Journal des débats 1981-mai-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would call the attention of all members to a distinguished visitor sitting in the Speaker's gallery in the person of Mr. Yaakov Suslensky. Mr. Suslensky is among the most prominent Jewish dissidents and human rights activists in the Soviet Union. He is a close friend of, and a former inmate of prisons and labour camps with, the famed Mr. Scharansky.

Mr. Suslensky has spent seven years in Soviet prisons, four of which were spent in the dreadful high-security prison of Vladimir. Mr. Suslensky was a Jewish activist in the Ukraine. He has been recently released and is living in Jerusalem, Israel. He is at present making a speaking tour of North America to promote brotherhood. He is also chairman for Jewish/Ukrainian Relations.

He has recently met with such organizations as the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Ukrainian/Canadian Committee, among other organizations, to promote harmony and tolerance among communities and peoples. I would ask all members to join in recognition of Mr. Suslensky.

[Applause.]

Mr. Shymko: I think we are indeed honoured on this special occasion, as our Legislature on many occasions previously has expressed its concerns about the infringements and violations of human rights. I would like to point out that Mr. Yaakov Suslensky symbolizes individuals such as Anatoly Scharansky, individuals who, notwithstanding circumstances quite different from the freedom and democracy we enjoy in Canada, stood for certain principles of inalienable, universal rights. I think under the circumstances of the countries in which they fought for these rights, they are indeed symbols for the rest of humanity.

I would like to point out that on Tuesday of this week, on the occasion of the birthday of Iban Nudel, a special presentation was made to the Honourable Pauline McGibbon from the Toronto Jewish Congress and the Committee for Soviet Jewry, awarding the honour of the Nudel humanitarian award.

Mr. Suslensky was a personal friend of Iban Nudel and the fact he is free today is the result of the intervention of this great lady who has assisted many prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union. He has also spent four years with Yuri Shukhevych. Many of our members on both sides of this chamber have received a petition to release this man who was arrested at the age of 15 and who has spent the rest of his life until now, at age 46, in prisons and camps. He has been in the Vladimir prison with Yuri Shukhevych and I think can personally tell our members of the tragic circumstances not only of individuals, but of many in the Soviet Union. On behalf of many, I certainly welcome Mr. Yaakov Suslensky.

[Translation from Ukrainian.]

Dear brother Yaakov, we welcome you to Ontario and to Canada, a land of liberty and democracy for many peoples who have escaped tyranny and persecution. All our communities, especially the Jewish and Ukrainian communities who have been victims of holocausts, wish you strength and determination in your great work to make this world more humane and compassionate in our relations with one another.

[End of translation.]

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to see Mr. Yaakov Suslensky with us and to use the occasion of his visit to remember all those who are still the refuseniks, all those who are still unable to leave the Soviet Union for various trumped-up reasons.

The government of the Soviet Union has been in power now for some 63 or 64 years and, under its system, it still does not believe that system can survive having people express their own opinions or choosing to leave the country to live elsewhere. It is a sign of just how shaky that regime must feel inside itself that, 64 years after a revolution, it still cannot tolerate free speech, free thought and freedom of movement. Instead, it puts people like Yaakov Suslensky in concentration camps. Iban Nudel is in exile at least until spring of next year and who knows what they will trump up then. There is Anatoly Scharansky whom we are still waiting to see get just and fair treatment.

It is a regime which should be brought up in front of the United Nations commission on colonialism as the largest colonial regime still in existence in today's world, a regime we should take every opportunity to indicate our total disagreement with and our deep concern about the way it tramples human rights.

Mr. Suslensky is very welcome here as he observed from the ovation given by all three parties. We can only hope his presence among us foretells the day when people like Anatoly Scharansky and Iban Nudel will also be free to come and go as free people should be able to everywhere.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in welcoming Mr. Suslensky to this Legislature and to wish him well in the course of his visit to North America when he will undoubtedly be talking about conditions in the Soviet Union and, in particular, about the efforts of the Jewish minority in the Soviet Union to avoid oppression, discrimination and the taking away of those few human rights that are its under the Soviet constitution, usually honoured in the breach rather than in the observance.

10:10 a.m.

I believe all of us in Canada should recognize just how lucky we are, but also recognize an obligation towards Mr. Suslensky's countrymen when he was in the Soviet Union, in particular with respect to the Helsinki Accords which this country signed a few years ago. Among other things, they provided for the first time some commitments to basic human rights, to the access to information and to the freedom from political trials of people who happen to disagree with the regime, of people who simply wish a measure of political liberty and the freedom to lead their lives in peace and quiet as people can in the western world.

Alas, those Helsinki Accords have been honoured in the breach. Alas, Canada has failed in my opinion to pursue systematically the question of the observance of the Helsinki Accords, not just at the time they were reviewed a few months ago, but year after year and month after month. We have failed to indicate very clearly to the Soviet Union and the other countries of the eastern bloc that we take seriously the obligations that were put in that document and believe they should as well.

Our hearts go out to all those who are still in labour camps, those who are still in prisons and those still subjected to the kind of treatment they are receiving in the Soviet Union. Our hearts go out with the hope that those Jews who wish to leave the Soviet Union to go Israel or other parts of the world will be able to get that permission and be able to leave their country as Mr. Suslensky has been able to do. Our hearts go out with the hope that those many Jews who would like to stay in the Soviet Union, but would like to stay under conditions where they are no longer discriminated against as they have been in the past, would be able to achieve their hopes and their dreams.

I think the situation there is a tragic one. I hope the day will come, as may be beginning in Poland, when the working people of the Soviet Union find ways to reform or perhaps even to reform within their regime in order to achieve the ideals that originally motivated the Russian revolution, but which have been betrayed so tragically in the last 60 years.

DEATH OF ERNEST GRIFFITH

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to the attention of the House the death of a very distinguished public servant in this province, Mr. Ernest Bradley Griffith, the former general manager of the Toronto Harbour Commission.

