that strongly about it. All I am frying to say in that long list of quotations I have given is that in the controversy between these two, in effect, they are the same words. I ask members to look at the Order Paper before them and they will see “Order Paper and Notices, The Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario.” That refers to the Legislative Assembly. At the bottom, it refers to the “31st Parliament.”

As for the difference between a legislature and a parliament, I am saying that this is a legislature and it is also a parliament. Because we are known as a legislature at times, that is in no way showing any inferior position to the House of Commons at Ottawa. This is just as much a parliament and is sovereign.

I have gone through all that to suggest that we are sovereign in our powers. The fear might be that I am supporting Mr. Levesque when I say I am in favour of sovereignty-association. I’m not sure Mr. Levesque knows what he means when he says sovereignty-association, but I am saying to the House now that this body is, in effect, a sovereign body and has absolute powers over those things that are set out by the BNA Act as legislative jurisdictions for it. So, in a sense, we have a kind of sovereignty-association now.

I don’t want anybody to think I am in favour of Mr. Levesque’s proposal, because I think it goes too far. I’m only saying this to suggest that there is great room for working out with Quebec and the rest of Canada the common demands we have, the common problems that are before us at present.

I said I wouldn’t be controversial, and I’m sure I won’t be controversial when I say the present Prime Minister of this province makes very few mistakes. I suggest that once or twice he might be subject to slight indiscretions. He perhaps made a slight indiscretion when he decided he would be known by the name Premier, rather than Prime Minister, because I think he is entitled to the phrase Prime Minister, as I have suggested from some of the notes I have read, just as much as the Prime Minister of Canada is entitled to that phrase, again emphasizing that we are in ourselves a sovereign body.

Mr. Bradley: That’s the least of his errors.

Mr. MacBeth: It may be the least of his errors, but I think it was a very slight one. I really believe that we have some of the problems we have today because the federal government has encroached upon the sovereign powers that are enjoyed by the Legislature. That is what has happened in Quebec and that is what has given rise to some of the concerns in Quebec.

I think Quebec’s problems are similar to our own. What is good for Ontario is often good for Quebec. History has proved that. Very often at provincial conferences we have both gone there with the same intent and the same point of view. I think we have to tell the people of Quebec and convince them, despite the language that might be used -- sovereignty-association or whatever else -- our interests are common interests; that we have the same problems they have; and that British Columbia has the same problems. Really what we want to do is to get together to decide what these problems are, where we need to realign the powers the provinces have and the federal government has, to realign these powers or clearly define them, to get rid of some of the overlapping, and to let matters of culture rest with the provinces as the BNA Act originally intended they should. Let matters of education also rest with the province as they should.

4:20 p.m.

We want to approach the national crisis that we have -- our constitutional crisis -- in a spirit of co-operation, and not in a spirit of antagonism or in a spirit that we are not sitting around a table with the same interests that they are sitting around with, or that we have divergent interests, because that’s not so; we have the same interests. I hope we will be able to convince Quebec soon that this is the case. There is no doubt in my mind that the sum of the provinces is greater than the whole of Canada and that, in this age, when we are looking at economic blocs, whether the European economic bloc or the Mid-East economic bloc, we are looking for bigger trade associations, and not smaller trade associations.

I don’t think there is any question that powers relating to national defence, customs and excise, the post office, currency, banking -- even Quebec, I think, would agree -- should belong with the federal government. I am looking forward to the debate on our constitutional issues as promised in the speech from the throne, and I hope that all sides will have a pretty common approach to this. I think we will and that we may accomplish something in the interests of Canada when we finally arrive at our constitutional debate.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to stand during the budget debate or the debate on the speech from the throne and see the full public gallery that we have. The members’ gallery and the Speaker’s gallery are jampacked with people and, of course, the media are here in force, as well as all members of the Legislature. This is most encouraging when each one of us rises to speak in this Legislature. Perhaps it’s an indication of the degree of interest that not only the public has, but specifically the members of this Legislature have in both the speech from the throne and the budget. Be that as it may, I will continue unintimidated by the large numbers that we have with us today.

Mr. M. N. Davison: You have quality folk here.

Mr. Bradley: Definitely quality, as the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) points out.

I will go through the ritual -- although I do so in sincerity on this particular occasion -- of complimenting the Speaker once again on the excellent job that he’s doing. It is almost traditional that members of the Legislature rise in their seats to pay some tribute to the Speaker regardless of whether he is doing a good job. My particular view is that the Speaker happens to be doing an excellent job in this case.

I have been very impressed with the decision of the Premier (Mr. Davis) in this particular case to suggest the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) as the Speaker of this House. Although we in the official opposition may have disagreed on occasion with some of the decisions rendered by the Speaker, we hold him in a good deal of respect. For this reason my comments are sincere; I am not merely going through the motions.

I will deal with matters in reverse order from the order followed by the member for Humber (Mr. MacBeth). I always find his remarks interesting. I think the last time I spoke in the Legislature on the budget debate or the throne speech debate I spoke in close proximity to the member for Humber and I heard his speech at that time. Certainly with his own experience, both as a cabinet minister and as an individual member of this House, he brings a unique quality to it and is not only a member who is well known for his concern for his own constituents, but also, of course, for provincial and federal matters.

I will deal, first of all, with the issue of national unity because that issue affects us at all levels of government, be they municipal, provincial or federal. I guess those of us who rise in the Legislature now have a certain feeling of helplessness as we look upon the Quebec referendum. Most of us would agree that the question itself is somewhat deceptive. Perhaps it is deceptive by design, in that it doesn’t ask the people of Quebec to render a judgement on whether they wish to separate from the rest of Canada or not. The word “independence” is not used; the word “separatism” is not used. Instead, we have a reference to sovereignty-association -- whatever that might be, according to whoever is defining it.

Not only that, but the question is not precise enough to ask the people of Quebec to deal specifically with whether they want sovereignty-association or not. It is instead a question designed, according to the Premier of Quebec, to provide a mandate for him to negotiate sovereignty-association. It is very much like the labour union that asks for the support of its membership to negotiate from a position of strength.

Those of us who have been members of labour unions or federations or organizations recognize the importance of providing the negotiating team with a good deal of strength in terms of the numbers and in terms of the percentage of those voting in favour of supporting the negotiating team which is fighting for a specific goal.

In this, the Premier of Quebec and his colleagues must be complimented on their cunning approach to the referendum. I don’t know whether it’s a virtue to say that one is cunning. I suppose politicians look with a good deal of favour on other politicians who are cunning enough to achieve their goals. But whether in moral terms and ethical terms we can assess it as being a virtue is another question. Certainly I would not agree that it is a virtue.

We have a situation where the Premier of Quebec asks his people to deal with a question that I’m afraid is going to be misinterpreted in the rest of the country, if the result of that referendum is a “oui,” or as we would say in English, a “yes.” The people of the rest of Canada no doubt will see this as an expression of the people of Quebec in favour of some form of separatism.

It is my view, with my limited contact with the grass-roots people of Quebec, and with my limited knowledge -- limited to what I can glean from reading from the news media and from the electronic media -- that this is not genuinely the viewpoint of the average person in Quebec.

We have Premier Levesque at the present time lining up allies that we are surprised about. There are those who belong to French-Canadian associations outside the province who insist once again on falling for -- if we can use that term -- the ploy of the Premier of Quebec, insisting that the only way they can gain the rights they feel they deserve is by supporting morally and vocally the “yes” option in the referendum. These kinds of allies concern me very much.

