The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

BRANTFORD-BRANT ANNEXATION BILL

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to inform the House I will be introducing, later on, an act respecting the city of Brantford, the township of Brantford and the county of Brant. This act contains 21 sections and represents the culmination of literally thousands of man-hours of work by representatives and officials of the city, township, county and my ministry.

It provides for the annexation of 4,000 acres of land to the city now and 600 acres later, the imposition of a moratorium on additional annexations for 23 years and the revision of municipal official plans to ensure the rural nature of the area outside the city. The bill would make unnecessary the consideration of any regional government proposals for the Brantford-Brant area.

Mr. Speaker, that last sentence represents very much the sentiments of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. If any way could be found to achieve this kind of order without regional government, I certainly would be in favour of it.

Mr. Nixon: Finally escaped your net.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The legislation grows from a commitment which I made to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on the first full day in which I held the new portfolio of Intergovernmental Affairs. At that time, I indicated that I recognized that urban-rural boundary disputes represented perhaps the most contentious and divisive issue facing local government, and I pledged to work with the municipalities to find an alternative method of dealing with these issues.

The members are all familiar with the difficulties presented by contested annexations and the legacy of bitterness, expense and continued dispute which arise from Ontario Municipal Board hearings on these subjects. Throughout the last half of 1978 and the first half of 1979 the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario and the Rural Ontario Municipal Association worked closely together to develop a proposed new approach to handling boundary disputes. In August 1979, these combined associations presented to me a proposal to apply labour-management bargaining techniques to boundary problems.

Immediately thereafter, and exactly one year after the creation of this ministry, I was able to announce a pilot project to implement the essence of the proposed new approach. The area where I proposed that this method be tested had perhaps the longest and one of the most complicated histories of intermunicipal disputes of any part of this province. The history of difficulties between the city of Brantford and its neighbours presented an intimidating background for the pilot project. We reasoned that if this process could work in Brantford-Brant, it could work in most other parts of the province. After some discussions, the city of Brantford, the township of Brantford and the county of Brant agreed to enter this process and to undertake to pioneer a new approach to solving boundary problems.

At this point I want to commend the municipal leaders in the city of Brantford, the township of Brantford and the county of Brant for their courage and foresight. These municipal leaders recognized that their responsibility to the residents of the city, township and county transcended the gamesmanship of legal battle. It is a testimony to the dedication and wisdom of our municipal counterparts that these representatives persevered to produce a comprehensive and complex agreement on issues which had frustrated and baffled their predecessors.

The act which I am introducing today implements the agreement arrived at through the Brantford-Brant local government pilot project. It contains some provisions unprecedented in Ontario’s history. Foremost among these are the mechanisms designed to ensure that the settlement is enduring. It was obvious to all parties that a simple redrawing of the city of Brantford’s boundary was not going to solve the basic problem facing the area. The county and township required some assurance that in a few months or years the city would not again embark on an annexation exercise. The city required some assurance that the township and county would not allow substantial urbanization immediately beyond any new boundary. The mechanisms found to provide these assurances are contained in the bill.

2:10 p.m.

With the agreement of the city, this act provides that no further annexations of lands in the township of Brantford may take place prior to the year 2004 without the agreement of the township so long as urban development does not occur on the city’s borders. The act also provides, with the agreement of the township and county, that an area surrounding the city will be preserved for primarily rural uses. All parties were very conscious of the need to provide an opportunity for land owners to express their views on this and other planning arrangements, and the act therefore provides for the completion of new official plans in relatively short order and the appointment of hearing officers to hear representations on these plans. Subsection 4(1) of the act provides legislative guidance to those hearing officers and the Lieutenant Governor in Council who will consider their report.

The other interesting feature of the Brantford-Brant agreement reflected in this act is the provision for arbitration of certain matters which may remain in dispute despite the attempts of all parties to agree. The councils of the three municipalities have agreed that, where they fail to reach agreement on these subsidiary issues, they will appoint an arbitrator and be bound by the arbitrator’s decision. Through this mechanism, cost sharing, servicing and other matters will be resolved.

This bill puts in legislative form an agreement that has been public since April 2, 1980, and has been very widely discussed locally. Therefore, I believe extensive opportunity for public input has already been provided. I understand all three municipalities are very anxious that this bill receive third reading before the Legislature recesses this spring to allow sufficient time to prepare for the municipal elections in the fall.

Finally, I want to say a personal word of thanks to Reeve Bob Kennedy, who is in the gallery today, and Alderman David Neumann and all the other municipal councillors, aldermen and staff who worked so hard to make this day possible for the people of the Brantford-Brant area.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the presence in our gallery of distinguished visitors. The first one is the Honourable Brian Smith, who is the Minister of Education for British Columbia. On the other side of our gallery are Mr. and Mrs. Robert Fordham from Melbourne, Australia. Mr. Fordham is the deputy leader of the Labour Party for Victoria. Would you please welcome them?

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO WINES

Mr. Nixon: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker; I did not hear you call the next order of business --

Mr. Speaker: I did not.

Mr. Nixon: -- but I am glad to direct a question to the Treasurer concerning the expected revenues on the basis of sales tax imposed on Ontario-produced wines. Is he aware of the fact that the government policy imposing the sales tax on the newly elevated base wine price is expected to increase the revenue to the province on locally made wines from $9 million to $25 million? Because of the impact on this high revenue requirement, it is expected that sales and the development of the market will lag substantially. There is a clear prediction that about 3,000 acres of grapes in the Niagara Peninsula may go out of production because of this unwarranted financial policy.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact figures on the increase in revenue for Ontario. I am not sure those figures are correct; they are larger than the ones I first saw.

I was quite aware, when both the government of Mr. Clark and the government of Mr. Trudeau made the increase in their tax rate on all wines, that there would be an increase in revenue to Ontario. Our percentage is added to the cost of wines after all federal taxes are applied.

In terms of the effect upon the marketplace for Ontario wines, one of the things I have been delighted with is the fact that over the past few years our deliberate policy of having a lower markup for Ontario wines -- 58 per cent, or somewhere around there, against 123 per cent on foreign wines -- stimulated the sale of Ontario wines very greatly.

The second factor is that quality has improved through the use of hybrid grapes and different techniques. I am told this has increased the demand for Ontario grapes to the point where the wine industry has to request extra importation of foreign grapes simply because there are not enough of our own to fill the demand.

This would belie the point the honourable member made.

Mr. Nixon: Is the minister aware that the benighted policy introduced by the previous federal Conservative government, and unfortunately not yet reversed by the present government, is going to change the excise revenue from about $12 million to $35 million, and at the same time Ontario is going to have this windfall of about $16 million? This is going to knock the industry on the head unless the Treasurer takes good, progressive liberal action to assist them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I always was of the opinion that, when a party won an election, it had the right to change the policies of the party it defeated. The Liberal government came in and immediately accepted them.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, in spite of this action by the Liberal government in Ottawa to continue this policy, which will destroy some of the farmers in the Niagara Peninsula, and because of the massive unemployment we have there now which will be aggravated both in the fields and in the wine industry, will the Treasurer consider revising the markup on Ontario wines still further so they will not be at a greater disadvantage with the foreign wines?

Hon. F. S. Miller: They are not at a disadvantage with the foreign wines. The percentage markup on Ontario wines is not quite half the markup on imported wines. If the honourable member will recall, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations which were concluded a year ago required Ontario to take no action that would increase the differential between foreign wines and our wines. That was one of the tradeoffs that was made on the international scene -- and not by this government, I assure the member.

The question that precipitated all this discussion by the acting Leader of the Opposition makes me realize he has learned a bit from Mr. MacEachen, the successor to Mr. Crosbie, who said he wanted to remove any doubts the world might have had about the budget brought in by Mr. Crosbie; therefore, he would announce those parts of it he was adopting. What the member opposite nicely did was to take a Liberal move and blame me for it. A very neat trick.

Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, instead of paying lipservice to agricultural land preservation in the province, will the Treasurer do something real and roll back the $16 million in excess revenues the province is going to get because of this situation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: When I have a surplus in my budget, I will be glad to consider those things.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, considering that the federal and provincial tax value of an acre of grapes is $8,500, or 1,000 per cent on the value to the grower, which is about $800 an acre, why does this government use the agricultural industry to pay for its poor planning and deficit financing? Will the Treasurer review the provincial markup to keep that 3,000 acres in production?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, I will be glad to get some advice from my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson). Four or five years ago there really was a problem of oversupply of grapes and juice. I am sure the members realize that at one point this province bought a lot of juice.

Mr. Nixon: What happened to the surplus?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We allowed it to ferment. The members opposite had a party and that solved the whole darn issue. That’s it: Three caucus parties and it was gone.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say that my information right now is simply that there is not a surplus of grape production for wine use. I will be glad to hear from my colleague if I am wrong, and, as Treasurer, I could easily be. In any event, I know there is shortage of certain kinds of grapes.

GRANT TO RACING CAR DRIVER

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Can he report to the House that he has received an apology from Maurice Carter after the unfortunate comments he made in Europe about his views pertaining to the German people? If he has not received the apology, and even if he has, can he announce that the province is withdrawing sponsorship of his racing endeavours and that we are going to get the $15,000 back?

Applause.

Mr. Speaker: Thumping of desks is not allowed in the Isle of Man either.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I give the House some information on all those counts. First, we have received an apology from Mr. Carter expressing his regrets, indicating that his remarks were ill chosen and should not have been made, and regretting the embarrassment caused to himself, to Canada and to all his supporters, including this government and his 12 private-sector supporters.

Second, I should indicate to the House that at the press conference at which Mr. Carter made these comments, he was accompanied by federal government officials at our Paris office --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Wait until I finish. At that time the representatives of the federal government of Canada, the Liberal federal government of Canada, indicated they were going to join in sponsoring this vehicle to the tune of some $5,000. I am sure the federal government joins me in totally dissociating itself, this government, myself and the people of Ontario from Mr. Carter’s remarks. I am pleased that the federal government has joined us in a clearly nonpartisan attempt to gain publicity for the auto industry in this province.

Mr. Nixon: Would the minister not agree that the words of the apology should be made public and could very properly be tabled in this House? And would he indicate whether we are getting the $15,000 back? Echoing the minister’s response, is his party withdrawing any further support of the PC candidacy of Mr. Carter in the future?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As Minister of Industry and Tourism, I am not responsible for deciding who shall run for this party.

As to the $15,000, in view of the apology -- which I will attempt to have cabled to us tomorrow -- I think it appropriate to take advantage of this important opportunity to get Ontario’s auto industry advertised and publicized throughout Europe.

I should say to the House that I look at it -- as does the federal government, I believe -- as an opportunity to get a lot of advertising space similar to, for example, buying --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr Grossman: I am sure the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) can tell his brother, whose government is joining and supporting us.

I only say that I look at it as very similar to buying advertising space -- which we would do if we could -- on hockey boards for international tournaments. It is an important opportunity for this government to be aggressive and dynamic in promoting Ontario and our auto industry specifically.

Whether there was one Canadian car or five, and whether we had the opportunity to support more than one car or not, the basic question is, are we going to take advantage of the unique opportunity to get some unusual and rather inventive publicity? We are going to take advantage of that.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary about this matter coming from the only party left, it seems, which does not support Mr. Carter financially.

In view of the half-hearted apology from this fellow, who is clearly a Tory hack and a self-admitted bigot, will the minister not rethink his position and state that the people of Ontario deserve to get that $15,000 back? If we cannot get the money back, the name of Ontario should not appear on that car, because it is advertising for bigotry. The people of Ontario do not believe in that and they are offended by Mr. Carter. They are certainly offended by the minister’s response in this situation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think it is a bit of an overstatement to suggest that car represents bigotry and that this government is supporting bigotry. Those are ill-chosen words by the honourable member. I understand and share his concern with regard to the statements made. The member is also free to make allegations that are totally incorrect such as that this involves patronage.

Mr. M. N. Davison: That is patronage.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why doesn’t he let me finish? As I have indicated quite clearly, we would take this opportunity, as the federal government apparently has, to support a racing car at Le Mans to get Ontario’s name on it, regardless of who was driving the car. In point of fact we did it, despite the fact I obviously knew the fact it was driven by a former Conservative candidate would attract some publicity and leave us open to that allegation. I had to make a judgement that I should run that political risk if I thought the move we were making was the right move in terms of promoting Ontario.

I respect the honourable member’s right to take the view that it is a matter of patronage, which it is not. I respect his right to suggest that we get the $15,000 back. I do not happen to take that position. I respect his right to take that position. I do take great offence at him going to the extreme to suggest that this government in any way is supporting bigotry. I think those are ill-chosen words, not appropriate to this assembly.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate to this House whether he has personally spoken to Mr. Carter during the last few months with respect to the $15,000 that his ministry has given to Mr. Carter? Second, did he give an ultimatum to Mr. Carter either to give the $15,000 back or to apologize publicly to the people of Ontario and particularly to those of German descent with respect to Mr. Carter’s unfortunate remarks?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have not discussed the matter with Mr. Carter myself. The only discussion I have had with him was simply shaking his hand and wishing him well about a week and a half ago. That was the entire extent of my conversations with Mr. Carter on this transaction.

With regard to the apology, I can say I have not spoken to him myself. My staff has assured me that he has issued that apology and regrets what he said. I can only assure the member and all members of the House, as well as the people of Ontario, that we all disassociate ourselves from those comments which I am told Mr. Carter too has disassociated himself from and withdrawn.

2:30 p.m.

I should add, to put it in full perspective, that there are all sorts of instances where this government and other governments send people on trade missions and promote all sorts of industries with government funds. Unquestionably there are all sorts of them, I am sure, who say things from time to time that reflect poorly on Canada, and whose comments no doubt are as improper as Mr. Carter’s were in this instance. Unfortunately, this happens to be one in which it received an extraordinary amount of publicity, and understandably so.

In all those other instances, which do not come to public attention so easily and readily, it is stretching it a bit to suggest that we should ask for a refund of all plane tickets for everyone who goes on a trade mission and says something outrageous, inappropriate and wrong, as Mr. Carter has. I wish there were a way we could stop all that but, as is the case with every government, there just is not.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, can the minister for once stand on his feet and respect the feelings of people who understand there is something that is called human rights and something that is called business? Can he state that the government of this province condemns this code of “hate on the basis of race”? By dissociating himself only in words with Mr. Carter, the minister is not doing any service to the minority groups in this province on whom these remarks have a devastating effect. Unless he makes an exemplary decision, making clear that his government does not want to have anything to do with Mr. Carter, then he is becoming indirectly an accomplice of Mr. Carter’s.

We know we have to live with the Carters and Havrots --

Hon. Mr. Walker: Withdraw that statement.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Shame.

Mr. Di Santo: We know we have to live with the Carters and the Havrots of the Conservative Party, but at least once the minister should make up his mind and say that he stands for human rights.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Sit down.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Withdraw that statement. Be a man some time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to repeat what I said earlier, that the honourable member may make any suggestions he wants with regard to whether this was an appropriate place for us to advertise the province and the auto industry. What he is not going to do is lecture this party or this government, which has at least as long a history as any other government, as any other party, when it comes to the question of multiculturalism and human rights.