I think it is fair to say that in his public service capacity Mr. Griffith was a significant contributor to the vast industrial and commercial growth and development of this province in the post-war years. While his public service was primarily devoted to the port of Toronto, certainly his impact was felt in the industrial and commercial centres across the southern part of this province. Not only many of the things that came with the seaway, but also the quite notable revolution in transportation since that time were accomplished under his administration at the harbour commission.

I am sure the Legislature will join with me in extending our condolences to the family and in marking this recognition of a most distinguished public servant.

REDIRECTION OF QUESTIONS; QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Speaker: I have answers to points of order and points of privilege that were raised earlier.

On Tuesday last Mr. Mancini raised a point of order concerning supplementary questions being directed to another minister. I have had an opportunity to review the comments of the members participating in the discussion on the point of order, and I have also reviewed and weighed very carefully the remarks of my predecessors on this matter.

A minister to whom a question is put is given a wide latitude of discretion. He may answer a question, defer a question for further consideration or take it as noted, or he may decline to answer the question without stating a reason for the refusal. A minister may also refer a question not within his administrative responsibility to another minister.

The chair enjoys discretion in allowing the question and certainly in allowing the supplementary questions. It seems to me that if and when supplementaries are allowed, there should be a follow-up device flowing from the response of a particular minister. They should not be redirected to a different minister. Members who have questions for other ministers should seek to be recognized on a new question. I suggest that otherwise they are merely trying to get questions out of turn.

I ask for the co-operation of all members on this matter to ensure that the question period runs smoothly and with maximum participation from all members.

Yesterday Mr. Roy, on a point of order, asked me to look into the question of whether or not the raising of matters of privilege during the question period should be included in the 60 minutes allowed for that period.

I suggest it is obvious that when the alleged breach of privilege relates to the question just asked, then in accordance with standing order 18 it must be taken up immediately and must consequently be included within the 60 minutes. If the matter refers to something completely unrelated to the current question, such as something said yesterday or something in a newspaper report, it should be taken up either before or after the question period.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With reference to your first ruling, it is not entirely clear to me exactly what you are saying but I believe you are saying that another member, on a supplementary, may not redirect from the minister who originally responded to the first question to a different minister. I would like you to clarify that.

I would also like you to clarify the situation where a minister gets up, passes the buck and says, "I am not responsible" and sits down. We often see that from the ministers. If I understand it correctly, you have not ruled on whether it would then be possible for the member who originally raised the question to redirect it to the minister whom the answering minister seems to say is responsible. Could you respond to those two questions, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The point of order which was raised referred only to supplementary questions. When a supplementary is directed to a particular minister to whom the original question was directed, then the supplementary must also be directed to that minister. If you want to ask a question of another minister, it must be a new question.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Are you saying then that it is not possible to redirect or are you saying that it is possible to redirect but only as a consequence of the original question and as a result of the original reply by the minister?

Mr. Speaker: I am saying that members cannot redirect on a supplementary. They may, of course, redirect on an original question.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GRANTS TO PULP AND PAPER COMPANIES

Mr. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism regarding pulp and paper grants. During the campaign, the Financial Post of March 14, 1981, reported that the Ontario government plans to add $20 million more, plus the $10 million from the federal government, to its so-called pulp and paper modernization program.

Could the minister tell this House what documentation convinces him of the need to give an additional $20 million of taxpayers' money to pulp and paper companies, given the prosperity which exists in that sector, the high profitability, and the number of takeover bids that are quite prevalent in that sector? What is the documentation that makes the minister feel that without that $20 million of Ontario money, the companies could not afford to undertake modernization? Could he present the documentation to the House?

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The documentation has been presented to this House on several occasions. It certainly has been presented in estimates on several occasions. I believe the member will find that the Duncan Allan report sets out all the needs of the industry and the last $20 million, which he is referring to, is the balance necessary to complete the entire modernization of the pulp and paper industry in this province. He has had the documentation for quite some time.

Mr. Smith: Supplementary: The documentation referred to is basically a 1977 report, and the four years that have passed since that time have turned out to be four of the most profitable years in the history of the pulp and paper industry. Is the minister saying we have to continue giving public money to these companies that can afford to modernize without it?

Is he saying we have to do that because this -- to use his words -- completes the program? In other words, since so many companies have already received public money, it is only fair and reasonable the remainder get their hand into the till as well. Is that what the minister is saying?

How does he justify giving public money to companies that are now the subject of competitive takeover bids because they are so prosperous they are seen as excellent vehicles for investment by people in the market, and by larger companies looking to acquire excellent potential for the future? How does he justify giving public money to those people who do not need it when so many people, hospitals and individuals alike, do not get the money they require?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Had the member read the report that was produced in the latter days of 1978, not 1977, and accepted and reanalysed by this government in 1979, he would have seen the current rather healthy situation in terms of income for the pulp and paper companies was anticipated. If one looks at the history of the industry over the last 50 or 60 years, there have been periods during which there have been very healthy performance and takeover bids. That has not resulted in the necessary modernization process this province needs. In fact, the very healthy situation the pulp and paper industry finds itself in today is one in which the industries may well look to what are called greenfield plants in other jurisdictions.

The Leader of the Opposition must surely be aware of some of this because he has reached certain conclusions which obviously are in concert with those of this government. I might quote the Leader of the Opposition: "With regard to the actual matter of using provincial funds, I want to make it clear that I do not oppose provincial programs to assist the pulp and paper industry. Provided the funds are given under Department of Regional Economic Expansion arrangement, I am not opposed to the actual handing out of money."

Mr. Smith: Read the whole letter, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I sure will. "I do believe, however, that it is wrong to set up a provincial fund administered with only the vaguest set of rules and guidelines." That is quite --

Mr. Smith: Everybody read that one, it's old news.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, but the member was not here the day we beat up his Treasury critic. That's old news? Well, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that was his policy one year ago. At exactly the same time, his policy was that he was opposed to the pulp and paper grants. I understand the politics of what he writes to the northern Ontario mayors as opposed to what he says down here. Even he, reading this letter he wrote himself and signed, will understand that he is, in that letter, accepting the premise that the pulp and paper industry needed some provincial assistance to modernize.