As well, there are some within Quebec whom one would have anticipated would have been federalists, members of political parties who at the national level are truly federalist and believe in a reasonably strong federal government. Some of these people have lined up behind the “yes” option in Quebec for various reasons. This is to me a matter of concern.

I’m not certain that anything I say in this House, nor anything that most members of this House choose to say, either here or on the hustings, or indeed if we were to venture into Quebec, is going to have a substantial effect on the outcome of that vote. It might well have a substantial effect on the ultimate outcome of the negotiations as they relate to constitutional reform and to national unity. But the effect on this referendum I think is going to be negligible, although I do feel it is our role to be positive.

It seems to me that we as legislators must be proponents of moderation and conciliation, rather than purveyors of prejudice. There are issues which arise in this provincial House, where with an election impending -- and this parliament will end in June 1982 by law, and before that if either the Premier decides that that shall be the case or if the two opposition parties defeat the government -- at this time we see a situation where there are certain issues that could be used to play upon the prejudices of certain segments of the population of Ontario. I think when people’s backs are against the wall, there are some who would pander to those prejudices. That concerns me very much.

4:30 p.m.

It seems to me that we, as elected legislators, have a role to play; a role of moderation, a role which is constructive and positive. I speak of all members of the Legislature and all sides of a question where this can be used in saying that we as members of this Legislature have an obligation to the people who have elected us to show leadership in this direction. We should avoid pinning the label of bigot on others who are merely expressing a fair point of view, or suggesting they are trying to curry favour with people on the basis of their ethnic background.

It’s a difficult temptation to resist. We recognize there are those who have formed leagues, who have formed organizations, who will speak in favour of a “yes” vote. I think of an organization, for instance, such as Bilingual Backlash, which was a fairly strong organization, at least in terms of its ability to get media coverage a couple of years ago. Certainly it intimidated certain members of this Legislature and certain members of the federal Parliament.

This is not to say that some of them didn’t have a legitimate and honest point of view to bring forward, some of those who might have been attracted by some of the pronouncements of that organization. There was a genuine concern, I think, among some people who were used to a certain tradition within this province. But there were those in the leadership of that organization who did more to sow the seeds of national disunity in Quebec and in certain other segments of the population than many others.

I think those politicians who were able to resist that kind of stampede towards prejudice are to be commended. I would say the overwhelming majority of members of this Legislature certainly fit into that category.

The last time I spoke on this issue I complimented the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), who had put out a booklet explaining French-language education and other French-language services in this province. He certainly would be considered a moderate and a leader who could be looked upon with considerable favour by members of this House. Of course, we have members of the opposition parties who would fit into the same category.

So we have to rise above partisanship, it seems to me, at this time of crisis in Confederation -- indeed if there is any time we don’t have a crisis in Confederation I’m not aware of it -- even though partisanship might be very tempting.

While all of us in this House probably would encourage constitutional reform, we reject what we see as the meaning of sovereignty-association. I admire those people in Quebec who at the present time are standing up in favour of federalism, because federalism is sometimes difficult to defend. If we think of the recent debate in the National Assembly of Quebec we would recognize that the official opposition, the Quebec Liberal Party led by Mr. Claude Ryan, chose to deal with the question itself; chose to deal with the wording of the question; chose to point out that it was a question of deception. It was a question which was giving a false impression to the people.

Nevertheless, they were not particularly effective in following this line of argument because it is not an emotionally popular line of argument. It is much easier for the “yes” forces in the referendum to say that if you have any pride in Quebec, if you no longer want to have the big boot of English Canada pushing down your face, that somehow the only way you can show this is to vote “yes” to this very nebulous question which was before the National Assembly of Quebec and will be before the people of Quebec when the Premier of that province decides that shall be the case.

So I express an admiration for those people -- Claude Ryan and his colleagues, the members of the Union Nationale, the members of all political parties and those who have no particular political affiliation who are speaking out in favour of federalism at this time although their individual definitions of federalism might well vary.

I look upon the proposals of Claude Ryan as being at least a basis for discussion. Being from Ontario, and being a person who believes in a strong national government, there are many of those proposals with which I find disagreement, with which I’m very concerned, even those which are advanced by Claude Ryan. But he and his supporters do it in the context of a brief in a renewed federalism as opposed to doing it in a negative context of wanting to advance the causes of separatism. So I think there has to be discussion, and meaningful discussion.

Perhaps those of us who believe in a strong central government in 1980 are an anachronism in this country. I have had many who said I was being rather naive when I advanced the theory that the federal government should remain strong and that many of the powers it has at the present time should remain in its hands. Indeed, the federal government that was in power from May 1979 until February 1980 advanced the theory that there had to be some decentralization, that the provinces had to have much in the way of increased powers.

I cannot speak for the members on the government benches, but I would venture to say that there are many members who sit opposite us who did not agree with that concept of Confederation. It is in the vested interests of Ontario to have a strong central government because we have done very well by Confederation. Most of the industry is located in Ontario, in central Canada; we are favoured with that. We have the national capital in Ottawa. We have a financial capital in the city of Toronto; Bay Street, as it is referred to.

Many of the decisions that affect the entire country are “made in Ontario” decisions. I don’t deny that I, as a citizen of Ontario, speak from a vested interest, but Ontario and the people of Ontario have been generous over the years, having had a commitment to build a strong nation from coast to coast as opposed to merely a strong central Canada. For this reason I think we can speak with some degree of honesty, and on a good basis, when we advocate the continuation of a strong national government.

The role of the central government is to ensure that we have something resembling equalization of opportunity across this country. Nature is not as kind to certain parts of the country as to others. Some parts of this country do not possess natural resources, some do not have other valuable resources. Nevertheless, we have the opportunity, through federal legislation, through federal agencies and through the federal government to share that which is found in each and every province. The point that we bring from central Canada is that this country is stronger because it has a strong central government.

I don’t travel much outside of this country. This year I spent five, six or seven days in Quebec. I go to Drummondville in late January or early February each year to a minor hockey tournament. I like hockey and I go when St. Catharines teams are there. I must reveal to the members of this House the reception that the people of Ontario receive from small-town Quebec. Drummondville isn’t that small a town -- it is a city of 50,000 -- but we also had a chance to visit such places as Pierreville and Magog to play some exhibition games there.

One has to be overwhelmed by the cordiality and the warmth of the reception that we, the people of Ontario -- largely anglophones and, for the most part, unilingual anglophones -- received from the Quebec people. Many came up to me and to the others who were from Ontario to indicate their opposition to separatism. In the referendum, some of them might well vote “yes” for a negotiation of sovereignty-association. The majority of those I spoke to, I suggest, will not vote that way.

There was this feeling of warmth for all of Canada. It was interesting that they noted every time that the people of Ontario and the people of Quebec had so much more in common than they bad in terms of differences. For this reason I was particularly pleased by the reception this year, in the context of the referendum, and in the context of the fact that they have had since November 1976 a government which is committed to independence.

I would mention, a gentleman by the name of Ron Labbé, for instance, and his family, who each year have billeted others. The kind of reception M. Labbé and his family provided the people of Ontario is simply an example of the kind of hospitality provided by all the people of that town.

4:40 p.m.

Once again, as mundane as it may seem to say, I feel when we talk on a person-to-person basis rather than a government-to-government basis or a political-person-to-political-person basis, we have so much in common in this country that it would certainly be a tragedy to see us move significantly apart.