This government was legislating human rights long before any other government the honourable member can name. This government has been more outspoken on the question of human rights -- I can take the member right across the whole arena of human rights -- long before any other government was. For the honourable member to make points like that, for whatever personal reasons he has, I suggest is exactly the kind of situation that causes all the kinds of unrest and misunderstanding that this government has fought long before his party was attempting to get in the forefront on those issues.

I am not going to stand here and listen to the honourable member make such a suggestion about this party and this particular member -- with the background that this member and his family have in multicultural and human rights matters in this province. I am not going to take that sort of accusation from that party.

I say to the honourable member: Save it for the election campaign. Don’t mistreat the ethnic people of this province by slurring them and this institution in that way. The honourable member should be ashamed of himself. He should stick to the raw economic politics of it, and not take it into the sewers.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if the statement of the minister is to be believed, he has no choice but to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the member prepared to ask a new question?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I am.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier about 333,000 unemployed people in the province, and I want to suggest to the Premier all of those 333,000 people need the $15,000 a lot more than Maurice Carter.

Is the Premier aware that, contrary to his statement on Tuesday, only 22,000 new jobs have been created in Ontario between May 1979 and May 1980? At that rate it would take 16 years to wipe out unemployment in the province, assuming there were not a single new entrant into the labour force during that 16 years. Given the concern of the province over unemployment now, and given the concern of the labour movement, which they intend to share with the Premier and his colleagues at a meeting later today, can the Premier explain why there is no plan coming from this government to create jobs in Ontario and why there is no plan to build a strong industrial economy for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the honourable member without provoking him unnecessarily. I think if he checks the figures very carefully in what I said on Tuesday --

Mr. Laughren: The Premier used misleading figures.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo). I am prepared to have a little give and take, and I understand that. But when the member for Nickel Belt accuses me of misleading the House, then I would like to know how. I would like him to explain where I deliberately misled this House, because I never have since I have been a member, which is 21 years as of yesterday.

Mr. Laughren: I would be glad to explain, Mr. Speaker, because I said the Premier was --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I don’t want you to explain why you said what you said. If you accused another member of misleading this House, you will withdraw it.

Mr. Laughren: If I might respond, Mr. Speaker. May I respond?

Mr. Speaker: If you said somebody misled this House, I don’t want an explanation as to why you said it; I want you to withdraw it.

Mr. Laughren: May I explain?

Mr. Speaker: If that is what you said, withdraw the remark.

Mr. Laughren: I said that the Premier used misleading figures. I did not say he misled the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of order: I heard the member from here, and I know he didn’t mean it.

Mr. Laughren: That’s exactly what I said.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He said I misled the House.

Mr. Speaker: Is the honourable member saying he did not say that someone else was misleading the House?

Mr. Laughren: That is what I am saying.

Mr. Speaker: The member didn’t say it.

Mr. Laughren: I did not say it. I said he was using misleading figures.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question and immediately apply for a hearing aid, but I have to tell you -- I won’t pursue it.

My recollection is --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Come on, Magna Carta, relax.

Mr. Warner: Why are you so uptight?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not uptight at all.

Mr. Warner: You should be; there are a lot of people out of work.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Although I must say I think the member for Downsview has given me sufficient reason to be upset from one of his observations.

Dealing with the question, my recollection as to what I said on Tuesday last was that during 1979 this province, not the government, had been successful in the creation of some 160,000 new job opportunities in the province. I think members will find the figures will stand up. I am talking about 1979; I am not talking about May 1980.

Mr. Laughren: And used misleading figures.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right; listen to what I say. If the member is going to accuse me of misleading the House, he should understand what he understands by what I said. That will require a little bit of concentration on his part.

2:40 p.m.

I would also say to the honourable member that, in terms of creation of job opportunities, this government has done very well. I do not want to keep repeating it, but I am going to repeat it. I am also going to say it to the members of the Ontario Federation of Labour who will be seeing me at 4:30 this afternoon. This government has moved to assist the pulp and paper industry to provide security of job opportunities; we have done it in the automotive industry. The members of that party have been unalterably opposed to it. They have tried to inhibit or impede every single opportunity we have had as a government to create employment. They have done it in the housing industry. They do it with respect to the Ottawa courthouse. How many jobs, how soon, could we get with the Ottawa courthouse if they weren’t unalterably opposed to its construction? The leader and his party have opposed --

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Premier must stop that kind of distortion in this Legislature. I don’t think members of this House should have to accept fabrications and distortions coming from the Premier of this province. I think the Premier does himself and his party a disservice --

Mr. Speaker: Order. This place is getting out of hand. You know, as leader of a party, that you cannot deliberately stand there and accuse another member of fabrication.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: You will withdraw that comment.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment. Would the Speaker kindly ask the Premier to withdraw his misstatements of fact? I have supported and support the courthouse in Ottawa. The other figures and statements he was making were also wrong. The Premier should withdraw. This should not be a one-sided thing, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, in the light of what the member has said, the Premier has clearly misrepresented the position of the member for Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I won’t prolong the debate on the courthouse. I am quite prepared to acknowledge that the leader of the New Democratic Party is in favour of the ultimate construction of the Ottawa courthouse --

Mr. Cassidy: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. Make him withdraw as well, with no explanations. Make him withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What do I withdraw?

Mr. Martel: Make him withdraw categorically. You set the rules.

Mr. Speaker: Do you want to come up here? Do you want to come up here? I can delegate you or deputize you right now.

Mr. Martel: I might as well. The rules should be applied in the same way --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Premier clearly said that the member was opposed to the construction of the Ottawa courthouse, and obviously that is not in keeping with the facts.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I started to say, before the honourable member got so indignant, and I am saying, the honourable member is not in opposition to the construction of the Ottawa courthouse.

Mr. Martel: Period. Period.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Period. Period. It is also factually correct --

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: When you asked my colleague from Nickel Belt to withdraw and the leader of this party to withdraw, they could not try to elaborate on why they were prepared to withdraw. Either they withdrew or they didn’t. The Premier should be not allowed any further comments.

Mr. Speaker: I have never been accused of having defective hearing. I have a lot of other deficiencies but they are not associated with hearing. I clearly heard the Premier say: “I admit that the member for Ottawa Centre is not in opposition to the building of the courthouse.” Does the Premier have a further response to the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there is anything inappropriate in my acknowledging that the honourable member is not opposed to the ultimate construction. But I was making the point that I have listened to the members opposite with respect to many projects in terms of construction, in terms of development, in terms of support to the automotive industry, in terms of support to the pulp and paper industry. All of those things, we have done. It is not misleading the House to remind the public of Ontario that the New Democratic Party has been fundamentally opposed to all of those incentive programs. It’s true.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would ask the Premier to withdraw that comment as well. I would point out quite explicitly that the New Democratic Party has supported some of the programs of assistance that have been proposed, provided there was equity for the people of Ontario and provided other conditions that were accepted by the people of this province were imposed. We are not fundamentally opposed to those. The Premier should withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is just getting a little bit ridiculous. There is obviously a difference of opinion.

Mr. Cassidy: No, Mr. Speaker. He is misleading --

Mr. Speaker: There is clearly a difference of opinion. You do not have a point of privilege or a point of order. Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier what action he is taking so that Ontario, in conjunction with Canada, will not be importing 1,000 to 1,200 specially trained workers from Europe, and instead will be able to train our people to take these jobs and once and for all rely on our education system rather than on immigration to staff those important jobs in our industry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought I had partially answered that on Tuesday when I was replying to a question, I think, from the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman), who I think asked a similar question. I was relating it to a particular situation in the city of Windsor, because I was drawing on a little experience from what the community group was doing in the great region of Peel with respect to the facilities. That is how the question emerged.

I would only say to the honourable member that, through the Ministry of Education, through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, through the private sector, through these various community organizations that have been established, these kinds of training programs not only have been introduced but also they are well under way. I am relatively confident we can meet the manpower requirements in most areas over the next couple of years.

Mr. Cassidy: I hope the Premier will answer my initial question, which is why there has been no plan from the government to create jobs and to build a strong industrial economy in the province of Ontario.

Is the Premier aware that over the year from May 1979 to May 1980 there has been a loss of 39,000 jobs among male workers in Ontario? Therefore, since it is mainly males who work in industry, this is a symptom of the sickness of the industrial economy of the province.

Is the Premier also aware that contrary to what he said on Tuesday, it is not just the automobile industry, but that in the machinery industry today we are running a $5-billion trade deficit and we have fewer jobs than in 1974, and in the electrical products industry we are also running with fewer jobs than we were running with in 1974?

Will the Premier answer my question of why have we not got a program from this government to build a strong industrial economy which will serve the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not want to upset my friend again, but I do have to go back, because this government has had policies to build one of the strongest manufacturing or industrial economies anywhere in this country. I will review them again without being provocative and without indicating that the New Democratic Party was not in support of them, and they do relate to the Employment Development Fund.

We can debate whether or not we should have equity, but I have not yet heard the leader of the NDP say, in this House or elsewhere, that we were wise in assisting the pulp and paper industry, or that we were wise in supplying or guaranteeing $10 million to Chrysler Canada. He was critical of what we did for Ford. He has been critical of every employment incentive program because he happens to have a philosophical view about equity.

But I think it ill behooves the member to get up here and say he would have been supportive if we had done it the way he wanted to do it. We happen to believe in the approach we are taking. It makes sense. We disagree. He should not suggest that on one hand he is supporting us, but on the other hand he is not because we are not doing it the way he suggests. That is ridiculous.

If the honourable member takes the employment figures, the job growth, the demographics in terms of the makeup of the population and the rate of inflation, he will find that this province compares favourably with any state of the union, and with every Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development country with the exception of Japan. We have done a better job.

2:50 p.m.

There is a strong industrial base. It is at this moment under pressure, primarily because of issues that the honourable member will not even debate -- primarily because of inflation; that is one of the governing factors, along with the increase in the price of energy which our friends in the Liberal Party would have go to world price. As a result of the recession in the United States, there is no question the manufacturing sector in this province is affected because of our exports to the United States. This government takes no responsibility for the economy of our American neighbours. The member can talk about branch plants all he wants.

Mr. Foulds: Do you take responsibility for your own economy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly we do, and we have discharged it very well. We have discharged our responsibilities in this province related to our economy, our social programs, any program the member may wish to mention, in a way he won’t find done in any other comparable jurisdiction.

I would say to the member for Port Arthur, if he really did not believe that himself -- well, I won’t; it would be provocative, what I was going to say next. But that happens to be the reality.

We know there are economic problems but nothing proposed by the New Democratic Party or the member for Ottawa Centre, in terms of specifics or philosophy, would in any way improve the economic life of this province. If anything, it would diminish it. It would limit opportunity; it would limit the rights of individuals to free choice in terms of economic growth. That is the direction that party would like to take us. We are opposed to it and we are prepared to do battle on that issue at any time.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the little homily given to us by the Premier and one of the comments he made about things being well in Ontario for the next few years, and in the light of the comment of the federal Minister of Labour to me a week or so ago, in which he indicated he was not sure who in Ontario had the handle on manpower and that they were anxious to start renegotiating the federal-provincial manpower agreement which expires in 1981, can the Premier tell us what Ontario is doing to renegotiate that agreement for next spring?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am a great friend of the former Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia. I know that as a new federal minister of the crown, it will take him a day or two yet to understand how federal-provincial relations work when one happens to be on the other side of the bargaining table. He was very good when he was on the premiers’ side.

Mr. Van Horne: It happens to be Mr. Axworthy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect to Mr. Axworthy, if he does not know with whom to communicate, then that is a horrible confession to make on his part. I know with whom I communicate. I know where I can get answers. If Mr. Axworthy cannot, it is only because he has not made the effort.

Mr. Speaker, the honourable member said the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Van Horne: There are two ministers -- the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. There are two.

Mr. Foulds: That is the Liberal policy. There are two positions for the Liberals on every question.

IRON ORE DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Cassidy: I shall talk to my friend from Victoria, Australia, Mr. Speaker, after this question period, to see what he thinks of the Ontario Legislature. He will tell me the Liberals in Australia are almost as bad as the Liberals in Ontario.

I have a new question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker, a question about the specifics of the strategy for jobs that we need in the province. Now that the federal government has announced that it intends to do what this government has steadfastly refused to do and call in the steel companies to discuss the sourcing of their iron ore supplies in Canada rather than buying them from the United States, will the government of Ontario seek to participate in those meetings? We have lost fully 41 per cent of the jobs -- 1,525 jobs -- in the iron ore mining industry over the course of the last couple of years. What policies will the government advocate in those discussions if it joins in with them with the steel companies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to read in the press that the government of Canada was taking an interest in this matter.

Mr. Makarchuk: They were asked by Bob Rae to take an interest.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have been asked a number of things by Bob Rae over the years. Some I have agreed to, some I did not, as he will tell the member if he ever talks to him.

I will be interested in seeing what those discussions may or may not produce. I would only say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that this government --

Ms. Gigantes: You will be monitoring them with concern.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to pay as much attention to the member for Carleton East as I can.

I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party, we have already had the kind of discussions I expect are going to take place. I can assure the honourable member, if anything new emerges in the discussions between the federal officials and the steel companies of this province that we were not aware of, I am sure they will inform us. My guess is the conversations will be substantially the same and the discussions and arguments will be the same as we have already had in this House over the past two or three weeks.

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier says there have been discussions with the steel companies. When did those discussions take place? What did the government urge the steel companies to do to restore employment after the loss of 1,500 jobs in the iron ore industry? Have the steel companies undertaken to take any such action?

Is the government prepared to act in concert with the federal government to work out a strategy to ensure that the eight or nine million tons of ore per annum the steel companies will need in new ore in the 1980s will come from Canada rather than from the United States?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would suggest to the honourable member that he review very carefully the lengthy, comprehensive and, I think, intelligent statement made by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) on this subject. If he has any questions related to that statement, I would be delighted to have the Minister of Natural Resources answer them. This whole matter was discussed some two weeks ago.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, the Premier said a few moments ago that he would do battle on this issue, probably for the election this fall. If he has a crash program to give employment to our people, why does he not get it in motion now and save four months’ lead time down the way and not give us a bunch of fairy tales about what he is going to do for the people of Ontario?

Why does he not put the program into motion right now, if he has a program?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member, as is not his custom, was not listening to my answer. That is unusual for him. I would only say to him that if there is anyone who knows about fairy tales, it may be him; it is not me.