If that situation has changed, perhaps he might be kind enough to write the mayors of the northern municipalities and indicate to them that the position he took February 15, 1980, is not the position he takes on May 1, 1981. Those are the facts as they sit. Just so he knows where we stand and have always stood on modernization of the pulp and paper industry in northern Ontario, we believe the money was necessary. We believe the $1.5 billion renovation program, 85 per cent sourced in Canada, simply would not have happened without the aggressive intervention of this government.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we all know the process of evaluation that occurs within the government on social programs and is used by the government to enforce a systematic series of cutbacks in terms of programs, and cutbacks in terms of needed services in the area of social services of Ontario. Would the minister tell the House what evaluation process has gone forward since those grants have been provided? Has that evaluation not touched on each particular grant? Will the minister now table in this Legislature the evaluation process to show whether or not those grants were justified and how much the people of the province would be earning now if the grants had been accompanied by equity for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I simply say the proof is that there was a substantial renovation of the industry undertaken. Members will recall that when the report came out it was anticipated we would be able to lever about $3 for every $1 the provincial government put up. As a result of further discussions with the industry and changing economic conditions, this government, through tough and difficult negotiating, was able to lever $9 or $10 for every $1 that this government put up. As a result, for about $100 million, with a portion of that being shared by DREE, we end up with a $1.5 billion renovation program, which is far greater than was anticipated originally.

If members want a measure of how the program is proceeding, let me say that originally it looked as if we would get about one third to one half of that kind of modernization for the money we are prepared to put up. In point of fact, we got enormous economic benefits for this province. We got $1.5 billion to date, 85 per cent of which is going to occur in Canada.

That is the report to the taxpayers of this province and I say to the leader of the third party, it would be difficult for him to find very many other government programs which had that kind of return for the taxpayers of this province.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does the minister recall the meeting that some of the members of the Legislature, the minister included, had with the Ontario pulp and paper industry over at Sutton Place -- a very nice breakfast -- at which I asked the assembled executives of that esteemed organization what they thought of this program. Their response was, "As an industry, we do not agree with those grants and we do not need them."

Is the minister aware of the recent Lakehead University study which says, "Millions wasted in forest industry grants," and in which a pulp and paper executive indicated, and I quote, "that his company did not need a grant but took the money anyway because all the other firms were"? They were going to have that investment anyway. The minister has blown $200 million.

The other thing, by way of supplementary, is that as usual, the minister has got the horse by the wrong end. With his government's forestry policies, there are not going to be any trees to put through those mills in 15 years anyway. That money should have gone into reforestation.

An hon. member: Tell us about the breakfast meeting.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I will tell you about the breakfast meeting. The industry, at that time, did not give quite the answer I might have thought it ought to have given. It was my misfortune to be sitting with a lot of members of the opposition at the table at that time. What in fact the industry was saying that morning, by my recollection of it -- and I think mine is correct because I was not overjoyed by its kind of response and I did communicate that to the representatives -- was that it was not that the industry did not need it; they said they were opposed to it philosophically, but --

Mr. Sweeney: But they would take it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well. They were opposed to it philosophically but felt that kind of money was going to be needed in order to ensure the existence --

Mr. T. P. Reid: They didn't say that at all.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They certainly did. May I say to the honourable member that he may wish to write the association and ask them to give their version of what they said that morning and then we can discuss it here. That is certainly my recollection. That is clearly what they said.

10:30 a.m.

The honourable member will recall that certain other members of the industry -- the honourable member should just calm down or I will read more of his letters -- he will recall other members of the industry followed that overall presentation, standing up and pointing out how their particular company found it absolutely necessary to have that funding or else their greenfield opportunities and alternatives in other locations would be ones they would have to look at.

I say to the member for Rainy River that the fact of the matter is, if he looks at the situation in Dryden, members from all sides of this House were standing up asking questions and were worried about the future of Dryden. In point of fact there was a mill there that could not be sold. Every purchaser in the world had been in there and, without this government participating, I challenge the member for Rainy River or even his leader, who believes he knows even more about the pulp and paper industry, to say that the mill in Dryden would have been purchased. That just is not the case. I should say one other thing. It is quite one thing --

Mr. T. P. Reid: They bought it because the government agreed to look after the mercury claims.

Mr. Smith: They bought it because the government indemnified them on mercury and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition, of course, in his interjection is only confirming the fact that the mill could not have been sold, was not marketable, would not have been bought without this government's participation.

Mr. Smith: They didn't need your money.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A moment ago in the member's interjection he said they bought it only because this government did something. Now he is telling me they did not need it. He can take his choice this morning of what he said a year ago or last month.

May I say to the member for Rainy River, who is legitimately interested in this matter, that the problem the government has is this: It can take the best advice it can obtain -- and I have to say to the members of this House the Duncan Allan task force in my view was the best advice obtainable; I would stack Duncan Allan against the Lakehead University report any day.

We are faced with this choice. As a government, we do not have the luxury that members of the opposition, Lakehead University and others have of perusing a situation and saying, "It is our opinion it would have happened without the money." I will tell the member that as a province we can afford for people who take that view to be right, but we cannot afford for those people to be wrong.

The plain fact of the matter is that if they are wrong, if those people at Lakehead University are wrong -- and that is not beyond the realm of possibility -- then one sees the disappearance of Espanola, of Dryden, of Iroquois Falls. This government feels that over a period of five years, during which this government will spend approximately $100 billion, a $100-million expenditure to ensure catastrophe does not arrive at Iroquois Falls, Kapuskasing and other fine municipalities in the north is a wise expenditure for this government.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities regarding the funding of universities in Ontario. Having had a chance to look at the operating expenditures, the operating grants per capita and per student, is she aware we are now not only the lowest in Canada but we are now among all state and provincial jurisdictions the lowest except for Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania and South Dakota? Apart from those four states, Ontario is now funding its university sector at the lowest rate of all jurisdictions, provincial or state, in Canada and the United States of America.