I remember a speech made by Canada’s former Prime Minister Lester Pearson some years ago, probably during the flag debate when he used words to the effect: “I refuse to believe, as I know you refuse to believe, we cannot rise to the occasion, match our problems and be equal to our opportunities. I refuse to believe when the crying need in this nation is for unity, when all over this world others are coming together that we in this nation must move apart.”

This may not be the exact phraseology Mr. Pearson used on that occasion, but I think it once again exemplifies the feeling that we in Ontario certainly have. So we become concerned when we hear the strident voices of separatism in Ontario. In Quebec they don’t hear about some of the gradual steps we are taking towards accommodating the French-speaking community, as slow and tentative as some of those steps may be. Instead they hear about incidents where the French-speaking population of Ontario is denied certain rights. Those incidents are blown up in the Quebec press. I don’t know how we are going to overcome this. It is very difficult to overcome, as are the sensational items that tend to come to Ontario.

Everyone in Ontario knows you can’t have bilingual signs in Quebec, for instance, but we don’t know about the many other rights available to English-speaking Canadians in that province. So it seems to me it is our duty to educate ourselves in these facts, to travel back and forth. I commend those who are responsible for setting up the student and other cultural exchanges that take place because we really get to see how the common folk of both provinces feel about one another.

I am equally concerned about the situation that exists in western Canada; we can’t talk about alienation only in Quebec. Recently, I guess in the last five or six years, we have heard of western Canada’s alienation. I think part of it is the media telling people that they are alienated. I believe after the last federal election the media did a survey and asked, “Do you feel alienation?” They said, “Yes, we are alienated.” Then when they got away from the idea of the media formally asking questions of people, nobody talked about alienation; they talked about problems common to people across the country.

It seems to me it is going to be difficult to accommodate the wishes of western Canada and Quebec unless we are prepared to move towards decentralization, which in Ontario we do not see as a virtue. It may be anachronistic to express the point of view that the best and most favourable way for people across the country to participate in a national confederation is through being part of the national government.

Many in this House would disagree with some of the policies that have been brought forward over the years by the Right Honourable Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Perhaps those who are not members of his party would not wish to agree publicly, but most would agree with his concept of federalism in terms of the fact that Mr. Trudeau has always been a proponent of a strong national government. Indeed one of his goals as prime minister was to bring a significant number of French Canadians to office in Ottawa to participate in our national government.

This has produced a reaction not always favourable in the rest of the country when we hear members who don’t speak English perfectly, who speak English with perhaps a very heavy French accent. There is sometimes resentment which builds up in the rest of the country. But I see this as a virtue, just as I see it as a virtue when someone from western Canada holds a very prominent position in the federal government.

I think one of the favourable things about having the Right Honourable Joe Clark as Prime Minister for a short period of time was the fact that a westerner was elected as Prime Minister of Canada. Once again that raises the point that Ontario doesn’t run this country necessarily, nor does central Canada always run this country.

It seems to me we must build institutions. The political parties must reach out to make certain they have representation from all parts of Canada. It seems to me the province of Quebec and the people of Quebec can have some of their goals realized through the national government. They can have services provided to them in all parts of Canada by their federal government in one of the two national languages.

This does not impose upon provincial legislatures the mandatory requirement that these services be provided to the same degree for each of the provinces. It does not mandate that municipalities provide these kinds of services, although they may be desirable in certain areas of certain provinces where the population dictates they should be in effect. It does, nevertheless, give them the idea that their national government is their national government as well as the national government of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and so on.

I am hopeful that some of the people of Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Manitoba will see that through federal institutions, be it through the federal civil service or through federal political institutions such as the federal Parliament, the Senate and the cabinet, their voice can be heard in Ottawa and they can have a meaningful role in national government without hiding behind provincialism and without elevating provincial Premiers to a status equal to that of the Prime Minister of Canada, whoever might hold that office at a particular time.

One other area which I think is important -- and I guess it is easy for a person from Ontario to say it now -- is natural resources. Once again, I express, first of all, an unconstitutional point of view and, second, an unpopular point of view in many parts of this country when I say that all natural resources should belong to all Canadians, whether it be the uranium or nickel or ether resources we have in Ontario, or the oil in Alberta or the fish in Newfoundland. I won’t go through the Bryce Mackasey speech about how he flies over the country and sees all these things and how nice they are; I won’t go through that.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t go through that.

Mr. Bradley: No, I don’t think I will, in this case. My colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) within the past couple of years made what I thought was a rather eloquent speech on the fact that he felt the prairies were his prairies as much as the mines of northern Ontario should be the mines of a person who happened to be a representative of the province of Saskatchewan. I express this point of view though it’s an unpopular point of view and an unconstitutional point of view. Nevertheless, it is one which I hold and which I think I will continue to hold for a good many years to come.

Mr. Conway: Is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) a natural resource? If so, he should be shared nationally.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s one we don’t intend to nationalize.

Mr. Bradley: I won’t allow the members to interject continually in reference to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations who has gained some favouritism with members of the opposition for the style in which he presents his answers to the House, if not the substance of some of his answers.

There is another pet peeve I have and I don’t know how to overcome this. It seems to me provincial Premiers who maintain office through attacks on the federal government serve to sow the seeds of disunity in this country as well. We have this occurring right across the country and we have it regardless of political affiliation. The gentleman who sits opposite to us is a master in allowing the federal government to assume responsibility when it’s a problem within the boundaries of this province, but he is large as life and first in line when there is credit to be taken for the successes that happen to come about as the result of federal legislation.

It seems to me those who fudge the issues to such an extent that they are able to put the blame somewhere else tend to confuse the population. Heaven knows, with our three levels of government, and four for those of us stuck with regional government, the population has a hard time determining who is responsible for what. Certainly the Premier of any province who tends to blame the federal government for all the problems and woes of this nation is an individual who does not serve national unity well, although he may serve his own government and his own party very well. I hope that’s something we can try to avoid in the future, but I am certainly not going to hold my breath until that happens.

4:50 p.m.

I will narrow in a little more provincially and try to approach the problem from a parochial point of view when I look at the Niagara Peninsula and my own city, and that’s the unemployment problem. In my specific area of the province, the city of St. Catharines and district, the unemployment rate is now over 10 per cent. I would suggest that when the next set of figures comes out it will have risen further.

Two of the major industries in our area, the auto industry and the construction industry, are in considerable trouble. Those who represent Oshawa, Windsor, Oakville, Kitchener and St. Catharines, for instance, are extremely concerned not only about the present doldrums of the auto industry but the future and the cloud that hangs over the future of the auto industry in this province and in this country.

There are ominous signs. First of all, there is the oil situation. We saw a headline in the newspaper a couple of days ago that said gasoline could possibly be in short supply in some places in Canada this year. This tends to make people think twice about purchasing a second automobile perhaps. It makes them think twice about purchasing the present automobiles that are for sale, which are sometimes those that consume more gasoline than we would like. Because of the energy situation we see a reluctance to buy them.

Second, because of the economic situation, there are people unemployed and fewer people are prepared to put out money for a car. Because of the interest rates that exist in this country at the present time, fewer and fewer people are prepared to borrow money for the purchase of a new car, or indeed, even for a used car to keep the market moving.