I would also say to him that I said to the leader of the New Democratic Party any time he wanted to have a contest relative to his philosophical approach to economic issues, such as the nationalization of the resource industry --

Mr. Sargent: We were talking about jobs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. If the member would only listen, we were talking about the New Democrats’ solution to the economic problems of the world, and that was to nationalize everything that lives and breathes. They would socialize the world if they had their way. That is what I was saying to the member for Ottawa Centre. I will fight him on that issue any time.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier where in our party policy he can find that we are going to nationalize the world. Aside from that, and in conjunction --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I acknowledge I exaggerated on that situation.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: I have a question about the Premier’s first supplementary answer regarding the composition of the ores. Since Inco has not had a problem since 1959 in selling its pellets, since we have done some checking which indicates that any blast furnace in this province can take three per cent to seven per cent nickel, and since the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources confirms they can take that amount, is the Premier prepared to admit that the real problem is that the steel industry in Ontario is locked into the mines they own in the United States, and the reason for the cutback has nothing to do with the quality of the ores but with where they have invested their dollars?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the minister made it quite clear that there were several things. It was not just the quality of the ore or the kind of ore, though that was a substantial part of it. I heard it very clearly when he said it.

3 p.m.

CAR FUEL SAVINGS INCENTIVES

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. Since most of the automobile industry in Canada is in Ontario, I would ask the Treasurer whether he is aware of a bill at present before the House ways and means committee in the United States that will provide a boost to the ailing auto industry by awarding a $500 income tax credit to purchasers of specific automobiles that have demonstrated improved fuel efficiency.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was pleased to receive the copy the honourable member sent me showing the proposed changes in the United States. They are of great interest, and since about 80 per cent or so of our production goes there, I rather hope they do it.

Mr. Ruston: A supplementary: Since we are all so interested in improving our own sales, I would ask the Treasurer to consider the main aspect of the bill, and that it is restricted to products from companies whose overall fuel economy average for passenger cars in the model year 1979 equals or exceeds 120 per cent of the average fuel economy for 1974. Therefore, it favours Canadian and American cars and very few imports, but still does not exclude the imports.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I admire the dexterity of the person who drafted the proposal. It is a neat way of having your cake and eating it too.

HOUDAILLE INDUSTRIES

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier concerning the closing of Houdaille Industries of Canada Limited in Oshawa, which virtually completes the annihilation of anything other than the General Motors of Canada Limited production facility there, and brings our job loss total to more than 3,000 since January. Specifically, is the Premier aware of the allegations of a kickback from Ford Motor Company to KKR, the current owners of Houdaille Industries, that was somewhere in the order of $4 million to get out of an $8-million order for bumpers with Houdaille Industries?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have heard nothing about it other than the suggestion, I phrase it that way, from the honourable member as of this moment, which I am sure he is prepared to document.

Mr. Breaugh: A supplementary: In regard to that, will the Premier attempt to get the details of that agreement between Ford and Houdaille Industries? Has he done a costing arrangement of the tax write-offs and tax exemptions that the government has given to that plant over the last five-year period? Would he table for us his comments on the Foreign Investment Review Agency review that allowed KKR to take over Houdaille Industries just last year?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We do not table the comments to FIRA, but any other information that is in the public domain I will be delighted to get. I am sure the honourable member, on the basis of what he has said, must have some documentation to make the kind of statement he did. I just wish he would share that with me as well.

Mr. Breaugh: One final supplementary: Will the Premier share with us what it is he is doing to save those 700 jobs at Houdaille Industries in Oshawa, or is he doing anything except advertising on Maurice Carter’s Camaro these days?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understood the honourable member to say something about kickbacks to somebody or other, and I assume he knew something about this that I do not know. All I am asking is for him to provide me with that information.

USE OF DRUG DEPO-PROVERA

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question posed by the honourable member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) approximately a week ago, I believe, I am now prepared to answer that question. It is related to the use of Depo-Provera and its administration in provincial facilities under my jurisdiction.

This drug is an injectable progestational agent which has been approved worldwide for noncontraceptive gynaecological purposes and, in some 80 countries, for contraceptive as well as gynaecological purposes.

In Canada and the United States, the drug has been approved to treat functional menstrual disorders, and in the palliative care of those terminally ill with uterine cancer. It has been available for clinical use in Canada since the mid-1960s. Representatives from Canada’s health protection branch, in discussions held with my ministry’s consulting staff, have indicated their support for our approach to the administration of this drug.

The use of Depo-Provera began some 10 or 11 years ago in facilities for the mentally retarded, and has been used to treat functional menstrual disorders and to suppress menstruation. I am advised that it is prescribed for use by the facility or community physicians only, and in approximately half of our 17 government-operated facilities. Our last survey indicated there were in the order of 225 cases under treatment in the facilities across the province. I would point out that the drug is available for use by the general public when prescribed and administered by their personal physicians.

In selected cases where deemed appropriate by our consulting gynaecologists, the drug has been used to suppress menstruation in seriously and profoundly retarded women, where personal hygiene presents a significant problem. This is always done on a written order by an attending physician, usually supported by a gynaecological consultation as well and a recommendation, and the use is closely monitored thereafter.

The individuals being treated are significantly retarded, handicapped to a degree that they are unable to care for their personal hygiene during menstruation, or incapable of being trained to do so. In fact, they are often very disturbed and agitated during menstruation. Depo-Provera has been of great benefit in these situations.

Very close medical supervision has revealed no significant risks in the use of the drug. It should be emphasized that the drug is not used in any of our facilities for contraceptive purposes or as an alternative to sterilization, for example.

With respect to the side effects cited by the member for Oshawa, I am advised there is no conclusive clinical evidence to support the allegation that it is harmful to humans. The concern with this product stems from an earlier study on a specific animal species -- I believe beagle puppies -- wherein cancer of the breast was discovered. However, it is also pointed out that life-long studies on other animal species have produced no evidence to support the statement that it induces any cancer activity.

In summary, it is the opinion of my ministry’s consulting staff that this drug is an extremely safe product which has been used in a small number of facilities under very strict supervision of consulting gynaecologists. There have not been, to our knowledge, any untoward complications over the years and therefore no reports of adverse reactions have been sent to the health protection branch.

However, in view of the concern raised in the House, I have directed my senior staff in the ministry to make the necessary arrangements, such that a full and complete review and evaluation will be undertaken of all individuals being treated within the facilities for the mentally retarded. Such a review will include an exhaustive search for any possible side effects detrimental to the health, safety or the wellbeing of an individual, in addition to an examination of the need for consent. I have asked that this comprehensive review be completed by the fall of this year.

UNIVERSITY ENROLMENT

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister agree with Dr. Arthur Bourns, president of McMaster University, who said recently that limits may have to be placed on enrolments at certain Ontario universities so that smaller universities will be able to survive, in view of the declining enrolment that is now hitting secondary education and will most certainly hit post-secondary educational institutions within the next few years?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I have heard that kind of remark from my friend the president of McMaster University. It certainly is a departure from any of the concepts I have heard him express before in that I do think he believes the universities themselves should stand or fall on their own merit, which is a principle I believe is relatively well supported generally throughout the province.

The incidence of declining enrolment in first-year university, which had been a circumstance we were facing for at least two or three years, has been reversed in the past two years. Last year there was an increase in first-year enrolment of some significance, and it appears it will be even greater this year.

We do, however, face a major demographic shift about 1985, when the reduction in the numbers of the traditional age group for universities will come into full power. It is my feeling and my understanding that the universities, aware of the needs of many of nontraditional age for university education in part-time programs, are preparing to provide through flexible measures those kinds of part-time programs to encourage more of the nontraditional group to attend universities.

The concept Dr. Bourns was suggesting in that statement is not one that has been discussed very broadly, I am sure, even within the Council of Ontario Universities.

Mr. Bradley: Is the minister prepared to give to this House the same commitment the member for Oxford (Mr. Parrott) gave a couple of years ago when I asked him a similar question, that is, that she will not close any of the smaller universities in Ontario, say, within the next 10 years as a result of declining enrolment, but instead will attempt to limit the enrolment at certain of the larger institutions to allow those smaller institutions to continue to flourish because of the vital roles they play within the community?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree to the latter part of the honourable member’s statement or suggestion that it would be reasonable to limit enrolment in certain specific institutions in order to increase enrolment in others.

The statement I have made is that each of the universities within the province has a responsibility to define its role within the entire system of university education and to make that role superior within that institution, in order to attract the students who wish to participate in that kind of program. I believe that activity is now beginning.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: To what extent is the ministry prepared, through some type of long-range planning, to participate in ensuring the continuation of the smaller universities as opposed to letting them either fall or stand on their own?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the ministry participates in ongoing discussions and consultations through the Council of Ontario Universities with the administrators, presidents and members of faculty of all the universities in the province. We certainly would be willing to continue that kind of participation and to provide appropriate input to that consultation.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minster of Colleges and Universities. It concerns the incredible bureaucratic foul-up that has occurred in her ministry whereby 1,740 students have been notified by letter that their Ontario Student Assistance Program applications and assessments from 1978-79, two years ago, were miscalculated and $1,035,000 was sent out to students that they should not have received.

I would like to ask the minister how did this happen, why has it taken two years to discover this mistake and how could her ministry send out such an insensitive letter to students? I will read the last paragraph of the letter: “Please note that failure to repay this overpayment can jeopardize your chances at receiving further assistance.”

Can the minister indicate why she has given the students of this province only 30 days to repay this money, which is her problem, and what is the liability of the firm that developed the program for the ministry resulting in this screwup?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the problem was a result of the difficulties we had with the computer in the first year of the modified Ontario Student Assistance Program. As a matter of fact we were aware that errors had been made, and throughout the year 1978-79 the financial administrators were made aware that a significant number of students had been given more assistance than their applications designated they should receive.

Those students were notified by the financial aid administrators that they had received more assistance than they should have. Those who were not notified were students, and it was 50 per cent of that total, who had dropped out of the first year of either community college or university. Fifty per cent of the 1,740 did not continue beyond the first few months of their university or community college education. The financial aid administrators did not, I gather, make direct contact with them. However, they did make contact with those students who continued their studies.

We have been aware of the problem. The financial aid administrators have been aware of the problem. They have been in contact with the students. At this point we are attempting to find a resolution to the problem that will not in any way damage the current activities of those continuing their studies or the 50 per cent who are at present employed.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

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

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

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Report adopted.

Mr. Cureatz from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Assembly be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Office of the Assembly program, $21,553,800.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Lane, on behalf of Mr. Villeneuve, from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Environment be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Ministry administration program, $7,644,400; environmental assessment and planning program, $23,080,000; environmental control program, $269,048,500; waste management program, $10,932,500.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Gaunt from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Health be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Ministry administration program, $53,403,000; institutional health services program, $3,064,517,000; community health services program, $155,519,000; health insurance program, $1,443,260,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Philip from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr12, An Act to revive Gothic Mines and Oils Limited.

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting The Hamilton Foundation.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr25, An Act respecting The Hamilton Foundation.

Report adopted.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on procedural affairs presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like to make a short statement on this report.

In presenting this report of the standing committee on procedural affairs titled, “Proposals For A New Committee System,” I would like to make a few short remarks and then move the adjournment of the debate.

This is probably the most important of several recent reports from the committee. It is much more wide-ranging than our report several weeks ago which reviewed in depth the matter of witnesses appearing before legislative committees. This report represents the first comprehensive review of the Legislature’s committees since the Ontario Commission on the Legislature.

The recommendations represent the committee’s thinking in a general sense, though likely every member of the committee disagrees with particular recommendations. The committee felt, however, that it was more important to involve the members of the Legislature in the re-evaluation of the committee system than to reach total agreement within the committee. Thus we felt that the time had come to put forward to the Legislature a set of comprehensive proposals for improving the committee system.

In this way, all members will have an opportunity to consider our recommendations and to debate them in the House. After members have reacted to the report, steps can be taken to refine and to rethink the recommendations and finally to implement whatever changes the members wish to make in our committee system.

The report identifies some serious shortcomings of the present committee system. It attempts to build proposals for change on those features of our committees that are working well. This report follows in the direction of several important reports that have recently come out calling for the strengthening of parliamentary committees -- that is, the Lambert Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, the white paper on reforming Parliament in the short-lived Conservative government in Ottawa, reports of the Auditor General of Canada, the report of the Canadian Tax Foundation, the report of the Business Council on National Issues, and the report of the British procedure committee.

In addition to these reports, our committee reviewed the important changes in committees taking place throughout other Commonwealth jurisdictions. The British, for example, just last year radically restructured their entire committee system. A member of the British House of Commons said this to a meeting held in this building last October:

“I remember during the course of one of our procedural debates in the House, when people were lamenting the poor attendance in the chamber and the declining attendance in the chamber of the whole House, Michael Stewart saying that in the course of his experience in the House of Commons from 1945 to the mid-1970s, debates in the chamber had been worse and worse attended and better and better informed.

“He rightly felt that the two went together, that because members specialized in one or two subjects they only bothered to go along when those subjects were being discussed. When they spoke on those subjects they did know what they were talking about more than in the past. This specialization is, I think, inevitable and desirable and the committee structure of the House ought to reflect that.”

3:20 p.m.

One of the most important sections of this report sets out some proposals for including what I think we are all coming to realize is one of our most serious problems: the Legislature scrutiny of public finance. Let me quote from a recent report of a study group of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association just published by the Economist, which summarizes the problem well:

“There is general agreement throughout the Commonwealth that parliamentary scrutiny over public finance is at present inadequate and patchy. The growth in the size and range of activities of government has far outstripped the capacity of the legislature to exercise effective control over the executive in any but the legal sense of approving the annual estimates after little detailed scrutiny. The historic ‘power of the purse’ has in most countries become largely a fiction.

“Reform proposals have multiplied in recent years and have been gradualist rather than Utopian. Members have broadly accepted the constitutional distinction between the role of the executive in initiating expenditure proposals and the legislature’s role in scrutinizing plans, though there are differences about the right stage at which MPs should try to influence executive decisions. In short, ‘Parliamentary control means influence, not direct control; advice, not command; criticism, not obstruction; scrutiny, not initiative, and publicity, not secrecy.’”

We, as a committee, think this is an important report on a vital concern. We think a strengthened committee system will improve the quality of debate in the House and improve members’ effectiveness in dealing with the complex issues of modern government.

Committee reform has been on the Legislature agenda for years, but it can no longer be relegated to the bottom of that agenda. I earnestly urge all members and all interested citizens to read the report and to think about our proposals carefully.

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

MOTIONS

HOUSE AND COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, notwithstanding any standing orders of the House, business may be considered from the Resources Development policy field tonight both in the House and in the standing committee on resources development.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on constitutional reform be authorized to meet concurrently with the House on Tuesday evening, June 17, 1980.

Motion agreed to.

PETITION

CARLETON PLACE OBSTETRICAL UNIT

Mr. Cassidy: I beg leave for unanimous consent to present briefly a petition on behalf of people in the area of Carleton Place.

Agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the petition is in the following words and is addressed to the Legislature: “We are entirely opposed to the closing of the Carleton Place obstetrical unit.” They refer to the closing of the obstetrical unit in the Memorial Hospital in Carleton Place.

The petition is signed by 2,300 residents of Carleton Place. It is endorsed by the 700-member Royal Canadian Legion branch in that area. It reflects very grave concern by those people with respect to a decision made locally but put very strongly by the provincial government. I believe it should be sent to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell).