Given that one Brian Segal, whose brother is known to the minister, said on April 13 of this year that the province is "underfunding the system and it is running down," is the minister finally prepared to fight with people like the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), who wants to give hundreds of millions of dollars to rich corporations, and get some money for the university sector of this province so that it can play its rightful role in our economic development?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see that the Leader of the Opposition has been doing some reading for a change, but I am not aware of any report based on any valid information that provides that kind of comparison. When certain individuals begin comparisons, they select very carefully some of the matters which they wish to compare and they do not include all of the relevant matters.

There is no way that I am aware of in which one can with validity make accurate comparisons about the level of university funding in the various jurisdictions in Canada. Although we have agreed to eight methods, or eight different criteria, they do not include the investment which Ontario has made in universities in the past and the amount of effort that has been taken in the past to staff those universities, and they certainly do not include the factors of economy of scale which must be a part of this.

I have not seen figures relating this specific set of invidious comparisons to American colleges. However, I would remind the honourable member that the universities are extremely important social institutions in our society and they have been given a level of government support which has been consistent in terms of the gross provincial product for the past five years.

I would also remind members opposite that one cannot maintain valid and productive social institutions which can grow unless a jurisdiction has an economic base from which to derive revenues in order to provide funds to make them grow.

Mr. Smith: By way of supplementary, it sounds as though the minister is saying that Ontario's economy is not growing very well. I did not hear her say that earlier.

Is the minister familiar with the tripartite committee on interprovincial comparisons of university expenditures? This report was contained in the report of the Council of Ontario Universities, which pointed out that Ontario's operating grants increased at a slower rate than in any other province during the period 1974 to 1981 and that in terms of operating grants per university enrolment we were fifth in 1974 and are last in 1980-81.

The gap between Ontario's grants per student and the average for the rest of Canada was $812, which is a pretty staggering difference. As for student expenditures in this province compared to others, even if the minister wants to add in her student aid money, it only brings us to seventh, and I do not think that aid money should be added.

In operating grants per capita we are ninth. In total expenditures by total personal income per province we are tenth. Is it not about time the minister recognized the importance of science, technology, research and the university sector in leading the recovery in our economic performance in this province and started funding them properly?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the Leader of the Opposition's paranoid, schizophrenic approach to all of this matter. As usual, he was distorting my words and my intent, and I understand that. His background is such that this would happen.

There is also a small problem perhaps of a little bit of vested interest since he is interested after next year in going back to the university which employed him in order to maintain a certain level of income.

There are more factors which should be considered in interprovincial comparisons, and those factors are not being considered by the group. The measure of student assistance, I do believe, is an important inclusion which should be considered in these comparisons because it does provide the opportunity for about 30 per cent of our university students to attend the universities. If that is not an important factor in the continuing viability of the universities, I do not know what is.

10:40 a.m.

As I said before, there are other comparisons which should be made, but I do believe the Leader of the Opposition was not listening carefully to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor on opening day because there was no doubt at all that the speech from the throne made a very strong commitment to science, technology and advanced education, and those commitments will be carried out.

Mr. Grande: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister says that for the past four years the universities have been well taken care of through provincial funds when in fact they have been starved of provincial funds. Is the minister aware that Atkinson College department for part-time students is going to be cut back by $440,000, which in effect means that 100 courses will be cut there next September? Is this the best educational system in North America that the minister talks about, or is it the worst educational system in North America?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we have some absolutely first-class universities in this province, including one, at least, that I think is considered generally to be world class. It is the intention of this government to provide whatever assistance it can to enable those universities to maintain that quality and to improve it.

I am aware that certain activities are taking place at Atkinson, York University and at others in which the potential enrolment of students seems to be declining as the interest of students moves in other directions. I am also aware that there are certain structural rigidities in the university organization which prevent some of the universities from making the appropriate shifts which would compensate for some of the activities which must be maintained.

That is a major problem for the universities. I hope our special committee will be looking at those problems during the hearings they will be holding with the universities, based on their first interim report which was issued on February 28 of this year. That committee, which is a tripartite committee, has the specific responsibility to attempt to provide some kinds of answers, guidance and direction which will be helpful in terms of universities and the government for the next decade.

FILM PRODUCTION COURSES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Colleges and Universities about the role of the community colleges in helping a major new industry which is expanding in Ontario. Would the minister explain why, at a time when film production in Canada has risen from next to nothing to a business worth $175 million in five or six years, with much of the production here in Ontario, we have seen decisions by Conestoga College, as well as by Algonquin College in Ottawa, to eliminate their schools in film production, thereby eliminating a major source of the technicians who are required to make that industry work?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there are similar courses in other community colleges in the province which could accommodate for the most part most of the employment potential in that industry. I am aware that the college system is attempting to find ways of directing their educational programs to be of benefit to the largest number of students without unnecessary duplication.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In the first place, does the minister not believe that people outside of Metropolitan Toronto, where the only other course is provided, should have the opportunity to enter industries as important as the film industry? Secondly, is the minister not aware that applications have been running at four to six for every place available at Algonquin College school of film production and that a large number of graduates are getting jobs with that industry, which needs them? Why is the government cutting off its nose to spite its face by depriving a major new industry of the kind of people who are required in order that the industry may prosper in the 1980s?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the government does not make the decisions about the addition or the removal of courses at the community college level. Those decisions are made by the board of governors of that institution, based upon the community colleges' responsibility to the province, to the students and to the entire system. They are attempting to work now in a co-operative way to ensure that there will be courses of the limited employment opportunity type offered in various regions of the province.

They are attempting to ensure that not all of those courses will be concentrated in Metropolitan Toronto, and that is one of the activities for which I applaud the board of governors of the community colleges. They are really attempting to ensure that equal educational opportunity is made as freely available as it is possible to do in a province as diverse as this province.

Mr. Boudria: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister is aware that the film courses in French at Algonquin College have been eliminated. Would she be kind enough to tell us where in Ontario similar courses are available, to use her words?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that as notice because I am not aware at this point whether that course has been eliminated. I think there was a projection for elimination, but I shall verify that and report to the House.