We are concerned with an industry that has done relatively well in the last few years. We have seen some changes. We have seen some ups and downs but they have been relatively minor ups and downs. Now we see a situation where the signs are very bad. Some of the solutions are easy to see and some of them are not so easy to see.

Obviously, we have to develop automobiles and designs for automobiles that are somewhat different from those that exist today. My own leader has released a report on the use of methanol and the possibilities it offers for use as a mixture with gasoline. Perhaps in the future we might be running cars completely on methanol. Several years ago, if you said that to people, they would look at you and shake their heads and say, “Well, of course, that simply can’t happen.”

Necessity being the mother of invention, we now have a situation where people are seriously entertaining the thought that within 10 years we may be running our automobiles exclusively on some product such as methanol. We see a need for substantial changes in the style of our vehicles and in the products used to run those vehicles. Those of us who represent the ridings that are very much dependent on the auto industry are hopeful for movement and look to government for movement and direction.

We also need to adjust the auto pact. I recognize the problems when you start opening up a pact, but I think when you look at the figures -- I recall a headline saying there is a $8.14-billion deficit -- being experienced in terms of auto parts, this is something of genuine concern. We recognized back in 1965 when the auto pact was brought into effect that it offered a lot of promise. Indeed, there were some good initial years but more and more people are recognizing now that we might just as well take our chances with reopening the auto pact. We might get a better deal for Canada and Canadians than we would by allowing it to deteriorate at the rate it is at the present time.

I also look at the situation with Foster Wheeler Limited in my own riding. Some of the members who sit in the House, such as the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), sat on the particular committee which dealt with the Babcock and Wilcox Canada Limited reference. I believe, Mr. Speaker, you sat in on some of those sessions at least. We recognized that Ontario Hydro was doing business essentially with one company -- Babcock and Wilcox -- for a variety of reasons. We have condemned that; the all-party report condemned it.

I won’t go into the specific details, but one of the major firms in the Niagara Peninsula, Foster Wheeler, was prepared to bid on Bruce B, I believe, and was denied the opportunity because of a negotiated contract. So a plant that sorely needs this kind of contract in an area that needs employment opportunities was denied those opportunities because of the policies of Ontario Hydro. We hope this policy will be changed as a result of the report that was brought down in this Legislature.

Another area I would like to deal with is the Economic Development Fund, which is a two-edged sword. First of all, we have a situation where the government is giving out loans or grants without getting any shares in that company, without really being able to determine the future and the policies of that company to any great extent. This has to be a matter of concern when we are using taxpayers’ dollars to do that.

The provisions of these contracts are secret, I tried for several months to get from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism the specific contract between TRW Canada Limited, for instance, and the Ontario government through the Economic Development Fund. Eventually, between the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) and me, we ended up getting a standard contract -- not the specific provisions, but a standard contract. So we are unable to determine what the provisions of that contract are, what are the stipulations in terms of employment.

The members who represent Windsor and district get up in this House and ask, with this huge infusion of funds from the federal and provincial governments into the auto industry in Windsor, what we are getting for it. Are we losing jobs on one hand and gaining on the other hand? Unless we have those contracts before this House, we are unable to make that determination for certain, so we want to know what the specific employment guarantees are, and it seems to me that the contract should be tabled in this Legislature.

We are really concerned, as well, that perhaps these grants and loans are being used to move jobs rather than to create new jobs. Let me be parochial enough to use the Niagara Peninsula as an example and areas adjacent to my riding although not specifically within my riding. Hayes-Dana Corporation has room to expand in the city of Thorold. It has a fair tradition in Thorold. It has a plant, as well, within the city of St. Catharines. The expansion instead is taking place in Barrie, which is nice for the people of Barrie. The unemployment rate, however, is very high in the Niagara Peninsula, and this grant or loan is being used for expansion of their operations which we, as members of this Legislature, applaud, but are very concerned that it does not take place in an area of high unemployment.

The second is TRW. Yes, there is a minor expansion in the city of St. Catharines which is supposed to create some 100 jobs, but also there is a new plant opening in western Ontario, and so the people who are working at the plant in St. Catharines are asking me: “What are the provisions of that contract? Are we really starting to diversify for TRW? Are we really moving jobs that otherwise would have been created in the city of St. Catharines? Are we really using government grants to create those elsewhere?” So areas of the province which have high unemployment legitimately ask these questions, and we don’t yet have the answers.

The other problem people talk about now is inflation. While we recognize that homeowners, farmers and business people are looking for a solution to the high interest rates, we also recognize that largely this falls within the domain of the federal government, although we in the provinces do have the opportunity to provide certain relief if we deem it necessary. It seems to me that we, as a Legislature, in conjunction with the federal government, are going to have to meet this problem head-on, at least on the short-term basis and perhaps on a long-term basis if the problem persists.

We will also see that big business is gaining an advantage as a result of the present high interest rates because it is able to sustain itself in a much easier way than the small business people are.

5 p.m.

I also looked to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), in his role as public advocate, to keep an eye on the price situation. We recognize he can’t realistically impose prices in Ontario. He can’t do that unless he is prepared to have all aspects of the economy completely controlled, not that he has that jurisdiction himself, personally,

For those who advocate a complete control of prices, it would involve the complete control of the economy; we know that. However, we do look to him and his ministry -- and they have to a certain extent done this and we will second-guess when they don’t do what we feel is adequate -- to provide investigations in those areas where the public is being, to use the modern jargon, ripped off. We ask him to continue those. He did it, for instance, in the automotive repair business about which people are very concerned. We look for an expansion of that role for the minister and his ministry in that field to counteract some of the effects of inflation.

Mr. M. N. Davison: You will be looking for an awfully long time.

Mr. Bradley: That might well be, as the member for Hamilton Centre suggests. However, we will know in this session just how serious the minister and ministry are in this regard.

Looking at another issue, and that is public opinion polls, we know they are valuable -- knowing what the population feels -- to a certain extent. For the government to undertake such polling procedures may have some merit; I’m not convinced of that merit yet, but it may have some merit.

I think the concerns that are expressed by people who speak to me about this, however, revolve around the fact that they feel that perhaps the government is ruling by Gallup, rather than by providing the leadership that is necessary. Time and again we see policies that have been announced by this government, policies that have been carried out by this government, just coincidentally happen to be those policies which the population has indicated through the polls it would be prepared to accept. Yet we have the Premier (Mr. Davis) stand in the Legislature and deny that these polls would be used for political purposes.

What nonsense. How can the public of this province be asked to believe that when the government takes polls, paid for with the taxpayers’ money, it is not going to use those polls for political reasons. If they are going to spend the taxpayers’ money to undertake such polls then they should be prepared to share the results with all members of this Legislature and with the public at large. Thanks to the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) and others in the opposition --

Mr. M. N. Davison: Plus the motion from the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba). Let’s not forget that.

Mr. Bradley: -- even those who want to keep the government in power for ever -- thanks to those people, those polls have been released to the public. We find some rather revealing things about them, but any polls that are taken then should be shared with all of us. We congratulate the member for Rainy River and others. This, of course, is all part of the propaganda.

Interjection.

Mr. Bradley: I hear an intervention from the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) over there, who has reinvented the wheel. A gentlemen showed me some old history books of Lincoln county or somewhere, where they had prisoners within the system working on the farm -- this was in the 1890s -- and undertaking several other projects. Now the minister announces this with a lot of fanfare and gets all the publicity. The media must have nothing to print some days. He gets a double whammy in terms of his own newspaper.