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BRANTFORD-BRANT ANNEXATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 120, An Act respecting the City of Brantford, the Township of Brantford and the County of Brant.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON LAND ACQUISITION ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 121, An Act to vest certain Lands in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to transfer the ownership of certain lands, now in the possession of Algonquin College, to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. It is necessary for the region to have a 20-metre strip of the Lees Avenue campus property to complete the Ottawa-Carleton southeast rapid transit route. Unfortunately, the board of governors of the college and the region have not been able to reach an agreement and it is necessary for the government to take this step, through this legislation, to resolve this situation.

POLICE VILLAGE OF ST. GEORGE ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 122, An Act respecting the Police Village of St. George.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been prepared in response to requests from the trustees of the police village of St. George and the council of the township of South Dumfries. Both the police village and the township have asked for legislation that will enable the St. George hydro system to service with electricity a new sewage treatment plant in a proposed residential subdivision, both of which are adjacent to the police village and within the township.

The proposed legislation will expand the boundaries of the police village of St. George, effective July 1, 1980, to include the sewage treatment plant in the proposed subdivision. On January 1, 1981, the expanded police village will be dissolved and the police village trustees will be deemed to be a hydro-electric commission. Those persons will continue in office until the end of the next municipal term in 1982, or until their successors are appointed and assume office. The reeve of South Dumfries will be an ex-officio member of the commission.

The proposed legislation also seeks to establish an urban service area for the provision of sewer and water services, sidewalks, street lighting and garbage collection.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mr. Jones moved first reading of Bill Pr32, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

RESCUE SERVICES ACT

Mr. G. Taylor moved first reading of Bill 123, An Act to provide for Rescue Services in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the establishment and operation of rescue services in Ontario. The bill applies to services held out to the public, as available, for rescue of persons requiring emergency attention. The bill provides a procedure for licensing and regulating rescue services. The bill also provides authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the instruction and training of rescue service personnel.

3:30 p.m.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved first reading of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to extend the application of the rent review provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1979, to all rental units that are mobile homes or mobile home sites. Section 134(1)(d) of the act currently exempts from the rent review provisions a rental unit that is a mobile home, or a mobile home site that was not occupied as a rental unit before January 1, 1976. This bill attempts to right that injustice.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

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

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, could I reserve five minutes at the end for rebuttals?

It is unfortunate that we must once again debate this whole concept that people in Ontario have a right and are entitled to potable water. I think it is a high principle that this government has not addressed itself to, despite the fact that it has been brought to the government’s attention on numerous occasions. To this day they have not seen the importance of enacting this amendment to the Ontario Water Resources Act which would protect municipal water supplies from the activities of mining companies.

A simple explanation of the bill is: “The purpose of the bill is to prohibit mining activity in bodies of water that serve or are likely to serve as sources 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.”

The bill does one other thing. It asks that the present sources of municipal water supplies be identified and listed so there will be ready access to the information when applications come in for drilling permits, because in order to know what one is protecting, one has to know the location and the source that one wants to protect.

I do not think the bill is so complex or so complicated that it could not be introduced as part of the present Ontario Water Resources Act. Clearly, the experience we have had in northern Ontario, and particularly in the regional municipality of Sudbury, indicates that the present provisions of the Ontario Water Resources Act just do not protect us from the problem.

It is a fact that in the city of Sudbury there are eight lakes, and despite what you might call a vast source of water supply, we still have to pipe our water from 20 miles outside the city of Sudbury. This speaks to the past record of this government’s neglect when there are, in fact, eight polluted lakes and none of them are capable of supplying the citizens of the city of Sudbury with potable water.

We did go to a big expense in transporting water from Lake Wanapitei some 16 or 18 miles north of the city of Sudbury. It is no mean effort, and no small expense to put filtration plants, pumping stations and major water lines into the regional municipality in order to guarantee our water supply.

The regional municipality was motivated to do this, not from any feeling that it had a soft spot in its heart for the citizens of Sudbury, but in fact the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act commands -- it is the law -- that the regional municipal council is responsible for supplying water to the citizens involved. They have no option; they have no choice in the matter. It commands them to supply the citizens of Sudbury with a source of potable water and deliver it to them.

This is why this vast expenditure went forward. We had just got this system on stream when, lo and behold, Hollinger Mines Limited decided there might be a uranium body at the bottom of Lake Wanapitei. They proposed to use the ice as a drilling platform and drill through to the bottom of the lake to determine whether there was a uranium ore body underneath our source of water for the 160,000 residents of the city.

Hollinger Mines knew full well this was a very important lake to the citizens. They cared not. They pressed forward and applied for a permit to drill.

Before the permit was issued in 1976, the vice-chairman of the regional municipality at that time, Mr. Mike Solski, alerted the provincial cabinet of the hazards involved if the drilling permit were issued. To their credit, the cabinet put a freeze on the application and formulated a committee to study the probability of damage to the source of water if the drilling permit went forward.

It took the committee from December 1976 to December 1977 to formulate its report. The major recommendation to the cabinet at that time, in December 1977, was that any commercial or industrial development should be under the Environmental Assessment Act. In fact, they said there should be a public hearing to determine the consequences of allowing this permit to go forward. Despite this strong and simple recommendation from its own study committee, the cabinet saw fit to issue the drilling order and Hollinger Mines was then free to move.

It did not take Hollinger Mines very long to go into action. The cabinet made this decision in December 1977 and one month later, in January 1978, Hollinger Mines announced it was going to begin its drilling program that winter. It was important for them to move fast because the ice is only on the lake for some six months and if they are going to do the damage, they have to get it done right away; they cannot do it in July or August. So they announced their plans.

The council of the regional municipality of Sudbury, who take seriously their obligations as enunciated in the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, by a motion, voted 19-0 to oppose the cabinet decision. Despite this unanimous decision of the people most concerned, the cabinet persisted in its approval to go ahead with the drilling.

The regional municipality was supported by other groups in the municipality: the Lake Wanapitei Home and Campers Association, Rayside-Balfour council, Nickel Centre council, Indian Reserve No. 11. A petition was circulated and 10,000 people of the region participated in their affirmation that they wanted their water supply protected from infringement by drilling for uranium.

We must understand how dangerous uranium is. I am not sure if every member knows that uranium can break down into 14 elements. Three elements are toxic and radioactive; they cannot be tolerated. They are radon gas, radium 226 and thorium. Is it any wonder that 10,000 people in Sudbury, plus the regional councillor, the council and these other organizations were concerned when Hollinger Mines insisted on going ahead with its drilling program?

3:40 p.m.

Because there was no support from the cabinet, the region had to act to protect itself. What else do you do, except start to spend money? Here is where I am really offended: the region had to hire a high-priced lawyer to go to the courts to get injunctions to protect themselves from the negligence of this Conservative cabinet.

A citizens’ committee was set up. They tried to meet with the Premier, but the Premier had already made his decision. He was not about to listen to reason, and he rejected the overtures of the citizens’ committee to meet. They never did meet with the Premier.

The court injunction process grinds away. An injunction was obtained from Mr. Justice Smith on February 25, 1978. The intervenors in the injunction were the regional municipality of Sudbury, Norman Recollet from Indian Reserve No. 11, Laurie St. Jean and Gary Larrett, two citizens of the region.

On February 25, 1978, Mr. Justice Smith continued the injunction to a later hearing. The judge did say in his decision that there was a real hazard of irreparable damage.

The judge thought that the provisions of section 32 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, which this government holds up as our protection, just are not good enough because section 32 comes into effect after the fact. There are certain things in this world and in this province that you cannot correct by fines. One of them is the poisoning of people with radon gas, radium 226 or thorium. There is no way that a $5,000 fine can redress this weakness in the legislation.

The amendment I am putting forward seeks to stop this from happening before the damage is done, and not to try to make retribution for the damage afterwards. There is no way that can be done.

It is now four years later. The situation is the same, and if the government of Ontario thinks the people are not concerned, it is mistaken and is not reading the people. The people of my municipality are aware that the vulture still circles our lake and that, if we let down our guard, they will come in at the next freeze-up and start their program of drilling again.

Despite the fact that I suspect the government members will do what they did with this bill the last time it was debated, and block the bill -- I have no doubt they are going to block it -- I think the debate is important.

We are serving notice to Hollinger Mines Limited, and to any other mining company that wants to attack any municipal water source, that we will resist. The region has shown the way these municipalities will have to protect themselves; they will have to go for court injunctions. But the court injunction is only a temporary thing; we should not and cannot continue to spend and to waste money in the courts to protect ourselves from this attack by the mining companies.

To substantiate my statement that it is still an active consideration in the region, I will read into the record a letter addressed to my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), signed by Mr. Dozzi, the chairman of the regional municipality of Sudbury.

“Thank you for forwarding to me a copy of your letter to the Honourable Harry Parrott, the Minister of the Environment, concerning drilling on Lake Wanapitei. I can assure you that the position of the regional municipality of Sudbury in this matter has not changed. Our council remains unanimously opposed to any diamond drilling in our major water supply source. Please keep us posted on the status of Bud Germa’s bill.”

So the situation remains the same. The regional council is still aware of the hazards, and it is still categorically opposed to any adventure in our source of potable water.

Another motion was passed on May 13, 1980, by the corporation of the town of Nickel Centre, and I quote: “The council of the town of Nickel Centre is in full support of the bill to be reintroduced in the Legislature by Bud Germa pertaining to the protection of Lake Wanapitei as a source of drinking water for the region.”

Mr. Speaker, the situation remains the same. The public is still alerted and well entrenched in opposition. So I would ask this House to consider the passage of this bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has five minutes remaining.

Mr. Germa: Thank you.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate. While not having had the pleasure of participating in this same debate a year ago last October, I made myself familiar with the Hansards of that occasion, and it is amazing how little the arguments have changed in the intervening time.

Just as this debate today is a duplication of the earlier one, I respectfully suggest to the member that this legislation duplicates existing legislation. The elimination of unnecessary legislation, regulation and red tape is one of the philosophical pillars of this party and this government. We run a danger when we begin to duplicate legislation in this Legislature. Such practice tends to lend confusion to the enforcement of existing laws and decreases the effectiveness of the laws that are already on the books.

The member for Sudbury’s proposal may very well be counterproductive to the goal he is attempting to reach. I do not think any of us in this House quarrel with his opening comments about the right to pure water. We all agree with that. When I looked back at the previous occasion, I noticed neither the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), nor the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), nor anyone else quarrelled with that issue.

But if he is truly concerned about environmental protection in the north, and about securing safe, abundant supplies of drinking water, then perhaps he would be better to lend his efforts to the support of existing legislation.

Every time the honourable member introduces this bill and it is defeated, we run the risk of creating a false impression that the activities it seeks to stop are legal. Let me quote: “It is, at present, an offence for any person or municipality to discharge or deposit material of any kind into a body of water, or into the shore or bank of any water body, or into any place that may impair the quality of the water.”

Surely that statement makes it clear that the discharge of effluent from mining operations would be covered under this section of the existing legislation.

I have read the Hansards from the last time this debate was held but I do not believe the member for Sudbury ever responded to that point. However, today he did mention that he felt that the $5,000 or $10,000 fines were not strong enough teeth. I see that he has again shared with us some of the facts of the situation in his riding which no doubt plays a large role in his bringing this bill forward in the first instance and again today.

3:50 p.m.

Offenders under this section of the Ontario Water Resources Act are liable for a fine of $5,000 for a first offence and $10,000 for each subsequent conviction. That is hardly a small sum when you consider we are talking of $200 as a sum in the bill before us today and, because each day that contravention of the act takes place is considered to be a separate offence, this fine could clearly be a stiff penalty. I don’t think the member pointed that out in his comments to the House.

Obviously this is not a weak piece of legislation. It provides very stiff penalties. When contravention of the act takes place, each and every day is considered to be a separate offence. We have to keep that in mind for a moment. It is also wide enough in scope to cover offenders from the mining industry as well as anyone else who might deliberately seek to ruin a fresh water supply.

My colleague the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) was referred to by the mover of the bill and I understand he will be contributing later to this debate. The last time he spoke to this issue he made certain comments that were never properly refuted; and I can appreciate that today, when he speaks in this debate, he will have some source of frustration because he made several excellent points, as members may read in Hansard of last October, and he is still waiting for some answers and a response from the member who moved this bill today.

More specifically, I note the member for Timiskaming pointed out last October that the bill defines a source of community drinking water as “any body of water that is used or is likely to be used as a public source of drinking water, by any municipality or other community in Ontario.” That phrase “or is likely to be used” leaves us with a broad definition of a community water supply, one that might legitimately be applied to every single body of water in the province.

The member said last year that it is not as though we are going to wipe out many bodies of water. I am sure there are only 500 or 600 it would have that effect on. But the interpretation, as one would read this phrase “or is likely to be used” could be very broad.

We all agree there is a need for environmental protection when it comes to preserving our supplies of fresh water, especially when we are dealing with the supply of drinking water. However, I do not support the idea of placing one more needless barrier before every mining operation that wishes to explore on or near any body of water in this province, “any” being the key word. In the recent budget significant incentives were provided for the mining community in Ontario, and I would hate to begin so soon afterwards to throw pointless barriers in front of them.

In addition to the measures I mentioned earlier, the government has provided other instruments under existing legislation that can serve to accomplish the same purpose as the honourable member’s bill. The government has the authority to issue and revoke permits to control water consumption. These permits are applicable to anyone using more than 10,000 gallons of water in a day, which would include mining operations. It also has the power under sections 6 and 70 of the Environmental Protection Act to issue a control order to limit or control the discharge of any contaminants into a body of water. It can set up procedures to be followed for the elimination or control of these contaminants. It can also order the installation, replacement or alteration of any equipment designed to control and eliminate existing contaminants.

It appears to me that not only does the government have sufficient legislation on the books to deal with the types of circumstances that are of concern to the member for Sudbury, but also the laws now in place are of a stiffer nature than those the member is proposing. I sincerely hope this is the last time we see this piece of legislation without having some answers, for which we are still waiting, to the questions that were raised during the debates of last October and as we will no doubt hear in the debate today.

I suppose it is particularly a curiosity that certain allegations in the member’s opening remarks tended to indicate that we were not in favour of fresh water. I want to make perfectly clear from this side of the Legislature that is nothing more than a complete distortion of the commitment that this government, through its present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) and the other ministries that affect same, have as their commitment. I suggest that this bill is unnecessary and repetitive, and thus I cannot support it.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I want to lend my support to this particular bill brought forward by my friend from Sudbury. We did debate this matter last fall. Undoubtedly, there will be some repetition in the arguments, but I think they are worth putting on the record again.

I want to deal with some of the points raised by my friend from Mississauga North (Mr. Jones). He mentioned that the arguments really have not changed, and I think there is a good reason for that. They are just as valid today as they were last October; so for that reason the question has to be, why would they change? They are valid today and they were valid then. Having said that, they are bound to be the same in terms of substance and direction.