HOSPITAL WORKERS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, respecting equities for the working people of Ontario. Does the minister consider it equitable that doctors should get an increase in their incomes averaging $12,000 a year, with no restrictions on their right to withdraw their services, while at the current time the annual average income for hospital workers is $12,948 and they are under very severe limitations to exercise any of the rights that other workers in the province enjoy?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the fairness or appropriateness of the settlement made with the doctors. I think the member himself has indicated approval with the catch-up proportion of that award, nor do I intend to get into any discussion about the economic problems of hospital workers at a point in time where an arbitration commission is deliberating on those very matters.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Given that the government was prepared to provide kid-glove treatment for the doctors with respect to their pay increase, giving them catch-up and not even uttering the breath of a whisper of the possibility of a suggestion that the doctors should be required to stop the extra billing of opted-out doctors as a condition of getting that settlement, is the minister prepared to intervene in order to get the Ontario Hospital Association to stop its suspensions and to rehire the workers who have been fired as a consequence of the events of two months ago?

Is the minister prepared to intervene and ensure that efforts are made to restore the morale of hospital workers and give them the same kind of treatment that has been given to the doctors in the province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with the last part of that question first, I will just reiterate that the issue of the level of income with regard to hospital workers is a matter which is now before a board of arbitration consisting of a representative of labour and of management and an independent chairman. All of the unions involved in hospital bargaining are presenting briefs to that commission, and I do not intend to get involved in any discussion about the appropriateness of income levels because that is a matter that is being resolved by what I think the member will agree is, a fair commission.

With regard to the issue of dismissals and other remedies that hospitals felt necessary in the light of the illegal strike activity, as the member well knows, I appointed a committee of two, including a representative of labour and management, in February to try to help the hospitals and workers who were involved in such reprimands to reach an agreeable accommodation on certain issues and certain matters, and that is taking place now. I intend that it will continue to take place and I think the results are encouraging.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that at least seven out of 10 provinces allow their hospital workers, or most of the hospital workers, to take strike action and in view of what has happened, is the minister or the ministry reviewing the present legislation with a view to changing the law in this regard and allowing them to strike?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if there is a review of the present legislation taking place, it is not with regard to the matter of whether or not there should be a right to strike. The present law, which says that there is no right to strike, will remain in place.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the impact on labour relations and on the quality of hospital and health care in the province in the coming years as a consequence of the actions by the hospital association and its member hospitals, is the minister prepared to step in personally and to urge the hospitals to revoke the suspensions and to urge the hospitals to undo the firings of workers that have taken place in order to ensure that morale can be restored and we can have decent health conditions in the hospitals of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think I have indicated very explicitly that I have intervened through the appointment of a joint management- labour team. They are acting very effectively to help resolve those matters.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the appointment of that committee, is the minister prepared to say that the action that has been taken by several hospital boards on a rather erratic basis is an action which discriminates against some of the hospital workers vis-a-vis the treatment they have received?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member is going to get into making accusations of discrimination and I do not intend to get into discussions about whether or not there was. If there are valid accusations of discrimination, the member knows the channels to go through to have them evaluated.

I have to tell the member in all fairness that the matter of employee relations is a matter that relates to the employer and the employee, in this case the hospital and its employees. What I have said and will reiterate very clearly is that we have endeavoured to assist those hospitals and those employees to resolve any matters relating to reprimands or dismissals or whatever, through a joint management-labour committee. I am very pleased with the progress of that committee to date and I will continue to support them.

HOSPITAL STAFF DISCRIMINATION

Ms. Copps: In other words, the minister is not prepared to say that there has been action by some hospital boards and some hospital administrations which has left some employees in a position to have been fired, while other employees who have done the same things have been left in their jobs?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member may not have had an opportunity to read or understand the grievance arbitration legislation of this province. If she would take a moment to review it, she will find that there is a procedure in this province not only for grievance arbitration, but also for an optional statutory procedure for rapid resolution of grievances. So there is no question but that anybody who feels there has been a grievance to his person with regard to actions taken by the hospital has a remedy, a remedy, I might say, that is in the forefront in North America.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, Mr. McClellan.

Mr. McClellan: I have a new question for the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Van Horne: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I believe it is our turn for a question.

Mr. Speaker: This is a new question.

Mr. Van Horne: If it is a new question, it should be our turn, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Copps asked a new question.

An hon. member: It was a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, it was not a supplementary. It was a new question Ms. Copps asked.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I stated supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I recognized a new question very clearly, Ms. Copps.

Ms. Copps: No, you did not.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, while we are sorting this out I wonder if, with the consent of the House, we could revert to statements so that the Premier could make a statement.

Agreed to.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear we will be next in the rotation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I think it is our turn on this side of the House. Anyway I will not interfere with that determination.

Mr. Smith: Your silent back-benchers do not ask any questions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition should wish he had such back-benchers. I was going to ask why a couple on his back bench are not on the front bench. I am surprised. I am a little intrigued by that. I have to tell the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) that I know he is overwhelmed by the front bench, the middle bench and the back bench. I can understand that.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech last week His Honour indicated that this government would be making changes in its organization to reflect changing circumstances. Today I wish to detail one of these changes for the members. Legislation will be introduced very shortly to create a Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

That ministry will consist of the municipal affairs area and the municipal law branch at present in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, the community development wing and the Ontario Housing Corporation of the Ministry of Housing, the community planning wing and the land development wing of the Ministry of Housing, the normal central services derived mostly from the Ministry of Housing.

We recognize a close relationship exists between the assessment function within the Ministry of Revenue and many of the financial policy and administration activities of the new ministry. Therefore, the benefit of a closer integration of the grants and apportionment policies of the new ministry with assessment is under review.

The remainder of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs will continue to be concerned with relations with other provinces, the federal government and with foreign governments, where appropriate, in order to negotiate and administer treaties. The Ministry of Revenue will take over responsibility for the Ontario Mortgage Corporation at present in the Ministry of Housing. These changes will take place as soon as they can reasonably be carried out.

It will be clear to all members of this House that this new organization represents an improvement in our administration. The creation of the new Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing reflects and strengthens our commitment to the municipal level of government.

With the area of rapid urban expansion, huge capital expenditures on municipal infrastructure and increasingly complex tri-level arrangements largely behind us, we believe we can now look forward to a stable period in which effective administration and sound development will be the requirements of the day.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, did the honourable member read the latest Conference Board in Canada figures for Ontario which he relied upon? The honourable member should have a look at them. He relied on them for 44 days. They led him up the garden path or down the garden path. They nearly led him into political oblivion.