He smiles there as he knows what I’m saying is true, that he has reinvented the wheel and has been successful enough to make it look as though it is indeed something new. He has had a difficult time, of course, maintaining the profile that the previous Minister of Correctional Services managed to cultivate, with his Friday morning announcements, standing up in the Legislature announcing his new programs.

We now see the members opposite and particularly the cabinet ministers opposite embarking upon one of their propaganda campaigns. They usually come just before an election campaign.

I recall in 1975 -- I didn’t run in that particular election, although they tell me it was a good time to run -- listening in August and September and I couldn’t believe the number of ads on radio and television with the various ministers telling one to get anti-tetanus shots and to save energy and all of these things. They are starting to recur now.

My good friend and colleague the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) is now on the radio telling us we should be conserving energy. While we recognize the value of conserving energy, we also recognize the political value of having the minister’s voice saying this -- not that he needs it in his own riding where he has been a very popular individual and is returned with regularity by the population in that area.

But right across Ontario we have various ministers -- the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) is saying to “Shop Canadian” and he’s got the billboards with “Larry Grossman, Minister,” on the bottom; the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) is asking, “Have you undertaken your immunization program?” Right across the front benches in the next few weeks we’ll see more and more of the taxpayers’ money being spent to promote individual cabinet ministers in that government, and one has to wonder how in conscience they can do this.

Going through the paper again today I noticed the heading, “Simple Justice.” The gentleman in this House who always talks about simplistic answers now gives us simple justice; we get a full-page ad in each of these newspapers telling us all about his new justice system. Of course, it must have on the bottom -- this is of paramount importance -- “R. Roy McMurtry, Attorney General.” We couldn’t have it without that. It reminds me of the signs on the highway: “Another Ontario Highway Development Project -- Bill Davis, Premier, and James Snow, Minister.”

One has to wonder -- and I am sure the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) agrees with me -- at the morality of this. Of course we wish to keep the public informed, but not of the names and addresses of the ministers.

One could probably agree with this if the individual members of the cabinet, ho are embarking upon these campaigns, would agree to include them as part of their expenses in the next leadership campaign. But all this points to the need for a change of government in Ontario.

Almost 37 years of rule of this province by the Progressive Conservatives has produced a government now which is extremely arrogant, which feels that it rules by divine right. It has produced a civil service which feels that it must be a part of that government. The civil service has become politicized. They are almost members of the Tory party in many cases, except those exceptions who smuggle those brown envelopes out to the opposition members on occasion. They tell me that does happen.

They have people in virtually every position. If there is to be a fruit inspector in the Niagara Peninsula, he must be a Tory hack to get the job. From the lowest to the highest position we have Tory hacks or, I should say Tory adherents -- to be kind, because some of them are very fine people -- occupying some of these positions. So this government takes a back seat to no government in this country when it comes to political patronage.

5:10 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. Bradley: I now hear the voices of the other members of the coalition speaking.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kingston and the Islands thinks he has a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. I trust the Speaker will allow me to explain what I believe the matter of privilege to be.

The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) just launched an attack, which I felt was unjustified, upon a group of people who are unable to defend themselves in this House, namely, the members of the civil service of this province, many of whom are employed in my ministry. I regard that as an indirect reflection upon myself. I’m the only spokesman those people have in this Legislature.

It was more than an implication. The member opposite stated that the members of the civil service of this province, who are known from coast to coast for their objectivity, their professionalism and their non-involvement in political activity, are in fact partisans associated with this political party. I think, in view of the professionalism of our civil service, that is a very offensive statement.

Although it’s directed to people he claims are associated with my party, I suggest it would be equally offensive -- in fact, I personally think it would be more offensive -- if he were suggesting they were associated with the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Kingston and the Islands in a rather convoluted way has tried to suggest that his privileges as a member of this House were being abrogated because the member for St. Catharines chose to say something about certain members of the public. It’s not the responsibility of the chair to protect everybody whose activities may be called into question in this House.

The member for St. Catharines may have been out of line, but he certainly didn’t abrogate the privileges of the member for Kingston and the Islands. I think I can allow him to continue.

Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may help if all other members would be quiet and listen to what the member for St. Catharines has to say. If the latter directed his remarks to the chair, he would get into fewer difficulties.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, to carry on with another favourite project of the members opposite, that of regional government, I would like to bring up to date members of this Legislature on its lack of success in my area of the province. We have the various chairmen of regional government and those in positions of influence in regional government and those who have vested interests going about the province now telling us what a great job the regional governments are doing. They have a perfect solution.

They know people are concerned about municipal government, that there is duplication of services and that the municipal government doesn’t always respond to their needs. Their solution is easy: abolish the area municipalities and have one big regional government and you solve all the problems. Of course, this is in their own vested interests.

May I suggest -- and I had it on my questionnaire last time -- that the people of this province, and specifically the people in my area, want nothing to do with regional government. They indicated by 80 per cent that they want nothing to do with regional government in my specific area.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) took a similar survey and found it was very unpopular there because there is a lack of commonality of interests among the various municipalities within our region and because regional government is not close enough to the people and lacks financial accountability.

But we have the solution in our area. The regional people say it’s really an identity crisis for which they have a solution: “Let’s build a $5-million palace on the edge of the escarpment, looking over the escarpment, and that will solve all the problems. We’ll have some regional identity then.” The municipal taxpayers’ money, and to a certain extent the provincial taxpayers’ money -- because some of the grants come from this area, although a diminishing amount in terms of percentages -- will end up paying for a palace for the upper echelons of regional government in our area.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Are you suggesting we replace regional government?

Mr. Bradley: I hear interjections from the member for Hamilton Centre. One can well recall when that party used to be in favour of regional government. Some of the strongest proponents of regional government are located in the seats to the left of this party, and one can now determine that they are very concerned about the position they once adopted.

The former member for Niagara Falls, Mr. George Bukator, and the present member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) spoke out against regional government being implemented in the Niagara region. This party moved an amendment that would have delayed its implementation for a year and -- what happens? -- the New Democratic Party and the government, the grand coalition which is now renewed, got together and imposed regional government on people in the Niagara region and we are stuck with it.

We were hopeful that the New Democratic Party, having seen the lack of wisdom in its previous position, would now want to defeat the government that imposed regional government. But, alas, we find that despite the fact the New Democratic Party and its leader have brought forward resolutions of no-confidence in this government, when they knew there wasn’t going to be an election as a result, now, when the chips are on the table, they feel they must prop up the government and become part of the grand coalition.

To save money for the taxpayers of Ontario, I suggest we convert the room downstairs, which is now the NDP caucus room, into some recreational facility and that we have the NDP caucus move into the government caucus room and they have their meetings together.

I could go on at length, and I know that members opposite would want me to do so. But I want to look at a very serious matter. I’m sure all members of this Legislature share a concern about health-care services. We may disagree on the quality of health care that exists in the province. I think we have been proud, as a Legislature and as legislators, that we have had a good health-care system in Ontario. I think all people agree with that. Our concern is that that quality is deteriorating because of the action or lack of action of the members opposite.

We have, for instance, the front-line services which are being cut back. If one asks people who have been in hospital, or those who have had relatives in hospital, about their evaluation of the services they will tell you the technical services are good. They’re glad to have new machinery; they’re glad to have skilled technicians; they’re glad to have skilled medical personnel, but they feel that the real problem exists in terms of the front-line services. The kind of nursing care that used to exist when we had a good number of nurses on each floor has now declined considerably. It’s pretty wall held throughout --

Mr. Eaton: You want to experience it. That is certainly not the case, my friend.

Mr. Bradley: The most partisan member of this House who objects so vehemently over there, and who will not concede anything is wrong, would, if he polled his fellow members in that caucus, recognize that some of them have a concern about the front-line services that exist in health care. We recognize that to a large extent it’s a matter of priorities, of where we’re going to channel the money, but nevertheless that does exist. If the member for Middlesex is not aware that the constituents in his riding, in my riding and in various ridings are concerned about those health-care services --

Mr. Eaton: I can give you first-hand experience over the last two weeks that it’s damned good care.

Mr. Bradley: -- then I say that he’s out of touch with his constituents.

Mr. Nixon: I hope it wasn’t anything more than the member’s tonsils he had out.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: The second matter that members are concerned about is the opting out of OHIP by doctors in Ontario.

In this province we have gone a substantial way to accommodate the wishes of the medical profession in terms of increasing their pay. Some may still contend that for specific services they are not being paid adequately. Nevertheless, there are a large number of people concerned that they have to pay over and above the rather generous rate OHIP pays at the present time.

It is not an easy problem to get out of. We can’t just pass a bill, saying one thing or another, and hope everything is going to turn out all right. If we pass a bill in this Legislature which today or tomorrow forces all doctors into OHIP, we could at that time have a situation where I am certain many of the doctors who are now out would automatically go back in. But we would have to accept at least the short-term consequences of a number of them who would leave this jurisdiction, a number of them in that profession who are very good and whom we would not want to lose.

It seems to me we have to accommodate their wishes in terms of the billing process, which has to be speeded up. I have heard members of all parties talk about this. We have to try to avoid the situation that exists in Saskatchewan, where doctors at the present time are allowed to opt out or have a system of balance billing. It is a problem which must be met head-on by members of this Legislature. It seems to me we have gone part of the way at least in providing some of the funds for those doctors at the present time. We might well have to make certain other concessions.

Of course, the New Democratic Party has a very simple solution to this: simply legislate them all into the plan and all will be fine. If we are going to get them all into the plan, certain of their wishes have to be accommodated in terms of monetary concessions and in terms of the total allocation of money to health care in Ontario, because many of their objections are in the field of the facilities they might have available to them.

There is another area in which we have expressed a good deal of concern. If the New Democratic Party members are very concerned about this, they would no doubt be happy to support the amendment to the speech from the throne which deals with health-care services. We will see then whether they are sincere in their beliefs and their concerns about the degree of deterioration in the health-care system in Ontario, brought about by the members opposite. We will see in their vote in the Legislature next Monday whether they are serious.

We also have the matter of the environment and SCA Chemical Waste Service Incorporated dumping into the Niagara River. We in the official opposition are very concerned about this, and the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) has expressed his concern. We now learn that the government of Ontario -- at least we hear rumours to this effect -- is prepared to provide certain money so that the water source for the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake will be something other than where this is being dumped in.

Instead of standing up to those on the other side of the river who wish to get involved in this dumping situation, they are prepared to say: “Go ahead and dump in the river. We know we can’t object in conscience because of the fact that we have certain of our industries which are not meeting the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment. So go ahead and dump. We won’t object. We will just put a pipe somewhere else to get the water from somewhere else.” That is not satisfactory to those of us in the official opposition.

The other area I would like to touch on concerns the financial management of the regional library system. The members opposite like to say and like to convey around the province the idea that they are the financial managers and that few mistakes are made in terms of managing the finances of this province.

The regional library system in Niagara was allowed to go into debt by some $800,000. The Ministry of Culture and Recreation, which is supposed to be a watchdog and which provides most of the funds for the regional library system, sat idly by, either not allowing about it or not taking the necessary action. The regional library system was able to borrow funds without legal authorization to do so, and yet the Ministry of Culture and Recreation did nothing about this.

This is the government which characterizes itself as a government of careful management of the finances of Ontario.

Interjection.

Mr. Bradley: The newest minister -- of whatever he is minister of now, I don’t know; I can’t keep track of them over there -- the minister of nothing objects, Mr. Speaker. But it is very difficult for him to pass the buck in this case, because the Ministry of Culture and Recreation almost totally funds the regional library system, and has an individual whose responsibility it is to keep track of this and an individual in the ministry who was informed of the problems that existed in the Niagara region for years.

It seems to me the solution is relatively simple: get rid of the regional library system and allow the largest library in the area to carry out the same services which were provided by the regional library system. Many areas in this province now recognize that getting rid of that level of bureaucratic control called the regional library system is a very good solution; it is a very practical one and I think one which will be implemented. I hope the minister sees fit to do so.

I promised certain people in the St. Catharines area I would bring up the issue of Women’s Place, which is a place for battered and abused women in the city of St. Catharines and surrounding area. I attended a testimonial dinner about two weeks ago in honour of Laura Sabia, who was leaving St. Catharines.

Hon. Mr. Pope: No further comment than that?

Mr. Bradley: No. She is leaving to come to the city of Toronto. I found there that the people of St. Catharines and those who attended had done so as a testimony to Mrs. Sabia and the role she has played in our society, but second -- and I believe this was a stipulation of Mrs. Sabia as well -- in recognition of the fact the funds from that dinner would be devoted to Women’s Place, something that is required in our city. I am hopeful the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton), who has indicated he is very concerned about these problems -- and no doubt he does have a sincere and genuine concern about --

Hon. Mr. Norton: You go about the province saying “No new spending” and “No new services,” so make up your mind.

Mr. Bradley: I hope I have the ear of the Minister of Community and Social Services and that instead of interjecting he would listen very carefully to the fact that these people will be approaching his ministry for funding and he may then look upon it with a good deal of consideration.

Mr. Eaton: The member’s leader won’t listen to him; so he wants the minister to.

Mr. Bradley: Another last parochial issue, if I may, is the courthouse in the city of St. Catharines. A new one has been promised since about 1937 and it has now been announced in the city. I notice in the St. Catharines Standard, which is certainly noted for its bipartisan support, that the government members all got credit. The Premier (Mr. Davis) came; we had the Minister of Government Services when that was the Honourable Lorne Henderson; we had about four cabinet ministers, all kinds of pictures in newspapers and so on, and the big announcement that it was going to be built. Of course, I received the usual amount of credit that I receive from the St. Catharines Standard.

Mr. Eaton: Just what you deserve.

Mr. Bradley: A very, very amusing interjection by the member for Middlesex, who seems to be overcome with his own humour.

Nevertheless, what I am proposing in this difficult time in the construction industry in the Niagara Peninsula is that the timetable for this project be accelerated to help in some small way to spur the construction industry. Because it is on the books, it is to be undertaken and is something that is very much required.

In conclusion -- that should bring thumps from the members opposite -- I would say for those of us who have served at the municipal level and those of us who are very non-partisan in our outlook, the adjustment to the provincial Legislature is very difficult. We recognize there is a good deal of partisanship because I suppose that is what makes the headlines around the province. But I am hopeful when it comes down to the crunch, and I think we see this to a certain extent in committees, as members of this Legislature we can solve problems and we can bring our individual points of view to those committees and we can bring about the kind of government through this Legislature that the people of this province seek, the people of my constituency seek and the people of all constituencies seek.

5:30 p.m.

I thank members of this Legislature for their indulgence and you for yours, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to deviate just once in a while from the speech from the throne and its contents, which I thought would have been most suitable to the year 1972.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I think an appropriate comment to you might be to mention in regard to the last speaker, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), that as his former party leader, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), was leaving the House, he mentioned he could no longer stay here and listen to this vicious attack on Mitch Hepburn. Perhaps the member for St. Catharines can find some significance in that.

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I won’t take as long as the last member took. I imagine most members here will find that quite acceptable. I found a number of things in the throne speech that set me off a bit. There was some mention in it about women’s issues, a very brief mention unfortunately. I have just spent some time on the general government committee which was doing the public hearings on Bill 3, the bill of my colleague, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall), on equal pay for work of equal value. As we are well aware, that bill was passed by this House in principle last June. We have completed public hearings and the committee has reported the bill back to the House.

Through the process of those public hearings, it became very clear to me, and I think to most of the members of the committee, including the members to my right, that there is in this province very substantial public support for the fairness in the work place which that legislation implies. Unfortunately, the government in the throne speech made it very clear it had no intention of proceeding with that bill and no intention at all of seeing that the work places in this province can deal with women in the way they deserve in terms of their value in the work place.

The government has made it clear it has no intention of proceeding with that legislation at this point. We in the opposition are very happy to see they are finally committed to seeing that the law that has existed in this province since 1974 will now be effectively enforced. But that doesn’t deal with the issue Bill 3 dealt with and it doesn’t deal with the concern expressed to us in the committee about the value of work as compared to other work. It bothers me that this government is going to try to lose that issue in its albeit welcome effort to enforce existing law, it is going to try to lose another issue in its move to enforce the law that has never been properly enforced in this province.

That brings me to an omission from the throne speech which also bothered me quite substantially. Members may recall that I introduced a bill in the spring, which we debated in the fall, on inclusion of domestic employees in four sections of the Employment Standards Act from which they are now specifically excluded. My bill was defeated. That’s fine and that’s acceptable. But at the time we were led to believe by members of the governing party and by the Minister of Labour himself that one of the reasons they were blocking my bill was they didn’t feel it dealt adequately with the issue; they were having a serious look at the whole problem of domestic employees in Ontario and they intended, probably this spring, to bring in a rather substantial package to deal with the whole question. I find it particularly offensive that those people, who were held out a promise -- as vague as it might have been -- last fall, have been totally ignored in the throne speech and by the present government.

That leads me into several other issues which have been totally omitted from the throne speech and which are issues that have been totally ignored by the party to my right -- the party that’s asking us now to support them in their move to defeat the government next week. For example, I find the omission from the throne speech of any reference to property tax reform in this province to be almost frightening, because some 12 years ago this government -- still the same government -- took on the responsibility of providing property tax reform in Ontario. Some of the problems they have run into in the course of trying to do that, I understand. Other problems, I don’t quite understand. But aside from that -- and the Speaker can probably correct me if I am in error here, because he has been here through the whole period I am talking about -- this is probably the first throne speech in 10 years with no mention of property tax reform whatsoever, none.

I admit that in every throne speech over the past 10 years it hasn’t been laid out in specific or great detail, but at least it has been mentioned as a goal this government was still striving to accomplish, if nothing else. This year it is not mentioned at all, and that concerns me, not only because of the job we set out to do 10 years ago, but also because of a number of things that have happened over the last year or year and a half.

After the then Treasurer, Mr. McKeough, chose in June, 1978, to shelve indefinitely the property tax reform package -- the package that was recommended by the joint provincial-municipal committee -- we were led to believe a number of things were going to happen. One of the things was this equalization program under section 86 of the Assessment Act which has been going on in a number of municipalities.

We now have more than 100 municipalities equalized under section 86. We were led to believe that was part of an ongoing, step-by-step program to deal with property tax reform in a more equitable and phased-in way. Yet we have seen nothing from the government to indicate we are going to go anywhere beyond that particular program. That concerns me, because I said at the outset that section 86 would deal with some problems. I said that section 86 of the Assessment Act would deal with some of the inequities that property taxpayers in this province face, but that in no way -- the minister agreed with me, and the minister still agrees with me; whether he will do it publicly, I am not sure -- in no way is section 86 a solution. It deals with some of the problems and, in fact, creates some new ones we did not have before.

The government in its wisdom has seen that the new problems section 86 creates are less offensive than the problems section 86 will correct, but we are seeing no indication from the government of where it intends to go beyond that program -- and it’s simply not acceptable to stop there.

5:40 p.m.

It also concerns me that there was no mention of property tax reform this year for a number of other reasons. A year ago last fall, an amendment to the Assessment Act was made which in effect freed up the equalization factors in Ontario -- the factors which vary the moneys that come from this province to the municipalities according to their assessment levels. The equalization factors had been frozen for 10 years and were freed by that amendment.

In July 1979, when the new equalization factors were announced, we talked to the government. We talked publicly about the fact that those new equalization factors created a number of new problems that had to be dealt with. Unfortunately, it took the government from July until September to realize there was even a serious problem in rural Ontario, where the problem was evolving. The resulting shifts were from urban municipalities with fairly substantial commercial-industrial bases to rural municipalities, the farm communities and the farm and residential communities, with little or no commercial-industrial bases.

It took the government until well into the fall to realize there was a problem with the new factors, and then it took them several months to try to decide how to deal with the new problems that had been created. They couldn’t come to any definite conclusion as to how best to deal in the long run with those problems. So they announced and implemented what we were told was to be a one-year program of phasing-in, so that no municipality got the full extent of the hardship that would have been created by full implementation without other measures to go with it.

We were led to believe that the phasing-in -- the five per cent limits and the 10 per cent limits, depending on which category you fell into -- was a one-year program; that this year there would be some major new announcements from the government to tell us how they were going to deal with transfer payments, grants to municipalities and the whole question of equalization factors across Ontario. We were led to believe by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and by several others that there would be a whole new major direction. Yet we have absolutely no mention whatsoever of anything in the throne speech. For those reasons, the whole question of what has been left out of the throne speech concerns me greatly.

As the members of the Liberal Party and the government party know well, whether we want to talk about national unity, unemployment or any other issue in this province, one of the very basic aggravating, antagonizing, underlying issues that affects almost every person is property tax reform. It is one of the things that one hears about most at the doors when one is canvassing, it is one of the most universal concerns out there, but there is no mention of where we are going, where we have been and the problems we still have to deal with, never mind the solutions.

I wanted to raise that, because it leads us into another problem that I will mention briefly before I finish, so that others can get on with the things they have to say. Two years ago, in 1978, the then Treasurer, Mr. McKeough, also announced in the budget a new formula for the property tax credit. That formula has never been implemented, because the Treasurer tied it directly to the implementation of property tax reform.

This year in the throne speech there was mention of new financial assistance for seniors. Some in the media and others, even from this House, have speculated that the new financial assistance to seniors will take its form in an increase in the property tax credit. Nobody is going to know for sure until two weeks from today, but I can’t see that, because any increase in the property tax credit will affect more than just seniors. Surely the government in its throne speech would be making that clear. But there is no question that there is a very definite need for a substantial increase in the property tax credit.

I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions about the fact that a few years ago, in 1974, when the present property tax credit program was set up, seniors in this province got all or almost all of their property taxes back from the province -- seniors who have no taxable income; seniors who are living at the base minimum level. All of us know well about those kind of people. They got almost all of the property taxes back at that point, but that is no longer true.

They still get dollars back; no question. But now we are looking at a situation where they are getting somewhere between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of their property taxes back, depending on the area of the province that they happen to live in and the level of property taxes in that area. They are certainly not being assisted to stay in their own homes to the same degree that they were in 1974-75, when the program was first implemented. The same is true, not only for senior citizens, but also for those who are receiving disability pensions from the province or from Canada Pension, those who are under 65 and yet still on fixed incomes at approximately the same inadequate levels as our seniors, and all those people in the low working income tax bracket who used to get all or almost all of their property taxes back in the credit and no longer do.

Then there are people in that whole sector of our middle class who used to get something back, some assistance on the property tax credit in 1974, 1975 and even into 1976, I would guess, who no longer get anything back at all. Yes, their incomes have gone up; so have their property taxes and so certainly have their costs of living -- mortgage cost, food cost, but specifically their property taxes have gone up.

Those people in 1974, 1975 and 1976 who got something back on the Ontario property tax credit, their incomes have gone up, but their relative real position in the economy hasn’t changed. In fact, those in the lower and lower-middle income level actually have lost ground since 1974; they haven’t gained. They have lost ground in terms of their relationship to the real cost of living and to their property taxes. So there is a crying need -- if the property tax credit is to be what it was intended to be in this province -- for revision of that property tax credit upward this year. Yet there is no indication at all that we are going to see that or that the precondition which the government has put on it will fall into place this year either.

Those are the two major areas that concern me most about the throne speech. They concern me most, I suppose, not because they are any more important than some of the other issues that have been talked about but because they are the two major issues for me that I see nobody in this House speaking about -- nobody from the Liberal Party and nobody from the government party either. The throne speech neglects it, the government members who speak to the throne speech neglect it, and I have heard none of the Liberal members mention it. It’s an issue that cannot continue to be ignored.

5:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the first opportunity I have had to address myself to the throne speech since I was first elected in 1975. Since that time there has been a change in the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman of the committees of the Whole House. I would like to pay my respects and to state that all three are doing a fine job. I think some of them might stay there forever, despite the earlier remarks. In my position and in the function I attempt to fulfil, I can say that one appreciates someone who can rule with a firm hand and make decisions stick. We seem to have three people who fill that category.

Mr. Breaugh: Who are they?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: If my friend doesn’t know, he should.

Because I enjoy working closely with the government House leader (Mr. Wells) and the House leaders and chief whips of the opposition parties, I would like to state that I feel we treat these meetings of the House leaders with tender loving care.

The honourable member should come sometime, it might teach him how to run his committee.

I would like to pay tribute to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) -- who I thought would be just dying to be here for my speech, but obviously he’s not -- as well as the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), but neither is here. That’s the one drawback to this whole thing, the fact that the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) is here.

Mr. Conway: Remember when we started out together five years ago on this speech?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: It’s amazing how one will soar ahead and the other just sits back.

I would like, as my colleague did earlier, to make some remarks about my riding of Mississauga East. Many members won’t know where it is, but it’s the gateway to Toronto -- or it’s the place that Toronto is the gateway to; I think that’s probably a better way of putting it. My riding is a comparatively small --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I have difficulty speaking over the uproar, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would have some control over the --

Mr. Speaker: A little while ago you complimented the chair for controlling the House. I don’t know whether I have much control or not. I’ll try it. Order.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, Mississauga East is a comparatively small riding on a geographic basis. The boundaries are the Queen Elizabeth Way on the south, Eglinton on the north, Highway 10 in the west and the Etobicoke Creek. It’s fairly large on a population basis, approaching about 90,000 people at present. By 1985, there should be in the neighbourhood of 100,000 people. It’s a high-density area. About 50 per cent of those people live in other than single-family homes, or in multiple residences, be they rental, condominium or whatever.

It’s a mixed riding in that we do have all the problems that are apparent in an urban riding. Most of them we have been able to solve -- perhaps that speaks highly for the quality of representation in my colleagues from Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) and Mississauga North (Mr. Jones). I hesitate to say anything about myself in that regard. We have, of course, an excellent member on our north in Brampton as well.

The riding in Mississauga East encompasses the former towns of Somerville, Cooksville, Burnhamthorpe and Dixie, which many years past were small rural towns. At that time, there was a population in the area of perhaps 2,500, and one wouldn’t be going back much more than about 35 years to find that. Now the population of Mississauga is approaching 300,000 people. It is a high-growth area. I would like to get into that subject, but I haven’t much time left. I guess I’m going to have to come back tonight.

We are southwest of Toronto International Airport, and this has caused us some problems. Mr. Speaker, you might recall that on December 7, 1978, I presented a private member’s resolution asking that the Ontario government state in no uncertain terms to the Prime Minister of Canada its opposition to the building of any additional runways at the Toronto International Airport.

I did so with the same sense of frustration that has plagued the people of Mississauga, Brampton and Etobicoke during the past eight years, as the member for Humber (Mr. MacBeth) mentioned earlier. As the people of Mississauga and the other municipalities affected by the threat of runway expansion are well aware, five successive federal Ministers of Transport have stated there would be no expansion of runway facilities at the Toronto International Airport, and yet the issue continues to resurface.

The reason the prospect of a fourth runway is of such concern to these citizens is that the necessary flight paths would affect the homes of some 90,000 people. Many of these citizens have lived in their homes for 20 years and more on the assumption of a certain degree of neighbourhood quietude. The construction of a fourth runway would be most hazardous to their health, to say nothing of my health and that of my colleagues.

There can be no question that the matter of a third terminal is a different question. I appreciate that additional terminal requirements will require internal structural changes, parking facilities, baggage handling, ground transportation and traffic management. I do not anticipate any serious objections to any such improvements, provided they are integrated into the present runway system.

The people in Mississauga are the first to recognize the importance of a viable airport in their community. The airport provides direct employment to 12,000 of our citizens and secondary employment to many more thousands. As well, many citizens have chosen to live where they do because of the proximity of the airport. Other citizens work for companies that are located in Mississauga because of the location of the airport.

Last year, Toronto International Airport experienced more than 270,000 flights, or an average of about 740 flights per day. To the citizens living directly under the flight paths, the environmental damage, particularly in the summer when people are outdoors and windows are open, is more than a simple inconvenience. The noise, especially when only one runway is being used for prolonged periods because of wind conditions, is hazardous both to conversation and to one’s nerves.

As we know, the airport is subject to restricted use during the period from midnight to 7 a.m., but many people have noticed that these restrictions are honoured more in the breach than in the observance, with the result that the sleep of many citizens is disturbed.

The airport inquiry commission has stated that, with a fourth runway at the Toronto International Airport, 208,000 people would be affected by noise. The region of Peel estimates that 200,000 people now are affected by noise and with an additional runway another 70,000 would be affected directly and some 30,000 to 50,000 indirectly.

The airport inquiry commission has made it quite clear that Canada has not yet achieved its full potential for air cargo movement. It has also pointed out that we could be making an error in underestimating the possibilities that exist in this area. In the long term, it makes economic sense to undertake the construction of a new airport facility now. It would also mean an additional economic resource for the area in which it is established. Jobs and industry will come with the building of such a facility.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Would this be a good point for the honourable member to move the adjournment of the debate?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the debate was adjourned.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.