He mentioned that the existing legislation was adequate. He mentioned the Ontario Water Resources Act, or alluded to that act. It is section 32 my friend quoted from that act. The problem is that one has to identify the offender, and one has to prosecute the offender, having witnessed or alleged an offence under that particular section. The ministry has to take that offender to court to prove the charge and get a conviction.

Meanwhile, the damage has been done to the body of water in question. It is a remedy after the fact, if you like. That is the problem with section 32 of the Ontario Water Resources Act. It is not designed to provide the kind of protection which the member for Sudbury desires and which all of us should desire in this province.

Here is a situation where the city of Sudbury is depending on the drinking water supply from Lake Wanapitei. It is the city’s sole drinking supply. A mining company has applied, and is potentially still able, to mine in that lake. Hence, the potential is also there for environmental damage. Radiation, alluded to by the member for Sudbury, could contaminate that water supply and render it useless for the city of Sudbury as a drinking water supply.

Section 32 of the Ontario Water Resources Act does not provide the protection one has to have. It is protection after the fact, and even at that it is not completely adequate. It has not been adequate in the past and would not be adequate in these situations. Section 36 of the Ontario Water Resources Act has not been mentioned so far in this debate, but I believe it was mentioned last year. It does not afford the protection either which is desired in this circumstance.

There is only one caveat I would throw in with respect to what my friend from Mississauga North has said, and that is the fact that I do have some level of agreement with him when he mentioned the part about “or is likely to be used, [at some future date] as a public source of drinking water.” I think that problem could present itself in situations like Lake Huron or Lake Erie if oil is discovered under those water bodies. I hesitate to forgo the possibility of ever being able to drill for oil should it be found under the lake.

4 p.m.

Lake Huron supplies drinking water to London and environs. Lake Erie supplies some communities with drinking water to a limited extent. Both those bodies of water are very large, and I wonder whether there could not be an amendment to this bill to designate certain bodies of water as being exempt in part from this particular requirement under certain circumstances.

The member for Sudbury demonstrated that Bill 39 is a direct result of inadequate legislation, and I agree with his conclusion. Its passage would shut the door on a number of loopholes which, for instance, allowed the mining industry to destroy the Serpent River water system for some 110 miles from Elliot Lake right into Georgian Bay. Those communities did not get any remedy under section 32 of the Water Resources Act for one reason or the other.

The threat of contamination to municipal water supplies continues to grow as resources become scarcer. The more limited the resource becomes, the greater is the danger of this sort of thing happening. The Serpent River disaster demonstrated the need for Bill 39, and now we have the residents of Sudbury facing a potentially similar fate.

The member for Sudbury went through some of the history of this whole matter. I gather that the city of Sudbury has invested in the neighbourhood of $9 million to $10 million, which is a considerable sum, installing this particular pipeline, pumping stations, the filtration plant and so on to the lake.

I understand the alarm and concern which Sudbury officials have demonstrated. One can say without fear of contradiction that the cabinet has not taken this matter as seriously as it should in view of some of the things that have happened to bodies of water across this province. The Ministry of the Environment has had very limited success in prosecuting many of these offenders, not only under the Ontario Water Resources Act, but also under the Ontario Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Mining Act and a number of other pieces of legislation. It is simply not adequate to do the job, to meet the requirements that are needed under certain situations. Sudbury is a good case in point.

Based on the comments by the member for Mississauga North, I gather the government has taken basically the same position as it took last year. They said there is sufficient legislation on the statute books to deal with the matter. Last year, as I recall, the Public Lands Act was quoted, the Ontario Water Resources Act was quoted, the Environmental Protection Act was quoted and, frankly, none of those acts give the degree of protection that is being sought under this piece of legislation. All of those acts protect after the fact, and we are not after protection after the fact. We are after protection before these things happen.

So I suggest the legislation currently in place is not adequate and that this kind of act needs to be on the law books of this province to deal with a specific problem. It is a specific problem which in my view has not been adequately addressed up until now.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again in support of my colleague’s bill. I have always viewed this bill not as a Lake Wanapitei bill, nor as a Sudbury bill, but as a bill with provincial importance and application. I guess it is the second time we have debated this in here and, despite assurances from the government, it is still possible for someone to go in and drill through the ice in Lake Wanapitei. I guess if they could build a platform to put on the water they could even drill that way.

I do not know what the government is concerned about. If they are determined that the drinking water supply will be protected, why should they not let this bill go through? They say it is repetitive. I think we got a glimpse of the real reason this afternoon when the member for Mississauga North said they did not want to put any more barriers to mining exploration in the province. The relationship between that government and the mining industry is legendary in this country, and probably outside the jurisdiction of this country, so that does not surprise me.

A couple of things bother me. For one, it is not necessary to start fooling around with people’s drinking water to explore for minerals. Surely the land mass of the province has not yet been fully explored -- even lakes that are not the water supply for numbers of people. Certainly they have not all been explored. Yet here we go, going through the water supply on Lake Wanapitei, the drinking supply for a large number of people.

The other thing that bothers me a great deal is that we are talking about uranium. I do not know how many signals Mother Nature has to give people about the dangers of uranium before governments start to listen. Digging up uranium is dangerous. The generation of power using uranium creates all sorts of potential problems. We need only look at Three Mile Island. We need only look to the leaks that have occurred in the Ontario system. We need only look to the disposal of its waste. We need only look to the potential for making bombs to know how dangerous uranium is.

The whole question of uranium is paramount in the minds of a great many people who are worried about not just the immediate term but the years to come. Yet here we have this government saying in their minds it is okay if they drill for uranium through the drinking water supply of large numbers of people in this province.

Let people in Ontario clearly understand that this means anywhere in Ontario: no restrictions on mining companies drilling for uranium anywhere in Ontario, in anybody’s drinking water supply. Let us not be diverted into thinking this is only a Lake Wanapitei or Sudbury region problem. It applies any place in Ontario.

I would like to see this government squirm the first time that happens in a major municipality in the southern part of this province. I would like to see how quickly they would run for cover then. But it happens to be northern Ontario where uranium mining is already occurring and they say that is okay. I think that is fundamentally wrong.

It does not seem to matter that there is concern on the part of local residents. It does not seem to matter that the regional municipality has objected to it. That does not seem to matter to this government.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Jones: The member is being redundant.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Mississauga North claims we are being redundant. I want to tell him something. The people in the regional municipality of Sudbury will be coming back to the government year after year after year, whether we are here or not. There will be people saying to the government, whoever is on that side, that drilling through their water supply for uranium is unacceptable. The government knows it cannot provide the protections. It has never provided protections in regard to uranium mining, and it cannot do so there. I am glad the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) is here, because if ever there was a walking example of not providing protection in the uranium industry, there it sits, if a walking example can sit.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member is sick.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps the minister would like to expand on that when it comes time for him to speak. The Minister of Northern Affairs is ashamed of his own performance and his relationship with the uranium industry in particular.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member should be ashamed of his performance. He has not changed his attitude at all. He should be a little more positive next time.

Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Northern Affairs thinks drilling for uranium through our water supply is negative. Let him stand up and say that. Let him stand up and say that taking uranium out of the water supply of the people of Sudbury is a positive act, if that is what he believes. Mr. Speaker, the minister’s grunts speak for themselves.

Within the regional municipality of Sudbury, there is universal agreement that this should not be done. This government totally ignores that. Despite regional council resolutions and court injunctions, they still sit there and thumb their noses at the people in the regional municipality of Sudbury. They say: “We don’t care what you think. If we want to have uranium drilled in your drinking water supply, we will permit it.” That’s what they are saying, and I would ask them if they think that is fair. They talk out of one side of their mouths about regional or municipal autonomy, and the next minute they take it away from people. It is a shameful performance on their part.

The regional municipality of Sudbury is not normally a group of negative people, and yet they are being painted into a situation of wanting to stop development, putting barriers up to exploration. What nonsense. Surely the government agrees that, if the company drills down and gets uranium, it is going to allow them to extract it through that source. They cannot say the company can explore but not take it out They cannot say that. If they drill and they find it, they are going to take it out. What kind of situation would they be in then when they say: “We have let you spend several million dollars on drilling. We are not going to let you take the ore out”?

What the government is doing is giving the company a permit to take uranium out from underneath the drinking water supply for the city of Sudbury. That is what they are doing. That is what they are giving approval for when they give approval for the company to drill. We say that is fundamentally wrong.

I wish the regional municipality of Sudbury were as tough on its position on the control order for Inco as it is on the drilling for uranium through its own water supply. If the government allows that to happen, it is going to run into a hornets’ nest within the regional municipality of Sudbury, and so it should.

We believe it is simply an outrageous attitude on the government’s part that it would say it would provide protection after the fact. I received a letter from the Minister of the Environment last year on this whole thing. I had written to him and asked him about the position. He wrote to me: “As you are probably aware, only one of the three former claim holders on Lake Wanapitei has retained his claim. Should this claim holder decide to drill, an application for a work permit would be submitted to the Ministry of Natural Resources. Only after the Ministry of Natural Resources and my ministry were satisfied that the proponent could comply with the guidelines developed to protect the lake (see attached) would a work permit be issued.”

If I could interject into the letter for a moment, the kind of guidelines this government would insist on would allow, I suspect, virtually any developer to get in there and drill. Then he goes on: “It is still my firm belief that the existing legislative authority is adequate to protect Lake Wanapitei. This legislative authority includes the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. Yours truly, Harry Parrott.”

The minister attaches the guidelines and information requirements for offshore drilling on Lake Wanapitei -- specifically for Lake Wanapitei; not for all the drinking water supplies in Ontario, but specifically for Lake Wanapitei. It goes all the way through and lays down all the rules they must follow if they drill. It does not say a word about what happens when they find the uranium, if they find it. What is the government going to do then? What is it going to do when they find it, if they find it?

What this government is doing is outrageous. They will let them drill and they will let them take uranium out of the water supply of Sudbury if they find it. They could not do otherwise. Let them stand up and admit that to the people of Sudbury.

Mr. Havrot: Mr. Speaker, it was more than six months ago that this chamber dealt with this bill. If I am not mistaken, this is the third time in less than two years that we have had to deal with similar legislation from the member for Sudbury. But I am sure it is not the last time that we will have an opportunity to examine this bill; so please excuse me if I wander off topic.

Before I turn to the merits of this unending legislation, I would like to put some of the honourable member’s motives in perspective. The obvious intent of this legislation is to hinder and restrict mining development in the north. The majority of northern mining activity is in close proximity to bodies of water which may, at some time in the future, prove to be somebody’s source of drinking water.

Mr. Laughren: Not close proximity; the very water supply.

Mr. Havrot: I kept quiet while the honourable member was talking; so why doesn’t he?

This type of legislation is not unexpected from this member. The paranoia he exhibits about all of the things connected with mining company activities is one of the few consistencies that the member for Sudbury can claim. If I am not mistaken, the member opposite even claimed that Sudbury District Chamber of Commerce was a lackey organization for Inco. I am still not sure which is more fantastic, the discrepancies of fact or the claim itself.

This paranoia of all mining activities has a serious effect on northern development. I might also add that the honourable member’s repeated attempts to raise mining taxes jeopardize further expansion and development. It is an attitude which I have felt is dangerous and misguided.

What disturbs me most is the alternatives that are left open to the people of the north by the honourable member. Unfortunately, they are not very attractive. It seems that on the one hand he attempts to inhibit and curtail resource development, and yet on the other hand he has no alternatives for economic growth. In fact, he even goes so far as to rule out other possibilities for northern economic growth.

Mr. Laughren: That is untrue.

Mr. Havrot: My knowledge is no match for your ignorance, thank you.

I would like to quote a passage from the public accounts debate of last November. This is the contribution of the member for Sudbury.

“I start from the position that the ministry is dead wrong and they are going in the wrong direction when they think that tourism is a substitute for decent development in northern Ontario. I object to the government of Ontario turning northern Ontario into the biggest hot-dog stand in Canada. That seems to be your thrust. It is not an alternative to proper development. Any area which relies on tourism as its prime source of sustenance is a pretty poverty-stricken area. You can go around the world and take a look at that. It is not an alternative to the resource development which was the reason for settling northern Ontario in the first place.”

I am confused. This resource development of which the member speaks cannot possibly include mining, because it is legislation like this before us that inhibits it. How can we have resource development without exploration to find new resources?

But if one takes away resource development -- although for the life of me I cannot understand how one can encourage this development by taxing the mining companies out of existence or limiting their exploration -- what is left?

The honourable member is clearly on the record as saying that tourism development in the north is nothing more than “a hot-dog stand.” There are many northern communities that thrive in the tourist industry and whose very existence would be seriously jeopardized if it was not for that industry. I would like to remind the member for Sudbury that the second largest industry in the province is the tourist industry and, despite his convictions, it is not going to just dry up and blow away.

4:20 p.m.

In the sixth century, BC, Aesop said: “I will have nought to do with the man who can blow hot and cold with the same breath.” It is my hope that the people of northern Ontario will have the same feelings for the party he represents.

This bill will seriously curtail mining exploration. Just because there is exploration on or near a water body does not necessarily mean there will be a mine in the middle of the lake, but I am afraid that is the inference left by this bill.

As I said last October, we have adequate legislation in this province to cover the security of drinking water. Obviously, since the bill is a repetition, these points bear repeating.

Section 32 of the Ontario Water Resources Act deals with the water quality. It makes it an offence for any person or municipality to discharge or deposit any material of any kind in the water, or on the shore or bank of a water course or water bed, or in any place that may impair the quality of the water. On summary conviction, the offender is liable to a fine, on first conviction, of not more than $5,000 and, on each subsequent conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000. Each day of contravention constitutes a separate offence.

Section 36 allows a regional director to define an area that includes a source of public water supply and to provide protection for it. This section can be used to prohibit swimming or even bathing or the deposit or discharge of any material that may impair the quality of water, or any acts that would unduly reduce the amount of water available within the public water supply system. On summary conviction, a person guilty of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both.

Section 36 could be used at the request of the municipality to protect its source of water supply. It is a very important section.

Section 37 of the Ontario Water Resources Act states very clearly that this regulates the taking of water. Except for the exclusion of domestic or farm uses, it requires any person taking more than 10,000 gallons of water in a day to obtain a permit issued by the director of the ministry. The director may issue, refuse to issue or cancel the permit and may impose such terms and conditions in the issuing of a permit as he considers proper.

This section also covers the taking of water by means of wells, surface source of supply, any structures or works constructed for the diversion and storage of water. It allows the ministry to regulate water use and prevent interference with community water supplies. I repeat that it prevents interference with the community’s source of water supply.

Under the Environmental Protection Act, which is complementary legislation, protection is provided to preserve environmental quality and to provide for the control of operations which may represent a hazard from contaminants added to or emitted or discharged into any part of the natural environment by any person or from any source. A director of the ministry may issue a control order in accordance with section 6 or section 70 to limit or control the discharge of contaminants or stop the addition, emission or discharge. The control order can set out procedures to be followed in the control or elimination of the contaminant or call for the installation, replacement or alteration of equipment designed to control or eliminate the contaminant or call for the installation, replacement or alteration of equipment designed to control or eliminate the contaminant.