By putting together at this time under a single minister the important programs of municipal affairs, community planning and community development, we increase our capacity to work with municipalities to achieve our mutual objectives.

I should also stress that the new ministry will continue to be responsible for the government's commitment to the provision and management of socially assisted housing through the Ontario Housing Corporation with its network of 61 local housing authorities and through its support for community-based, nonprofit and cooperative housing programs.

One great advantage of this arrangement is that the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs will now be able to focus its attention on Ontario's relations with other governments, particularly within Canada. It is clear that the scope and intensity of intergovernmental issues on the immediate horizon will make this area a matter of the highest priority for the government.

The distinguished member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), a great statesman, elected by a large majority, will continue as --

An hon. member: Are you endorsing him for the leadership?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would endorse 69 people for the ultimate leadership of our party on this side of the House. That endorsement may take several years to come but, unlike those people who are facing a leadership review in the next few months, that is not contemplated on this side of the House.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier may not think so but everybody else thinks so.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would the opposition members please give the Premier a chance to make a statement.

Mr. Peterson: How am I doing?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We know what the honourable member's plans are. It is obvious even to us on this side of the House. His father-in-law told me what his plans were. How is the honourable member doing? I don't know. Perhaps the hair should be altered a bit. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was interrupted.

The member for Scarborough North is also the minister responsible for the province's French-language services. Both the Council on Franco-Ontarian Affairs and the government co-ordinator of French-language services will report to the government through the minister. This appointment will emphasize the government's commitment to making steady progress in providing a full range of services in French to those areas of the province where the numbers warrant.

I was trying to think of a line that would introduce the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) to the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) in a way that he could enthusiastically thump his desk. In case he did not know it, I would say to him that the distinguished member for Ottawa South, who in turn won with an overwhelming majority, will be the new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I know that members opposite will like that appointment and will receive it with enthusiasm.

11 a.m.

Mr. Smith: The Premier read everything else word for word and overlooked the member for Ottawa South.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not at all. I was waiting for the appropriate opportunity. The Leader of the Opposition made a mistake. He tried to overlook him for 44 days, and look what it did to him in that part of the world.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The opposition will let the Premier continue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell the leader of the New Democratic Party that if he had a few members like the member for Ottawa South he would not be retiring as leader. He would not be forced to abdicate his throne. We are going to miss him. I say that sincerely, objectively and with some regret.

Mr. T. P. Reid: So the Premier should. He is the best thing that ever happened to him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There have been two good things happen to us on the other side of the House. I would say to "landslide Reid," the member for Rainy River, if it had not been for his wife, he would not be back here.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I accept that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not an observation from me. That is my wife's assessment. My wife thinks his wife is okay and that that is the only reason he got re-elected. That is a very objective analysis.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I do not recall the Premier's wife voting for me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My wife would have voted for the member's wife. She would never have voted for him.

Mr. Speaker: Is this part of the Premier's statement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: To get back to the statement, Mr. Speaker, these are important changes which are indicative of my government's determination to adapt to changing circumstances and to meet the challenging needs of the people of this province.

Mr. Smith: It was a Freudian slip that the Premier missed reading the minister's name when he was reading the announcement. That is very interesting.

Mr. Speaker: The appropriate time will be added to the question period. A new question from Mr. McClellan please.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, you are aware that we cannot challenge your decision, but I can assure you in most sincere terms that the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) was asking a supplementary question to one put by the leader of the NDP, having to do with labour problems in the hospitals. The question was a good one and it was responded to. She clearly said it was supplementary, and you accepted it on that basis.

As we cannot challenge your decision in this, we simply bring to your attention that it is a serious misapprehension and ask for your consideration. It is obviously the turn of the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne).

Mr. Speaker: The members may be interested to know that I have been keeping track of question period, the amount of time each member takes and the amount of total time for each question. I had listed the member for Hamilton Centre, quite clearly, for a new question. She chose to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) a question which had been raised earlier.

Mr. Smith: It was clearly a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: There is no doubt. Mr. McClellan, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Mr. McClellan: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he has had the eighth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman brought to his attention by the Workmen's Compensation Board and, in particular, whether he has been briefed by officials of the compensation board with respect to complaint 30 of the Ombudsman's seventh report, referenced on page 50, in which the Ombudsman has ruled to the following effect: "That there is no requirement either in the Workmen's Compensation Act or in the board's policy directives which tie permanent disability awards under section 42 of the act solely to the clinical assessment of the injury."

In other words, the board has the legislative authority now to set awards on the basis of impairment of earning capacities rather than solely on the basis of the so-called "meat chart." Have officials of the compensation board consulted with the minister about this case?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the use of the term "meat chart." The member is referring to a clinical disability rating, and I understand what he is talking about, but that was his choice of words, not mine.

Secondly, in the matter he refers to -- it is section 42(1) -- we have had some preliminary discussions about it and some other opinions are being sought. When those opinions are available, I will be pleased to report to the House.

Mr. McClellan: With respect, may I ask the minister if he is aware that there are approximately 100 cases at the Ombudsman's office on which resolution is awaiting a decision with respect to case number 30? Can the minister explain to us why the Workmen's Compensation Board has refused to comply with the recommendation of the Ombudsman, who happens to be one of the most distinguished jurists in this country, despite the fact that it has been supported by the select committee?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think the answer is fairly simple. The Workmen's Compensation Board clearly has doubt as to whether the Ombudsman's interpretation is an accurate one and is seeking to have that opinion reviewed.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES BOARD

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). It has to do with a matter pertaining to the health disciplines board and its inability to provide documentation to persons who appear before the board in reference to actions of a medical doctor.

Specifically, when a complaint is made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and later referred for a review by the health disciplines board, the complainant cannot get hold of the medical doctor's response to the complaint, either to judge its correctness or to prepare his or her response to it.

The question is, will the government bring forward legislation to guarantee a fair hearing by the health disciplines board, with full and open disclosure of the doctor's response to the College of Physicians and Surgeons?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I understand that is being reviewed by the freedom of information review board.

Mr. Ruprecht: Supplementary: I would like to ask a question of the same minister. I have been trying to get information for a long time now on the discharge policies of our mental health system. In fact, I have contacted the director --

Interjections.

Mr. Ruprecht: It is a supplementary.

It took me four days to get through to this person and he tells me he does not want to answer any questions because apparently there has been a staff directive in this hospital from the administrator that no one is to tell anyone on the outside anything that goes on inside this particular hospital.

I am asking the question now of the minister, does she know anything about this staff directive that no one is to speak at that hospital; and, secondly, will she speak to the administrator and provide the information I seek?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a supplementary and I cannot accept it as a new question.

STAFF REDUCTIONS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier.

Can the Premier explain the position taken in the letter reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from him to his cabinet colleague regarding cuts contemplated for the budget? Can he explain why he is taking that position when in April 1978 the Chairman of Management Board stated: "Prior to the latest move, the government had severely constrained the size of its work force, therefore it was obvious that additional staff reductions would be very difficult to achieve. There is no more slack in the system to cut"?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the honourable member watches the CBC. I watch it with some interest myself.

Without divulging the contents of the budget, may I explain very briefly the process of government. The ministries make certain representations related to their desired needs as they see them for the next budgetary year. We go through a process, because the requests or expectations traditionally exceed what ultimately happens, because that is part of the responsibility of government. It is not that unique for me to suggest to my cabinet colleagues that there be some targeted objective in terms of total expenditures.

I should point out to the honourable member that I believe he referred to 1978 in the question. It is now 1981.

This government is always reassessing its administrative practices. We have a responsibility to keep our level of expenditure as reasonable as possible. In fact, I would expect that when the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) comes out with his budget some members will be saying, on the one hand, we should be spending more, while some members in some parties will be saying we should spend less. The reality will be that the Treasurer will come up with a budget that is equitable, fair, reasonable, acceptable -- all of those adjectives that I am sure none of the members opposite will use.

11:10 a.m.

Mr. Wildman: Is the Premier not concerned about the leaking of this letter and about who leaked it, when one considers the importance of secrecy traditionally in the preparation of a budget in our system of government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am always concerned about leaks, although during the campaign my issue was primarily cabbages; but I am concerned about leaks.

Mr. Peterson: You are a real funny guy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, it is Friday morning. I know, it took the honourable member a while to understand it, it's early. At least I have retained my sense of humour.

I have some advice for the member. If he is really serious about his leadership ambitions he should develop a sense of humour. It might stand him in good stead. I tell him, I am trying to be as helpful as I can to him. Why has he moved so far down the end of the row?

I am always concerned about leaks of government documents. I have noticed that has never been shared by members of your caucus. In fact, to the contrary, one not only enjoys leaks, one sometimes tries to create leaks. I understand that.

I should point out though that while the level of expenditure, of course, is relevant, the traditional part of the Treasurer's budget that is kept confidential until eight of the clock, when he rises here to inform all of us as to his plans, really relates to the revenue side, not necessarily the expenditure side.

On the expenditure side, in fact, we have made public the enlightened policies for the next fiscal year. We have said to the municipalities, well over 10 per cent. We have said to the universities, well over 11 per cent. We have said to the hospitals, well over 11 per cent. We have already indicated our enlightened generosity with respect to many of the major expenditure programs for the next fiscal year.

RIDGE LANDFILL SITE

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Could he answer us directly or, failing that, give us an answer from the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton), regarding the ministry's report of the Ridge landfill site?

I might explain that the original application allowed for 8,000 gallons per day, five days a week, making a total of approximately two million gallons. Would the minister explain why a ministry official at the standing resources development committee hearing last January revealed that 3.4 million gallons were deposited in this site from August 1, 1979, to July 31, 1980? in other words, the site accepted 67 per cent more than was allowed.

I would just like to read a short paragraph from the report: "The statements contained in the supporting information are not legally binding on the applicant, and where no environmental problems arise from the deviation from the statement the ministry has no reason to enforce strict adherence with the statements. It should be recognized that the supporting information form is a static document while the operation of a large landfill site is an evolving process, and that as a result the two may not always be in agreement."

Would the minister find out what percentage of overrun is considered acceptable? Is it five per cent, is it 10 per cent, 67 per cent or 100 per cent? If it is in that higher range, would the minister find out why they bother with an application and approval process at all?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take that up with the Minister of Environment and have an answer for the member at the first of the week.

COKE OVEN EMISSIONS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Can he give the House some clear indication of when we are going to see coke oven emission standards in Ontario -- standards that have been promised, as he knows, all the way back to 1979, and from no less an authority than the Premier of this province?

Can he also tell us if they will be at least as good as those that are in force in the United States?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, there are really three questions there. The response to the first part of it is yes, a coke oven emission standard will be gazetted within the next week or two.

Second, on his comment with regard to duration, I would remind him that the Occupational Health and Safety Act was proclaimed in October 1979.

Mr. McClellan: Do not apologize.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not apologizing. One has to learn to understand the difference between facts, the course of events and the realities of life when one has to deal with problems.

Within four months of the proclamation of that act, the steel companies and the unions were brought together to discuss it and briefs were presented by all of those parties. Those briefs were reviewed and we now are proposing a coke oven regulation which will be gazetted within the next week or two.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister assure us that when the draft is prepared and published it will be the same as, or equal to, the American standards?

Mr. McClellan: Maybe even better.

Mr. Wildman: Or better than the American standards. That is, can he assure us that it will be 0.15 milligrams per cubic metre, rather than 0.2 as has been rumoured?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member will not have to sit anxiously in his seat much longer since it will be gazetted either tomorrow or a week tomorrow. So that information will be immediately available to him.

GASOLINE PURCHASES BY U.S. MOTORISTS

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Premier. Is the Premier aware of the serious traffic problems and the inconvenience encountered by local residents caused by the substantial increase in American motorists purchasing low-cost gasoline in Fort Erie?