I have two main difficulties with Bill 39. First, it is redundant and unnecessary. The protective legislation is already in place and provides a strong basis for the Ministry of the Environment to protect the water supplies of municipalities.

As I mentioned last October, the second problem is one of confusion in definition and enforcement. The bill defines a source of community drinking water as “any body of water that is used or is likely to be used as a public source of drinking water by any municipality or other community in Ontario.” The phrase “or is likely to be used” could include almost any body of water in Ontario and might preclude that we will ever have another mining operation started in this province. That seems to be more than a little short-sighted.

I might add that last winter the town of Kirkland Lake, with the approval of the medical officer of health for Timiskaming, approved drilling on Victoria Lake by Queenston Gold Mines Limited. The original gold discoveries in the Kirkland Lake area were made on lakes. Inspections of Elliot Lake were carried by drillers through the ice during the winter months. Massive discoveries of uranium were made, and today the area is called the uranium capital of the world.

For these reasons I cannot support this bill. Legislation for the sake of legislation is not the right answer.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill 39, which is being submitted by the member for Sudbury. I believe that this bill addresses some real fears that are held by many people in Ontario today.

The Ontario Water Resources Act goes a long way to protecting water resources. Just a few years ago we had no protection whatsoever. I can recall when drilling in even the Great Lakes, Lake Huron and so forth, was contemplated. At one point there were two drilling platforms built in Lake Huron to drill for oil and gas. The people of the city of Sarnia and the county of Lambton acted as one in opposing that matter. They finally got the word of the previous Premier, Mr. Robarts, that unequivocally there would be no drilling in the lakes.

We are talking specifically about the water supply of a major city in Ontario. It does not matter whether we are talking about Wanapitei Lake or any other lake in Ontario. We do not know the day that any lake may become the source of potable water for people in Ontario.

The people who are opposing this bill are talking about interfering with resource development in Ontario. I am sure none of us in this House wants to do anything that will interfere with the resource development of Ontario. There are other ways and means of developing the resources. An engineering feasibility study now available suggests even for oil one could drill back hundreds of feet from a lake on a diagonal pattern to tap the pool of oil under the lake. There is no reason to say we ought not to have this bill because it might prevent us from developing the resources of Ontario.

The point is, even though I have now admitted that the resource development of Ontario is most important and must not be interfered with, how important is it to ensure -- and I use the word “ensure” -- the safety of potable water in this province? That is very important. If we do not have potable water, there will be no people to develop the resources of the province. We do not have complete prevention of water pollution under the existing Ontario Water Resources Act, even under section 32.

4:30 p.m.

The Ministry of the Environment has built plants all around Lake Huron, having spent many millions of dollars, and is now pumping water that serves 2.5 million Ontarians from plants located all the way from Sarnia north right up the lake. In Lambton county, there is the new $40-million water pumping station and treatment plant, as well as ones at Brights Grove, Kettle Point and Grand Bend, all taking water from Lake Huron. If that is going to be the main source of potable water for so many people in the southwestern area of Ontario, then it must follow that we will not just pay lipservice to it, but ensure that nothing will take place in that lake that we can prevent. An act such as this will be able to handle that.

Previous speakers have talked generally about the lakes in the north, which are one of the beauties of the north, and getting away from the development of resources that is so important there. There has been talk about the tourist industry potential of the north. A great deal of that potential is due to the freshwater lakes so generously spread around throughout the north. For that reason, as well as for the potable water source for municipalities, we must consider the protection of the tourist industry in the north.

We have had people here this afternoon who spoke about the value of the tourist and hospitality industry in the north. That is a great potential, and it is another resource we must protect. I believe that a bill such as Bill 39, introduced by the member for Sudbury, is going to help to ensure that as well.

To sum up, I do not believe that existing legislation in Ontario is going to stop the possibility of pollution by minerals or oil or other things in the lakes of Ontario now. These bills will provide for penalties and for cleanup matters. But nothing is more essential than stopping it before that first act is taken. Therefore, I say a bill such as Bill 39 has an important place in the legislation of Ontario. I wish to support it and I hope other members of the Legislature will do the same.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in three and a half minutes, I can certainly say I am glad to support this bill for the third time. But I am shocked that it has to keep coming in year after year because the Conservative members, who have blocked this bill for each of the past two years when it came up, are putting the rights of mining companies to drill in areas that are sources of municipal water supply ahead of the rights of the residents of this province to have clean water.

I have introduced a bill calling for an environmental Magna Carta for Ontario, Which I hope members will adopt next week in the private members’ hour. In its preamble it states a position that I believe is widely held in this province. It says: “Whereas every person has a right to clean air, pure water and a healthy environment, and whereas it is the duty of the state to ensure that these rights are protected.

We would not need to keep bringing in bills of this kind if the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources would fulfil their obligation to protect our water supply. If the government continues to abdicate its responsibility in this field, we can expect this kind of legislation introduced by other members to protect their municipal water supplies.

The member for Sudbury mentioned a long list of northern municipalities that are supporting this bill, not just Sudbury. They all face the same threat from unrestricted mining activity. In fact, I believe municipal councils throughout the province would support the principle of this bill, namely, that no source of water supply should be endangered by allowing activities in the vicinity of the supply which might cause pollution.

In the north the threat is mainly from mining activities. In the south it is largely from industrial pollution. Even in my own area of Metropolitan Toronto we face a threat to our water supply from dredging activities in the Keating Channel and the deposit of the dredgeate in an area of Lake Ontario close to the Island water intake. We need legislation of this sort to protect as from that sort of activity. We need designation of water supply sources so that special rules can be made to prevent contamination by certain kinds of activities.

More and more toxic substances are being used today, which is all the more reason why we must have special rules about keeping those toxic substances out of our water supplies.

The Acting Speaker: (Mr. MacBeth): The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank those members in the chamber who saw fit to support the legislation: the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) and the members for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy), Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). They gave good and rational reasons why the bill was worthy of support; they recognize the importance of such legislation. I am surprised at the response from the government side, although it was expected.

The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones) criticized the debate because it had not changed from the last time the bill was presented. There is no reason why it should change. The case was made last October, and it’s still valid. The hazard still exists. The people in the city have not changed their minds and the people of Ontario deserve the protection the bill would provide.

To say it is a duplication of present legislation is false. If it were, we would not have hundreds and thousands of lakes polluted because of the lack of legislation and non-enforcement of the present legislation. To say that I would serve the cause by supporting the present legislation is to beg the question. I do support the legislation. I am in favour of clean drinking water, clean air and a clean general environment. This government has not seen fit to administer its own legislation.

Despite the negative attitude of the member for Mississauga North, I respect his opinion. If he thinks the world is okay as it is unfolding, that is his opinion. I do take issue with the remarks made by the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), whose argument was so weak he had to reduce himself to personal invective rather than dealing with the problem when he accused me of having motives other than the preservation of clean and potable water.

He said my motives were to block mining company exploration and expansion. Nothing could be further from the truth. If he cared to delve into my background, he would discover I made my living for 35 or 40 years in that field. I know the benefits of mining in Ontario, because without mining I probably would not have survived. I have a high regard and high respect for mining. While I do have that regard and respect, I do know how dangerous mining is. Not so the member for Timiskaming, who has spent his life somewhat otherwise occupied and he knows not whereof he speaks.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Havrot: My father spent 29 years underground. I’ve lived in a mining community all my life.

Mr. Germa: His father is not sitting in the Legislature; it is the member who is sitting here. He should not speak to a subject he knows nothing about.

Mr. Havrot: Oh, I know all about it.

Mr. Germa: At least I was there, and I know what I am talking about.

I may have inadvertently contributed to tourism and I didn’t think of that at the time I proposed the bill. The member for Timiskaming could not turn northern Ontario into a hot-dog stand if all the water bodies were polluted. If I go along with him, he is going to kill the tourism business more than I am. So I am contributing to the tourism efforts of the province in making sure that the water is clean and worthy of tourists coming to visit.

I would remind the member for Timiskaming to take a look at what has happened to 110 miles of the Serpent River chain from Elliot Lake right down to the north shore. There are 110 miles where not a living thing is left in the water body because of the laxity of this government and this cabinet in protecting water supply from contamination by miners.

If a tourist does inadvertently fall into the Serpent River system, he will come out glowing. He won’t need any lights in his house; he will be radioactive. That is the kind of environment the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) is advocating.

In closing the debate, I do thank those who spoke in support of it. I would hope that the government would see fit not to block the bill.

The Acting Speaker: The time for debating Bill 39 has expired.

SERVICES FOR THE AGED IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Lane moved resolution 26:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Ministries of Housing, Health, and Community and Social Services should combine their efforts in those areas of northern Ontario where the population is sparse, and in some of which these services will otherwise never be available, to provide rent-geared-to-income apartments, nursing home beds and residential home care beds within single combined facilities so that the people who have contributed to the building of the towns, villages and rural areas of the north will be able to remain in those areas when they age and are no longer able to take care of their own needs.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, a great social problem in northern Ontario among middle-aged and elderly people is the concern about where they will be when due to age or disability they are no longer able to take care of their own needs. This is not a concern in the larger urban areas of the north, but in the small towns, villages and rural areas the people who have spent their lives there want to remain there through the sunset years of life.

Yet because of the sparse population and the high cost of building and operating facilities of this kind, most of these areas can never have the benefits available to people living in the heavily populated areas of the province. That is the case unless the Ministries of Health, Housing, and Community and Social Services combine their efforts and provide a total needs facility that would include nursing home beds, residential care home beds and rent-geared-to-income units.

By combining these programs into one facility, we could have a viable operation in many areas of northern Ontario where none of these services could ever be provided by any one of the three mentioned ministries on an individual basis. I am not talking about spending more money. In fact, as I see this proposal, we would spend much less money as the facilities would be owned and operated by private business.

Mr. Wildman: Wait a minute.

Mr. Lane: I thought I would catch the member there.

As I see this program, an area needing these services would be assessed and, when the need had been decided, a call would go out for proposals from the private sector to provide the required facility. The best proposal received would be accepted, and the project would be completely owned and operated by the person or company which had put forth the best proposal and it would be operated under government regulations.

In this way we could be sure the residents of the complex would receive a high level of care, but we would not have to invest large amounts of public funds. The various ministries would pay on the same basis they do at present for operating losses on rent-geared-to-income units, nursing homes and home care beds.

We must provide these services for our people. The problem is that on an individual ministry basis these services can be supplied only in the larger areas. While our elderly can have the services they require, they have to be taken miles from home, family and friends when the time comes that they cannot provide for their own needs. In many cases, they die before their time because of loneliness. What I am proposing would mean that we could prevent this situation and allow people to enjoy these services in their own part of the province and be happy in the sunset years of their lives, rather than unhappy and lonely.

Some may think I am overstressing the situation. This is not the case. I have seen it happen far too often. I have many constituents who tell me how unhappy their mother or dad is in a nursing home for the aged in Sudbury or Sault Ste. Marie. This is not because they are not receiving good care, but rather because they are too far from home and family. Visits from family and friends are few and far between.

If a family member is in a nursing home less than 50 miles from home, it is quite easy for the family and friends to visit on Sunday afternoon or a workday evening because the round trip is 100 miles or less. However, when a person is in a facility 150 miles or more from home, the round trip is 300 miles or more; thus, visiting of any kind on a regular basis is out.

About seven years ago, the member for Muskoka (F. S. Miller), who is now our Treasurer, but who was then the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, and the late Hon. John Rhodes and myself spent a fair bit of time looking at this situation in the north. We agreed that a total needs complex was the right approach to this problem. In fact, I can remember the member for Muskoka and myself sitting down with the mayor and council members of the town of Espanola, who were then in need of some of these services. We advised them that at some time in the future we would hope to provide for the total needs of the elderly and the disabled.

Time has passed, and I have continued to work with the town of Espanola to get a project of this nature under way. Now it looks as if we will get a pilot project under way in that town. The town officials have co-operated with me on this proposal and have purchased acreage for the project. The soil testing has been done, as has the surveying. The study has been completed regarding the rental unit, and the Manitoulin District Health Council is recommending 30 nursing home beds. We have a working group made up of the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development and the Ministries of Northern Affairs, Community and Social Services, Housing, and Health. I am hopeful we will be into this pilot project in Espanola during the building period this summer.

I would like to tell this House I have the full support of my minister, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), not only for the project in Espanola, but for the total proposal itself. In fact, I had a letter on May 26 from him dealing with a number of matters, the second paragraph of which says:

“As northerners, it is clear to both of us that the standard responses to the needs of senior citizens do not always result in satisfactory care. I am anxious to see proposals develop that will suit the particular local needs of our widely dispersed northern communities. I am prepared, therefore, to urge ministers with responsibility for full grants in this field to assist in the development of the concept behind the Espanola long-term care proposal.”

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, you may very well ask, if things have progressed that far, why bring forward the resolution that we are debating at this time? The reason is clear. As I have pointed out, I have been working for six years to get this model or pilot project built in Espanola and, as I have also said, we hope to be into construction this summer. We cannot afford such long periods to elapse between the time the need is shown and the time the matter is resolved. My idea in bringing forward this resolution, which I would hope will get the full support of all members of all parties in this House, is to put in place the proper mechanisms to resolve these needs as they are identified across the north.

It could be that some may think I am proposing some kind of an institution in which to put our elderly people out of sight and out of sound. Nothing could be further from the truth. This proposal involves a complex that would require approximately seven acres of land for buildings, lawn and garden areas. It would include 30 rent-geared-to-income apartments for senior citizens needing this type of housing, 30 nursing home beds and 30 residential home care beds, plus a large senior citizens’ drop-in centre to accommodate up to 150 people. It would also provide a library, games room, work shop, craft shop, exercise and recreational areas as well as a barber shop, beauty salon, coffee shop, tack shops and so on.

The nursing station would be so located in the complex as to serve both the nursing home wing and the residential care wing. The laundry and kitchen areas would be located so as to serve the entire complex. In fact, the kitchen could well be the base for a meals-on-wheels program for the area. The grounds would include a lawn large enough to accommodate various types of outside recreation. Also it is very important to have a garden area so that all those persons who would wish to could have a garden plot and grow flowers or vegetables.

It is very important that all of these services be under one roof so that the residents who have to use wheelchairs to transport themselves from one place to another will have the same access to all of these services as those who are able to get around without help. It is also important to have the entire complex on the same floor level because stairs are always a problem to the elderly and even elevators are not as convenient as having everything on one level. It is also important to have a good parking area as near the main entrance as possible so that those senior citizens living out in the community would find it very convenient to drive to the complex and could spend a good deal of their time using the facilities I have described and enjoy being with their friends who, because of age or health, find it necessary to be full-time residents of the complex.

It is most important not only to keep our seniors involved in the community, but also to get the community involved in the life of the complex. In fact, I have already been advised by a service club in the area that it wants to put a bus service at the disposal of the people living in the proposed complex.

There is no doubt that if we are able to provide properly for our seniors and disabled people in the sparsely populated areas of the north, the type of complex I have described in this past few minutes would not only provide the proper facilities for those in need of these services, but also provide these services at a lower cost to the taxpayer in the places of the province where our senior citizens will be able to get the very most out of the sunset years of their lives. This will happen only if they continue to be part of the community they helped to build and are able to enjoy to the utmost their friends and families, grandchildren and great-grandchildren because, as we get older, these people play an increasingly important role in our lives.

I trust I can get the full support of the House to make sure that this great social concern we now have in the north can be taken care of and that our people can look forward to a long and happy retirement in the part of the province they choose.

I have not taken the full 20 minutes allowed. I would like to reserve a couple of minutes to wind up and I would like also to have as many members as possible enter into this very important debate this afternoon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will reserve two minutes for the honourable member.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution. When I look across the floor and see the Minister of Northern Affairs, who shortly will be ready for one of these institutions, I am sure he too will be supporting it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member is just checking my new hairstyle.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I noticed the new hairstyle. I figured the minister must be getting a little thin on top.

However, the idea put forward by the honourable member, as he has already indicated, is not entirely new. It relates to people who have lived in small towns in northern Ontario, mining communities, railway communities or communities associated with forestry or perhaps tourist areas. Essentially they are relatively small communities of anywhere from 500 to a few thousand which do not have, and cannot support on their own, facilities for senior citizens in the area.

I have had similar problems to the honourable member, in Rainy River. I have people who have to go to the Rainycrest Home for the Aged in Fort Frances, an excellent facility, but they have to come from the west end of the Rainy River district. From the town of Rainy River, it is a 60-mile drive each way. If they come from the far northern agricultural areas, the Morson area and so on, it can be over 100 miles. Atikokan on the east is 90 miles from Fort Frances. We have only the one facility there to deal with senior citizens who require assistance.

We have senior citizens’ apartments in some of these areas, but they are not sufficient. We are all in this together. We are all going to go out the same way. At our different ages and stages we may be able to care for ourselves, but then we may require a certain amount of care, and perhaps at the end of the line we might require much more care.

The principle of the resolution addresses itself to that very well. It is a fact that people are taken from a place like Atikokan, Rainy River, Barwick or Stratton, 50 or 100 miles from their families and from their homes where they have spent all their lives. A lot of these people in my area were pioneers. They find themselves in Fort Frances in a facility that is anywhere from 100 miles one way from where they spent all their other years, and they are lonely.

It is a fact of life, unfortunately, that in the society we live in today, people who used to move in with their sons and daughters and stay with them until the millennium came or whatever are now put in institutions. Once that is done, we often forget them. A lot of people look upon it as a burden to drive a couple of hundred miles on a weekend to see their mother, father, sister or brother, or whoever it happens to be in a facility not close to where they themselves reside.

With the cost of energy being what it is now and what it will be in the future, it may also be quite uneconomical for many people to be able to make these trips. As the member pointed out, this leaves these people in these institutions lonely, with nothing to look forward to. They probably do not pass their declining years in anything productive or creative, but may pass away earlier than they might have because of loneliness and lack of stimulus from people coming to visit.

The Atikokan General Hospital has made a suggestion that there be an addition built on to the hospital so that people who are ambulatory, but who may need their meals provided, who cannot completely function 100 per cent on their own, but who do not have to be put in a complete care facility, such as an old folks home, would be able to have their own small apartments attached to the hospital where they have their meals provided and any medical care they might require at a relatively low level.

5 p.m.

To me, that makes eminent good sense. It would be a lot more inexpensive for the government, or whoever is going to pay for it, than putting everyone into an old age institution where the costs are extremely high. It would allow these people to remain with dignity in their own community where they were raised, where they have spent the better part of their life and where they are surrounded by their friends and family. I think this is a concept whose time has come.

There was a pilot project some years ago -- three or four, I think -- in Hornepayne where this very experiment was tried. I understand it has been most successful. It has been very reasonably costed in terms of the alternatives that would have to be provided. This is the way of the future for people in these communities.

I would hope this resolution would have a larger impact on the government than is indicated by the numbers listening to it today. The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) resides in a small community himself and, I am sure, wishes to pass his declining years there after the next election.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am good for three more at least.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If he uses that in his campaign, he will never get re-elected. They are hoping this is his last one.

As I say, there was a pilot project in Hornepayne. I do not understand, quite frankly, why the government and the three ministries involved, which have already been outlined -- Health, Community and Social Services, and Housing -- did not all get together prior to this to push this kind of concept, both within their ministries and within the health units that have been set up across northern Ontario. The Kenora-Rainy River health council is now dealing with the request of Atikokan. I am sure there will be one shortly from the town of Rainy River and the hospital there and from Emo and the hospital there as well.

The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) does not do a great deal that we ever see around here, but I would have thought this is something her policy field should have been developing and co-ordinating so that we would not be here debating it today.

My friend from Algoma-Manitoulin introduced the motion. I am speaking on it and, presumably, the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) will be speaking on this too as we are all from northern Ontario. I would presume it is a matter also for other areas of the province, the rural areas particularly, where they are not right next door or adjacent to a city. They would also be involved and interested in promoting this concept.

I would hope we can continue this further than merely voting on it today. I am sure it would pass, not only because it is an excellent concept, but to vote against it would be voting against motherhood and one’s mother and father, which I am sure nobody is prepared to do.

I wonder what kind of mechanism, other than the debate today, we can use to impress upon the Provincial Secretary for Social Development and the three ministers involved that this concept should be taken seriously, that it is one that should be brought to the attention of these various areas and should be something that becomes government policy with the concomitant funds being made available.

I think the honourable member was absolutely right when he said there would be a saving overall by the time we computed the cost of having senior citizens’ apartments at one end of town and then a senior citizens’ housing unit in a different space. The concept makes sense in terms of the people, the human beings involved, from a social point of view as well as an economic one.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution introduced by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. I want to congratulate him sincerely for introducing it and for the excellent speech he gave in support of his resolution. There is only one small thing I might disagree with him on, namely, his proposal that this should be done entirely by the private sector.

As the member for Rainy River indicated, there has been a pilot project for a number of years in my riding in Hornepayne carried out through the Hornepayne Community Hospital with funding from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The Ministry of Housing, interestingly enough, has not been involved. They are looking at the establishment of senior citizens’ apartments elsewhere.

The proposal made by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin is a very good one. The suggestions made really warrant serious consideration by the government since combined facilities would show a saving whether in the public or private sector. I certainly support that. I am so in favour of it and I have spoken on it many times in the House. The first major speech I gave in this House during the Ministry of Health estimates in 1975 was on this very matter.

This proposal is important to areas such as ours. Take the riding of Algoma. We have senior citizens’ apartments in some small communities. The main old age homes are located in the southern part of the riding. There is one in Sault Ste. Marie and one in Thessalon. That means someone from Wawa, for instance, has to travel at least 140 miles from home. For someone from White River or Dubreuilville, it is a distance of approximately 200 miles. For someone from Hornepayne, it is 260 miles.

As the member for Algoma-Manitoulin indicated, that is just not acceptable in terms of dividing families. Many people who need care are unwilling to travel that distance because they do not want to be away from the familiarity of their home, their friends and their families. If we don’t provide these people with facilities in their own communities in an economic way, we are denying them the kind of care they deserve after all the years they spent building those communities. The way to go about it is as the resolution proposes. There should be a combined, integrated effort of various ministries involved in different types of housing and care. I support that concept.

I would like to talk a little bit about the pilot project at Hornepayne. I want to say how disturbed I am by the fact that it is still a pilot project rather than a permanent facility. I am glad the Minister for Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) is in the House today to hear this debate. As the minister responsible for co-ordinating the operations and the response of the other ministries to the difficulties and problems in the north, he could be playing an enormous role by co-ordinating the activities of these various ministries as proposed in the resolution by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We are.

Mr. Wildman: I want to get to that. I regret that apparently, the minister is not going to participate in the debate, but perhaps if there is time he will be able to respond to a couple of things I want to say.

The Hornepayne centre is attached to the hospital, as I said. Its main advantage is it provides residential and extended care so that the disabled and elderly in the community don’t have to travel 260 miles to receive care. It was a five-year pilot project.

5:10 p.m.

It has been evaluated by the Algoma District Health Council, which agrees with the opinions expressed by many that this project has proved most successful in economics and should serve as a model for ensuring the availability and flexibility of care for other small northern communities.

But it is still a pilot project. The government has not responded and has not said it will go ahead with this concept or that it wants to make it permanent in Hornepayne and extend it to other communities like Wawa and other small communities in northern Ontario.

There are problems with the facility at Hornepayne. It is set up as a portable unit. It is a prefab wooden unit; it is not a permanent structure. The Algoma District Health Council has recommended to the government that it be renovated or replaced by a permanent structure. The Ministry of Health has indicated that it is receptive to that idea, but we have got absolutely nowhere with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton). This is mainly because he does not have any money. Although he makes general comments that it is a good concept and he likes it and supports it, he can’t put his money where his mouth is.

Because of that, I have asked the Minister of Northern Affairs to become involved and to try to co-ordinate that response, encourage his colleagues to respond. I wrote to him about this, as he may recall, on November 26. I was supported by our Community and Social Service critic, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). I have yet to receive a response to that letter.

I did receive a response to a copy of that letter which I sent to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). He stated on January 10 that his ministry was working with the staff of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Northern Affairs in an effort to develop proposals mutually acceptable to all three ministries for replacement of the residential care unit at Hornepayne Community Hospital.

He wrote: “I am sure that you will appreciate that, given the financial constraints facing each of these three provincial ministries, it may not be possible to replace the residential unit in the immediate future.”

As far as I am concerned, that is being penny wise and pound foolish. As the member for Algoma-Manitoulin indicated, if they went with this concept they would save money; it would not cost more. It is encouraging to know that at least the Minister of Health does seem interested in the proposal.

I again approached the Minister of Northern Affairs to ask him to prod his other colleagues to become involved in this. I wrote to him on April 28, pointing out to him that the Algoma District Health Council had sent a resolution to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services urging them to make a clear decision on the Hornepayne concept and on the Hornepayne project. I have yet to receive a reply to that letter too. I have not heard from the Minister of Northern Affairs on either of these letters.

I did receive a copy of a letter, however, from a Mr. Bain of the Ministry of Health to the Algoma District Health Council, in which he said he had been given the role by his minister to co-ordinate the activities of the three ministries in response to the Hornepayne study. That was dated April 23 of this year. That, again, is encouraging. At least they are talking to one another about it.

The Algoma District Health Council sees this as the type of project that could be used in other small communities to enable the disabled and the elderly to stay in their own communities. In that vein, the council held a meeting of the various ministries involved and senior citizens groups and set up a committee in the Wawa area to see how this kind of concept could be applied there. That group wrote to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services on May 8, suggesting they have a meeting at the end of May. The letter pointed out that there were about 200 residents of Wawa who were in the age category that could use these kinds of services in their own community.

This organization received no reply from either minister until I got in touch with their offices. The Minister of Health’s staff apologized very much for not having replied until after the end of May, when they wanted the meeting. Boyd Suttie, assistant deputy minister, community health services, sent a letter to the chairman of that group, in which he suggested to this committee, which had been set up by the Algoma District Health Council, that he get in touch with the health council to discuss this concept.

All I am saying in this whole thing is that everyone accepts the proposal and everyone agrees with the concept, but one hand does not know what the other hand is doing over there. They cannot get together, and the Minister of Northern Affairs is doing nothing about it.

I would hope the introduction of this resolution by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin will prod his cabinet colleagues to do something to respond to the needs of the elderly and disabled in the small communities of northern Ontario.

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the resolution before the House today. It is a reflection of the humanity and concern of my colleague, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) towards the senior citizens of northern Ontario.

Although my constituency is in the southern part of the province, it is a rural one. I know that distances and travel can prove to be a hardship to older residents. This is especially so for those people living in small villages or farms. The principle of this resolution could very well serve a useful purpose in a rural riding such as Wellington-Dufferin-Peel.

All of us recognize that northerners have special needs and requirements. There is a certain pioneer spirit that binds people together. Long distances and harsh terrain and climate are combined with a scattered population. Those people have the same need and right to the services that the majority of us take for granted.

Ontario society is undergoing a change. It is aging. As a result of this trend, social services for the elderly are going to have to be adjusted; programs will have to be strengthened; co-operation among those ministries that deliver social services will become even more necessary. This government has recognized the problem and is beginning to take steps towards improving the facilities and services available to the elderly. What this government is committed to is ensuring the dignity and wellbeing of its elderly citizens. By elderly I am including the very old people in their 80s and 90s who are not necessarily physically sick, just frail. Yet in the north these people cannot travel two blocks down the road to get to an elderly persons’ centre or rent-geared-to-income housing. Their nearest place might be 30, 50 or 100 miles away.

At any time of the year this would prove to be an obstacle that would be practically impossible to overcome on their own resources. The questions we must consider then are the following: What is being done at the moment to provide services to seniors in the north? How effective are the programs and what alternatives are being considered to strengthen integration of social services? Finally, can such new alternatives and programs be delivered within a reasonable cost?

In addressing the first question, the Ministers of Health, Housing, Northern Affairs and Community and Social Services work together to provide complementary services.

Mr. Wildman: Why can he not answer my letter?

Mr. J. Johnson: Yes, sir. For example, in Hornepayne, a 16-bed residential and health care unit was built on to the community hospital in 1974. A new idea is a proposal to establish a nursing home, residential care, housing units and a community centre complex in Espanola.

Ideas of this sort are indicative of the concern and flexibility of both the government and the local residents. I might add that we should not underestimate the abilities of volunteers and local clubs to help the elderly. It is not only these people but family members as well who can provide for many of the emotional and physical needs for senior citizens.

5:20 p.m.

At present, the Ministry of Health operates home care programs in northwestern Ontario, Algoma, North Bay, Sudbury, Porcupine and Thunder Bay areas. I am sure the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) is pleased that the home care program in his district is being expanded to include chronically ill patients. The government has a positive role to play. It works with local district health councils, social service groups and other ministries to provide initiatives and service funding to groups involved with the community.

In the Ministry of Community and Social Services northern region, there are over 2,900 beds in municipal and charitable homes for the aged. This represents approximately 10 per cent of total provincial beds. I have done a little checking and have discovered that 47 per cent of northern beds are located in municipalities with average populations of under 6,000 people. The people living in the surrounding areas would also have access to these beds. I find this an encouraging indication that facilities are being provided in smaller communities. I might also add that the ratio of municipal and charitable beds per 1,000 population aged 60 and over in the north is 28.1, which is much higher than the 24.9 bed provincial average.

Another example of alternative methods of support for the elderly is the ministry’s home support program. Under the program, social service agencies and citizens’ groups are eligible to receive up to 50 per cent funding for their approved budgets by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The remaining costs are met through donations, user fees and municipal grants. Funding is being provided for a variety of projects such as Meals on Wheels in Sudbury and New Liskeard. Another project is snow removal for the elderly living in Wawa.

Solutions of this sort are practical, simple and effective. However, while it is all very easy to stand here collectively patting ourselves on the back, two questions remain: What other methods can we devise to assist northern senior citizens to stay in their own communities? How can these new approaches be combined to achieve the maximum results within reasonable budgetary guidelines?

I don’t think there is any doubt that the three ministries in question agree with the proposal to combine the resources in communities that have the need for their services. In fact, there are already some combined facilities located not only in Hornepayne but in Chapleau and Dryden as well. I know that any reasonable suggestion would probably be examined and studied for possible implementation. The major obstacle is that while it would be beneficial to combine facilities in communities, the high costs of capital construction and renovation must be considered.

It is not just a matter of going into a community and saying: “Okay, folks, how would you like a new integrated complex for your elderly residents?” We also have to pay a percentage of the operating costs of the complex. In some places, cost-sharing by the local municipality might not be possible. Don’t misunderstand me -- it is not that the difficulties are insurmountable, but there has to be a realistic assessment of what can and can’t be done. In fact, only one component of a ministry program might be required to satisfy the specific needs of the elderly within a given distance of that town.

The benefits of establishing integrated services for the elderly in the north are enormous. I would certainly support any steps taken to keep senior citizens in their homes and communities for as long as possible. Helping the elderly should never be just a matter of obligation or necessity for this government, but a matter of pride. We owe them a great deal, and this government will ensure that they receive our support whenever and wherever it is needed.

I call upon all members of this House to support this fine resolution.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in support of this resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane).

In commenting on the principle of the bill, I must say to the member I wish he had also included the rural areas of southern Ontario in this resolution. It seems to me there are a good many areas in the south of our province where people grow up and live their lives in communities, but because of circumstance, because the physical infirmities of the body take over, suddenly they find themselves having to be completely displaced and taken away from those communities where they grew up and from their friends and peers whom they interrelated with all through their lives.

I also realize the member for Algoma-Manitoulin is going very much against the current of his own government and of his own party in recommending this kind of resolution, and I commend him for that bold step. I say that inasmuch as the trend by this government in so many things has been towards a more centralized kind of operation presented in the name of efficiencies, either now or some time in the future. What we have found through experience is those efficiencies have not happened, and a more decentralized policy serving the needs of people in relation to their lifestyle is more efficient in the end.

I will make a couple of references and cite a couple of examples. One has occurred in southern Ontario, the area I am most familiar with, that is the consolidation of schools. It has been policy in the past few years -- it was a policy that prompted my standing for nomination and running successfully for election initially -- that schools considered small, which was a very arbitrary kind of description, were also considered uneconomical and not serving the best educational interests of young people. In fact, experience has shown that smaller schools were just as economical, perhaps more so, as larger schools, and in many cases the quality of education has been superior to that of large, centralized, impersonal learning institutions.

The same thing can be said about the establishment of regional government, where governments became more centralized and thus one step further removed from the people. They were sold to us, forced down our throats, on the basis of efficiency, that they would actually be better and would result in lower taxes. In fact, experience has proved that taxes under the regional system have been higher.

I could go on and comment on the social aspects of that kind of centralization, but I use those two examples just to show that bigger is not always better as we go through this life. People do not live in regions, in counties, in large cities. They live in communities and will continue to do so as long as the human psyche is somewhat similar to the way it is now.

Even if one goes into the great city of Metropolitan Toronto, one will find it is made up of a composite of communities.

5:30 p.m.

If one goes into the region of Halton, one will find people live there in communities. One of the fundamental problems this government has had over the years is to relate not only its social policies, but its economic policies as well, to the fundamental fact that human beings choose to live and interrelate inside communities. If the government is going to serve the interests of people properly, it has to serve them in terms of the community.

Right now in the region of Halton, we have more than an adequate number of nursing home beds in the south end. Statistics show we are well served by nursing home beds there. But when we get north of halfway up the region, there are no nursing home beds. This simply means that someone who needs that kind of care must be removed from his community and must go to another area far away. I have to say that if any kind of moral persuasion can be brought to bear on this government, which this member is trying to do, he has my support and we stand behind him 100 per cent.

I hope he is conscious, as I am sure he is, of the fact that this kind of thrust should apply to the whole province. We have an opportunity here to improve the way we serve people. I know the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and some other people will come back to him and say it is going to be more costly. They will give him the old Duke of Kent argument that we have heard so often. But experience has shown that it is not necessarily true that kind of decentralization costs more money and is less efficient. I believe that both important aspects, the social as well as the economic, can be well served by this kind of thrust.

I can assure the member I will do everything in my power to see this idea is continued and grows.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution. I do have some reservations about it, but essentially the thrust and the principle behind the resolution are ones which we, as a party, have supported for a long period of time. A couple of years ago, we addressed ourselves to a kind of model for the provision of care in a number of situations. They are interrelated between Community and Social Services and Health. In this particular instance, the Ministry of Northern Affairs has its little finger in the pie as well. It speaks to a number of problems.

I would join with those who expressed some small measure of regret that the resolution addresses itself to the problems of northern Ontario. There is absolutely no denying from anyone’s point of view that is where the problems are more acute and more obvious. They are compounded by facts of geography, weather and road systems which do not exist in other parts of the province. But for many of those in southwestern and southeastern Ontario who live in sparsely populated areas the same concept and the same problems are there. The access is a bit better in terms of a road system and perhaps not as severe in terms of geography and weather conditions, but the same concept would apply equally as well there.

I want to go over what I think would be a major problem with this resolution because it is a highly supportable notion. The concept of integrating into one facility the work of other ministries is the most common-sense approach to it all that I have seen. It is my personal viewpoint that in the long run one would achieve a cost saving by doing that, but that would not be the purpose of the exercise because I think this resolution speaks to two major problems we have in Ontario.

One is the clearly demonstrated inability time after time for one ministry to co-ordinate anything with another ministry. If we add a third one, we go through an almost impossible mix to achieve what seems to be a very noble and sensible proposition. For some reason, the ministries are unable to co-operate with each other. Even if they all agree that it is a good idea and it ought to occur, somehow in the process of working among more than one ministry it becomes fouled up.

Everyone writes nice letters saying, “This is a highly supportable idea and we approve it in principle. We will now send our staff to work.” A year later the common practice is the staff’s report: “Due to some technical difficulty or administrative problem, we could not achieve what we all set out to do.” That speaks to a failure of our own civil service, highly trained though it is and operating in most instances with extremely good intentions. There seems to be that constant inability to resolve a problem of this nature.

The second major problem this resolution gets at is very simply that the ministry service systems in this province, Community and Social Services, Housing or Health, are not set up in the first instance to provide services to human beings. The system does not work that way. The system is administratively sensible and logical. It is good for those who provide the service sometimes, but it is consistently wrong from the point of view of those who need the service. We have a health care system which is set up essentially -- and historically there are good reasons and lots of documentation for it -- so that doctors can practise medicine. It is not set up so that people who have a need for health care services will get them easily, conveniently and in the form they need.

The same is true of community and social services of all kinds. They are set up perhaps logically from an administrative point of view, but for some individuals who need that kind of assistance, whether it be an allowance, benefit or a pension, the system defies them. They do not understand it. They are into paperwork and different categories of service; they are covered under different pieces of legislation; they have to go to different offices; they have to call different people; they have to fill out different forms; they have to have information for the filling out of forms which they do not have. And, of course, because these offices are spread all over the immediate world, regionalized and so on, there is not much chance that an individual who needs care of any kind, health services, community and social services or, in this case, housing services, can quickly, easily and conveniently get those services.

They are all in little boxes and little categories and set up according to different ministries. The regions do not conform, nor do the needs of the administrators conform. They all have different approaches in the setting up of administrative models; they all have different approaches to covering different pieces of legislation supposedly geared to do noble things. The unfortunate fact of life for people who need these kinds of services is simply that the system is not set up to address itself to their particular needs; it is set up for other purposes.

In a sense, this resolution goes directly to that major problem. We have a whole system of civil servants, programs and funding systems in place in this province which were not really designed in the first instance to service human beings. They are administrative systems. God help anyone who runs afoul of that system, or requires the system to be the least bit flexible or needs to work with more than one system at any given moment in time. He is going to have the kinds of problems all members have addressed themselves to in the course of this debate.

The concept which the member has proposed here is one which, to me, is basic common sense, that is, to set up the administrative unit to address itself in the first instance to the needs of the human beings it is trying to serve. If they need a place to live, if they need some social assistance programs or if they need some health care, then that is what the administrative unit should be. It is implementing the concept itself which causes the problem because all of our systems are set up to deal with very different concepts.

It is much easier to put them in an institution. It is much easier to take human beings and ship them somewhere in little boxes. That can happen. It is very difficult to bring those services to individuals in their own communities, where they were born, raised, grew up, worked, made friends or enemies, talked to other people, went to church and made contributions -- in other words, where those human beings want to stay and have a right to stay. It is difficult to get that across to people who are used to filling out forms and doing reports and studies. To them, it seems a foreign language in a foreign world.

5:40 p.m.

It would be extremely worth while if this House would say this afternoon that the concept proposed in this resolution is necessary and is something which we all support. Forget the administration and forget the problems the ministers and the staff in the ministries have. Let us talk this afternoon about human beings who have needs, in Espanola or Hornepayne or Smooth Rock Falls or anywhere in this province. Let us talk about the concept of providing services which meet those needs.

If it means breaking every rule in the book to accomplish it, let us break them. If it means three ministries at very high levels go crazy for the next six months, let them go crazy, instead of the people who require the services. If it means ministers have to bump their budgets around and that the whole system quavers a bit, then surely this system could use some moving about.

This concept is workable. It has been done in a number of other jurisdictions. It has been done in this province in a variety of ways, but it is always very difficult to achieve. I believe the concept is solid. The first principle of providing service to a province like Ontario is to address ourselves to the needs of the individual the system is supposed to serve. If the system can’t get around to dealing with those needs, then change the system. The needs of the human being are what we are supposedly here this afternoon to try to meet.

This resolution is supportable from a number of points of view but it will be difficult to achieve.

I would like to conclude with this remark. I sense from the debate that members of all political parties have looked at this concept and found it supportable. Members from the government, the official opposition and from this caucus have voiced their support. When this House speaks on Thursday afternoons to a resolution like this, it ought to be heard, no matter what price the consequences. I sense the resolution will carry, I hope with a substantial majority. Then the test of the government will be to see whether it can carry out something which addresses itself to the needs of the people of this province, needs which have been clearly expressed by the Legislature itself.

If it can’t, there are three ministers of the crown who have some explaining to do to this Legislature and to the people of Ontario. If it means --

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

Mr. Breaugh: They must go to their local member and do things they don’t like; I plead with them to do that. The resolution deserves our support; the concept is long overdue.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, do I have 10 minutes?

Mr. Speaker: No, you don’t. You have about five.

Mr. Hennessy: I think I’ll forget about the speech because when they write a speech for me I can’t read it anyway.

I come from northwest Ontario, a vast area. It is very difficult to get around. People who do need assistance find it extremely difficult to get into Thunder Bay. Elderly people in small communities need assistance, be it medical or otherwise, and the government should look at trying to amalgamate two or three ministries and putting up some kind of structure to satisfactorily take care of the needs of the people in those areas. It is extremely hard, especially in winter, to go from one area to another and to do so in a short time. If there is a serious illness or emergency, it is difficult to get a plane at the appropriate time.

With all due respect, without taking up too much of the time of the House, I support this bill 100 per cent. The government should give serious consideration to establishing a multicare unit in northwestern Ontario and various small communities so that the people in those areas can receive the help they need.

Mr. Riddell: If the member supports it, the government will pass it.

Mr. Hennessy: Does the member opposite have to keep yapping? Can he not keep quiet once in a while? He talks enough here. For once, he could keep his mouth shut. He might just get elected.

With pleasure, I support this resolution and I wish the loudmouths on the other side would keep quiet.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank each and every member who has spoken this afternoon. I appreciate that my friend from Halton-Burlington said he wished the resolution had encompassed southern Ontario. I would say to my friend there are two groups in this province: northerners and those who wish they were northerners. In any case, if the concept is good, then, God bless, it will apply to any part of the province where it fits. As a northerner, I am looking at northern needs. I basically directed the resolution to the area where I could see the need.

I appreciate the comments of my friend from Algoma and his frustrations with the Hornepayne situation which, as he pointed out, has been a pilot project.

While I call the Espanola proposal a model or a pilot project, it will also be a permanent situation. As a matter of fact, it is rather interesting to look at how quickly people accumulate. I start to talk about 6,000 people in Espanola, and then I look at five other organized municipalities within a 20-mile radius. We have Webbwood, Nairn, Baldwin, Massey and Spanish River townships and some unorganized areas. Suddenly, I wind up with over 11,000 people just in a 20-mile radius of Espanola.

If we look at the entire needs of northern Ontario -- and, again, I am not keeping it in northern Ontario -- it is surprising how often we could have a concept of this nature so that these people would be within a reasonable distance of home. We would really take care of needs that have been outstanding for a long time.

My friend from Oshawa raised a point about the difficulty of co-ordinating ministers and ministries to work together to provide any kind of total concept of this nature. I have been a member of this House long enough that I am not going to deny that is a problem. I will be the first one to accept that it has been a problem. All I am saying is now that we have the Minister of Northern Affairs in northern Ontario, this is going to be less of a problem. I am sure he is going to be co-ordinating a great many of these kinds of programs in the north, because we need programs in other fields besides social services.

In listening to the discussion this afternoon, it seems to me that perhaps this concept might be the key required to provide a greater service in the social needs field throughout the province. If that is the case, it has been time well spent.

5:50 p.m.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Mr. Germa’s motion for second reading of Bill 39:

Belanger, Bernier, Birch, Brunelle, Cureatz, Eaton, Gregory, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J., Leluk, Maeck, McCague, McNeil, Norton, Parrott, Rotenberg, Scrivener, Sterling, Walker, Watson, Wells -- 24.

SERVICES FOR THE AGED IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lane has moved resolution 26.

Resolution concurred in.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the members of the House the business for the rest of this week and, at this time, for just Monday and Tuesday of next week. I will advise the House next Monday of the order of legislation for the rest of the week.

Tonight we will be considering Bill 89, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, in committee of the whole House. If any time remains, we will move on to Bill 82, An Act to amend the Education Act. Tomorrow morning we will begin with second readings of Bill 50 in committee of the whole House, followed by Bill 51 and then Bill 48.

On Monday, June 16, we will consider legislation, starting with Bill 1, in the afternoon and evening in committee of the whole House. We will then finish legislation that was not completed on Friday, that is, the Treasurer’s bills, followed by the Minister of Revenue’s Bill 55, and then Bill 71, Bill 69, Bill 81 and Bill 119 with second readings in committee of the whole House as required. On Tuesday afternoon we will deal with legislation -- Bill 82, the amendments to the Education Act. In the evening we will deal with Bill 120, the Brantford amalgamation bill, Bill 122 and Bill 121.

The House, as I announced, will be sitting on Monday evening and will also sit on Wednesday afternoon from two until six o’clock with no routine proceedings.

The House recessed at 5:54 p.m.