Will the Premier initiate a full public inquiry into the unfair practices of the gasoline industry by the dumping of surplus gasoline at much lower cost at points of entry into Canada by using American currency rates up to 22 per cent on the dollar? The federal government petroleum inquiry called them "restraint practices as a means of reducing competition and enhancing prices, to the detriment of the Canadian consumer."

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the latter part of the question, but I would be interested in having the views of the member for Erie as to whether there should be -- and I think it would have to be in this case -- a federal policy that would restrict American motorists from coming into that community to buy what is obviously cheaper gasoline.

The Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) has expressed some concern about this issue, but at the same time, we are not in a position to restrict entry or purchase of this product by visitors, because it is a matter of federal jurisdiction.

I sometimes watch both our own channels and on the odd occasion I get stuck on a Buffalo channel and I know something of the controversy. But I think I recall some people from Fort Erie saying that while they do not like the inconvenience they do not object to the business.

Perhaps the member for Erie might communicate to me, not here in the House, whether or not this is an economic plus or minus and how significant a problem it is for his constituents. But I should indicate to him that it really is a matter of federal jurisdiction as to how one would restrict this practice, if it is to be restricted. We do not have any right to say to American visitors, or others, that they cannot cross the Peace Bridge. Once they cross the Peace Bridge, it is pretty hard to say, "You cannot go to a gas station." It does become very awkward.

Mr. Haggerty: In view of the efforts of the Ministry of Energy in advertising to tell drivers to conserve gasoline, why should Americans receive the full benefit of the gasoline surplus? If dealers are able to sell gasoline at much cheaper prices, then why is it not reflected at the pump price to the Ontario consumers, who also should benefit by the surplus gas?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just asking the honourable member who represents that constituency whether he would communicate to me quietly whether he feels this practice of allowing American visitors to come over -- a lot of them, I am sure -- just to purchase gasoline, should be stopped. I am not sure how it would be done.

Does one ask in a questionnaire at the Peace Bridge: "Are you coming to buy gas, or you coming to travel up into Haliburton or Honey Harbour to spend a weekend? What is your ultimate objective?" I think it is a fairly fundamental question that has to be asked. I would be delighted to have his views if he would like to express them.

Mr. Haggerty: When can we meet?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to meet with the member for Erie on any given day, but I have to have a little notice.

11:20 a.m.

MUNICIPAL MEETINGS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Is the minister aware that the Ontario Press Council recently received a complaint that committee meetings of the Elgin County Council were not open to the public and that almost all of the public business of the county was done in committee? Is the minister aware that the press council decision recommended that legislation should be brought in to make it mandatory that municipal bodies open all meetings, including committee meetings, to the public with the possible exception of meetings dealing with personnel and property negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that case. I am aware of the decision of the press council and that is one of the matters, among many, we are looking at for legislative change. I am sure that the new minister of that ministry will be looking at that.

I want to state very unequivocally that my position has always been, for as long as I can remember in government, that any elected body should carry on practically all of its business in public. I have never been a supporter of any council or school board that carries on its business in private except for matters of personnel, property management and a certain very small selected list which could and should be carried on in private.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister never put it into law.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can't hear what my friend is saying but I think that if we look around, most of the municipal councils and school boards in this province honour that kind of commitment.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that we do not yet have a freedom of information act and do not appear to be going to get one for at least a year, would the minister not use his good offices with the cabinet to convince them of his point of view by recommending that we do have mandatory legislation in this field governing municipal bodies of all kinds?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I indicated a few minutes ago that this is one of the areas that, because of the decision and because the matter has been raised, will be looked at along with all the other amendments which are considered each year in the Municipal Act.

RURAL HYDRO COSTS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier with regard to hydro in northern Ontario. Would the Premier recall that until December 7, 1971, the provincial government had a program in regard to rural grant and aid programs for Ontario Hydro to extend hydro in northern Ontario? Because many tourist operators, sawmill operators and small businesses are finding it difficult to pay the capital costs of the extension of Hydro to their places of business, will the Premier consider reinstating this program to provide such capital assistance?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member would like to communicate this both to me and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) -- I assume he is referring to, what? New installations or creation of new tourist or industrial or mining developments?

My recollection is, with respect to some at least, there have been agreements. Perhaps these have been larger developments between Ontario Hydro and say a new mine or something of that nature whereby a portion of the cost for the transmission facility is, in fact, negotiated. There is not perhaps a general policy, as we had with respect to basically rural electrification.

If the honourable member would give me some examples of this need, I would be quite prepared to take them up with the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Northern Affairs.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Premier's answer and I will provide that list.

One of the things I would ask by supplementary is that the Premier consider going back to either the old program or some kind of subsidy for these capital expenses, but they are primarily small businesses.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In reviewing this policy, could the Premier also ask Hydro to review its policy with regard to extending electrification to residential premises in northern Ontario where they have to pay exorbitant amounts for an individual in terms of mileage to get the line? For example, there are places within a 20-mile radius of Thunder Bay that are not electrified. The Premier nods agreement.

Mr. Speaker: New question, Mr. Eakins.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, I did make a mistake, Mr. Eakins, That was Mr. Reid's question.

Mr. Sweeney: Are you sure?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I am. I recognize Mr. Grande.

DON BOSCO HIGH SCHOOL

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education and is in regard to the Don Bosco portable high school.

In view of the fact the board of education for the borough of Etobicoke changed its mind and reversed the decision to sell Keiller Mackay High School to the Metropolitan Separate School Board; and in view of the fact that during the election campaign she made a commitment to the Don Bosco students and families that they will have a permanent location, is the minister going to keep that promise, or will this be another example of broken Tory commitments?

Further, how long is the minister going to play around with this issue? It has been going on for three years now.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, of course the promise will be kept. Although the honourable member may have some formal communication from the Etobicoke board of education regarding this matter, I have not as yet received any. I have not received an answer to my letter of March 4, which I anticipate will be forthcoming rapidly with a little urging. Neither have I as yet received an answer from the Metropolitan Separate School Board in response to my letter of that date. I anticipate I will have that as well.

We shall continue to use our good offices to ensure the promise is kept.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS