Journal des débats 1981-mai-12 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: John B. Aird, the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1982, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, May 12, 1981.

COMMENTS BY MINISTER

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Last Thursday, at the beginning of a response to a question from the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), I made a comment to which apparently some members opposite have taken some offence. In the interests of harmony and making your Speakership fruitful and harmonious all around, I am pleased to withdraw that remark.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOHN FISHER PAPERS

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to honourable members that the personal, private and business papers of the late John Fisher have been donated to the archives of Ontario.

Mr. Fisher made his gift to the province last November, three months before his untimely death. Honourable members will, I am sure, share my own personal pleasure that he chose to make such a gift. His papers are a wonderful legacy to a country and a people he loved so deeply. That affection was returned with the fond nickname "Mr. Canada."

His papers have a twofold purpose. They paint a brilliant picture of the man and his times through his words, and they speak to all Canadians about ourselves and our country.

The papers that are now completely catalogued at the archives include scripts from his much-loved radio shows and research files on animals, people, communities, personalities and special events covering 31 years of broadcasting. As well, there are files from his days as Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's special assistant and as commissioner to the centennial commission.

A young country like ours is enriched by the generous bequest of John Fisher. I know that all honourable members will share in my gratitude that Mr. Fisher chose to add to our heritage by bestowing this gift on the people of Ontario, and I know that all honourable members will want to join me in welcoming to this House the late Mr. Fisher's wife, Mrs. Cathy Fisher, and his son, Mr. John Fisher, Jr. who, Mr. Speaker, are in your gallery.

PROFESSIONAL BOXING

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the sport of professional boxing recently has been the subject of considerable public and government concern. On July 16, 1980, only days after Cleveland Denny died following a knockout in a nontitle fight with Gaetan Hart in Montreal, a federal task force was set up by the Honourable Gerald Reagan, federal minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport, to look into the organization and operation of professional and amateur boxing in Canada.

Over the years there have been many ring deaths and numerous instances where boxers have suffered serious brain damage. While it may be impossible to eliminate death or even serious injury from the sport of boxing, I am convinced that much can be done to minimize the potential for these occurrences, and Ontario has been a leader in this regard.

Three members of my ministry sat on the federal task force: Mr. Jim Vipond, Ontario's athletics commissioner; Mr. Clyde Gray, Ontario's boxing supervisor; and Dr. Bruce Stewart, a noted Toronto neurologist and the commission's medical director. I am pleased to recognize their efforts at this time and to say that Ontario has been a forerunner in implementing the recommendations of the task force; indeed, I believe it has been the only province so to do.

The major recommendations made by the task force include a provision to establish provincial boxing authorities in every province in Canada (Ontario has had a commission in place since the 1940s) and a further provision to empower the ring physician to stop a fight for medical reasons (Ontario has had this in place since August 1980).

The task force also recommended that uniform medical standards should be developed for boxers, referees and judges; for the most part, this has already been done in Ontario. We have drafted the regulation, adopted the medical criteria set out in the task force recommendations and have the new forms in preparation. A recommendation that boxers be suspended for their own medical safety for 60 days following a knockout has been in effect in Ontario since August 1980.

The establishment of a data bank and record-keeping system to track boxer fight records and medical histories was recommended and the Ontario Athletics Commission is already in the process of setting up the system. The federal government will be responsible for setting the system up Canada-wide, but in the interim our own commission has established a computer link with the New York State Athletics Commission data bank; it should be operational within two weeks.

We have also redesigned the forms in the Ontario athletics commissioner's office in an effort to make the dissemination and gathering of information easier for boxing authorities. We already automatically send fight results to the boxer's home jurisdictions. This would include information about a knockout, suspension or any serious injury. The medical director, or one of his trained physicians, would determine if an injury were serious enough to be reported.

All Ontario boxers will also be required to carry a passport type of licence, which will show their fight record and medical record. Entries will be made immediately after a medical examination or after a fight.

The task force noted that, in the Denny fight, previous recent knockouts and difficult fights not knowingly reported may possibly have caused the fighter's death. It is hoped that the passport system will help eliminate this potential cause of death or serious injury.

2:10 p.m.

The commission also took action recently to ban unsanctioned, "tough guy" or "so you think you're tough" boxing events. Letters were sent to every newspaper in the province asking them to refuse advertisements from the promoters of these unsanctioned events. The athletics commission is now taking further steps to ensure that these bouts do not take place by asking owners of licensed establishments and arenas as well as the Ontario Provincial Police to notify the commission of any unsanctioned events. We are aware that untrained competitors could face the risk of serious injury or even death by taking part in such events.

Our athletics commissioner and supervisor of boxing are also working to raise standards of officiating in this province. Mr. Vipond and Mr. Gray will be setting up instructional clinics for judges, referees and timekeepers in the near future. They will also be liaising with other boxing authorities, particularly in the bordering states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, to establish lines of communication and a basis for exchanging information and setting standards for officials.

I have mentioned the name of Dr. Stewart several times in connection with this ministry. He has worked for the commission on an informal basis over the past few years, acting as a medical adviser on boxing matters. His new mandate recognizes his past contributions to the commission as a medical adviser, and his position as medical director will give him the opportunity to put into place, on behalf of the public and the boxing fraternity, the ideas he has advocated in the past. We are delighted to be able to give him this new mandate.

Dr. Stewart will be setting up training seminars for doctors from several cities, including Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay. These doctors will be trained specifically through the use of videotaped fights, particularly where death or injury of a fighter has occurred.

I am confident that these initiatives will minimize the potential for serious injury or death of a professional boxer in Ontario.

ONTARIO FIRE CODE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon I will be introducing an act to amend the Fire Marshals Act. As honourable members will know, this act will provide the legislative framework to authorize the making of a fire code, which will contain the substantive rules, by regulation.

It is my intention that the Ontario fire code will become law within a period of not more than four months. The amendments I am introducing today are basically similar to those contained in Bill 141, which was awaiting second reading when the Legislature prorogued at Christmas.

There are four new provisions designed to clarify the interrelationship with the building code and to ensure compatibility. Another change would give the fire code precedence over municipal bylaws concerning fire prevention. This last provision is similar to section 26 of the Building Code Act, 1974. This is in line with our intention to provide a set of uniform and consistent fire safety rules that would apply across Ontario.

Let me briefly give honourable members some background on this legislation. The Ontario fire code advisory committee was established in November 1976 to develop a draft Ontario fire code for public comment by the end of 1978.

The committee's report was published in the Ontario Gazette of January 13, 1979, and significant public comment has been received as a result. Over these past months a committee under the chairmanship of the fire marshal has been preparing the fire code, with full participation by the public and private sectors.

The government now also has the benefit of the very excellent series of recommendations made by the coroner's jury that looked into the tragic fire at the Inn on the Park. One of their key recommendations was that the province provide a uniform fire code as soon as possible.

I should also explain that the fire marshal and municipal fire departments have traditionally been responsible for the fire safety in existing buildings. The Fire Marshals Act currently authorizes his agents to inspect buildings and gives them broad powers to make orders.

The fire code will provide a written set of fire safety standards in a comprehensive form so that both the inspectors and the building owners will know where they stand.

I also wish to advise the Legislature that senior officials in my ministry are currently reviewing all 34 recommendations made by the Inn on the Park jury, including the proposal that the Ontario fire marshal's office be designated as the only agency to conduct fire safety inspections.

It is my hope that all members of the House will join in supporting this most important legislation.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Last week a bill was introduced by the Minister of Industry and Tourism concerning Massey-Ferguson. The only compendium with that bill was a statement that simply outlined the purpose of the bill, something that could also be read in the legislation.

I remind the Speaker and the minister that rule 32(c) of the standing orders states, "On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics."

So that we on this side of the floor can make an intelligent decision on the legislation, I wish to ask the Speaker to ask the minister to file with this Legislature the five-year business plan that convinced this government to go along with the deal to support Massey-Ferguson and to file copies of the written agreement between the province and Massey-Ferguson that will outline its commitments on research development, jobs and other guarantees. We are very interested in seeing this.

If there is no written agreement between the provincial government and Massey-Ferguson, there must be some form of letter of intent on which the agreement will be based. That should be filed so members can have an informative discussion, rather than speaking without basing their positions on some facts.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to review the situation with a view to providing the honourable member with all the information we possibly can. We literally have several hundred thousand pages of documents, some of which may be made public and some of which may not; so it becomes a difficult and complex task. We will be pleased to review them to see what we can supply the members.

Mr. Smith: I presume that was an undertaking to give some of the documents to both opposition parties.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING HOME INFORMATION

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I wish to ask the minister whether he shares the view of his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker) regarding the value of his nursing home inspection service.

I remind the minister that his colleague said, in essence, "If you have two eyes, if you can see lightning and hear thunder, it seems to me you can go in and look at a nursing home and see whether or not the floors are clean, whether or not the level of care is valid, whether or not the conduct and care is proper."

If the minister agrees that is all that is really necessary and the only qualifications that are required, will he explain why he has a nursing home inspection service at all and, if his inspectors are finding other important information that is worth paying for, why is that information kept secret from the public and from members of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the information is not kept secret. It has been my policy over the four years and some months I have been in the ministry that whatever information I get with respect to the inspection of a nursing home is conveyed in its entirety to an inquiring member or member of the public, to whoever has asked for it.

Through a variety of measures we have taken in the inspection service in the last few years, we have been able to improve considerably on their efficiency, in particular by our actions of about three years ago in identifying a list of homes that habitually seemed to be coming up on our complaints list. Instituting a team inspection process has been very productive in getting a number of those homes out of the business, in effect forcing them to sell or merge with other homes, resulting in either significantly renovated or completely new homes.

I also wish to inform the honourable member that my concern all along with respect simply to taking the actual working document of the inspector and plunking it on a table has been the whole question of confidentiality with respect to the names of patients, the treatment modalities of patients and a whole variety of things.

At present we are working on a new inspection form that is basically a numerical rating for the various subject areas we investigate, such as fire, safety, nutrition, the environmental qualities of the home and so forth. When those forms are completed and we begin to use them, they can be made available to whoever wants to see them at the nursing home so he can get an idea of how that nursing home rates.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Smith: While we are certainly very much in favour of such a rating form that would be publicly available, will the minister please explain to this House why it is that the present reports done by government inspectors should be kept secret simply on the basis, as he says, that there are names that might be identified?

Does the minister not agree that all that needs to be done is to white out these names so that people who are interested in the quality of the various nursing homes to which their relatives and their constituents are being sent will have the opportunity to read this information, which we pay a lot of money for and which highly qualified inspectors presumably are busy amassing?

Why can we not see those reports with the names whited out if confidentiality is a problem? What conceivable excuse can there be for sending inspectors into nursing homes that are the recipients of many public dollars with public people as patients? What conceivable reason can there be for keeping those reports secret from the rest of us?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I think I have covered that today and on many previous occasions. Is the honourable member suggesting that a report asked for by the Minister of Health, delivered to the Minister of Health, then conveyed to the Leader of the Opposition as a member of this assembly, or to any citizen of this province, is not to be believed? It is certainly as good as or better than any working papers used by the inspectors -- much better.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: How is it that the city of Windsor, which is now passing a bylaw for rest and lodging homes, is going to put in a section that will allow the public to have access to files on each of the rest and lodging homes? If they can do it at that level, why can this government not do the same thing at the provincial level?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, rest and lodging homes are not dealing with the treatment of patients. They are not dealing with the question of information on drugs. They are not dealing with information about the medical history of patients. They are dealing with quite different information.

I have not seen what they are planning to do in Windsor, but they may very well be planning on something like the forms we are currently developing, forms that will eventually be available in the nursing homes and can be asked for.

Mr. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I ask that the minister require the nursing homes to post the reports of the ministry so that the public coming in will not necessarily have to ask but can see in a given spot the complete report as to the value and type of care an individual receives in such nursing homes?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will take the suggestion under advisement, Mr. Speaker. If we were going to do that, I think there would need to be some further indication provided and, to have the numerical rating system explained and to discuss it, we should approach the administrator or the director of nursing or whomsoever. But I will certainly take that under advisement.

NURSING APPLICATIONS

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities, again taking up the subject of admission procedures by which people are selected for nursing schools.

Is the minister now aware that at St. Lawrence College and at Loyalist College the computer is making the final decision as to who is able to be accepted into nursing school? Is she aware that at George Brown College a decision has been made to randomly select applicants for admission to nursing school?

Is she aware that 675 applications were received at Algonquin College in Ottawa for 130 positions, that 530 of the people were found to qualify and, after that, the choice was made simply by random computer selection?

On the other hand, is she aware that at Ryerson, Humber, Seneca, Fanshawe and Conestoga they are still trying to pick the best applicants, no matter how many apply, and they are not relying on a raffle ticket or a lottery approach?

Will the minister finally stand in this House and say that, just as medical schools, law schools and many nursing schools try to select the best people by the most sensible criteria they can think of, every nursing school and every college and university and every program in Ontario will do away with this random selection procedure and pick not those who just manage to reach a mediocre level of performance and get by but genuinely try to choose the best for every available place?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has obviously forgotten the purpose for which community colleges were established. It was to provide an educational program for specific training for graduates of the secondary school program at the grade 12 level and for those who were considered to be mature students on the basis of the period of time out of school and their age.

If we were to give preference only to academic performance in all of the areas that the honourable member --

Mr. Smith: Nobody said that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, that is just what he said.

Mr. Smith: No, no, it is not.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh yes, it is. The member should sit down. Does he want an answer?

Mr. Smith: Don't tell me to sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a point of privilege, Mr. Smith?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If you will check the record, you will find, and the minister will find, that what I said was that they should pick the best by whatever criteria seem sensible. The best at many schools -- those for mature students and so on, for instance -- is not determined totally by academic standing, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, but is based on many other achievements and experiences that people have had in life, and on a personal interview, a questionnaire and a number of other things. That is exactly what I said. Let the minister correct her statement and not attribute words to me that I did not say.

Mr. Speaker: The minister will proceed to answer the question.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the honourable member did imply, if he did not say directly, that academic performance was the criterion. However, I remind him that what we are attempting to do is to ensure that the students who are qualified for limited-placement courses are given the fairest possible chance to participate in those courses.

As an example, at Loyalist College, about which a question was asked earlier, the initial selection is based upon academic qualifications for nursing at that college: the secondary-school graduation diploma with a minimum of 27 credits, including at least two science subjects. Preference is given to students who have completed the following courses: biology at the general or advanced level, chemistry at the general or advanced level, mathematics at the general or advanced level, and English throughout the course.

Group interviews are carried out at that college with eight potential candidates and two members of the faculty at a time. During this time the faculty members attempt to share information about the program; receive the responses of the student and judge the appropriateness of those responses; have each individual applicant complete his or her profile, which is a written document that provides information to those who are in the selection process; expose all of those potential candidates to some problem-solving situations to try to assess their skill as well as communication skills, and explain college activities.

The applicants are assessed on this basis first, and when all of those who have been considered to be appropriate and qualified for admission to the course --

Ms. Copps: Time. Time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If the member for Hamilton Centre will kindly stop crying "Time," I will be pleased to complete the answer to the question.

Mr. Speaker: You will ignore the interjections and proceed.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the number of acceptable candidates -- those who are considered to be qualified -- is larger than the number of places that are available, they are randomly selected through a computer process. That seems to be the fairest way to carry out that kind of assessment for those who are equally qualified for the course.

Mr. Smith: Do I take it that the minister is willing to recommend this same procedure, a procedure by which at Algonquin, for instance, 530 of 675 applications for 130 positions were judged to be equal from the minister's point of view and they were then randomly chosen?

Does the minister not recognize the message that this system gives to every student in our schools today, that all you have to do is get through -- get through to the basic, lowest level just so you can qualify -- and after that it is in the lap of the computer and you hope your number pops up?

Does she know the message of mediocrity that gives to every student in Ontario? Does she recommend this same system for the law schools and the medical schools of Ontario?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is obviously the way the honourable member got into the medical school at McGill, at any rate. This member obviously knows nothing about excellence in education, and he obviously is not prepared to look at the ways in which fairness can be provided for all of the students who qualify for limited-enrolment courses.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister not agree that the random selection method only makes sense if adequate counselling and academic upgrading facilities are available in each of the community colleges? Will she not agree that such staff is currently not available in the community colleges?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister indicate to us what other courses at what other colleges use this particular procedure? How widespread is it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is limited to those courses for which there is a very specific enrolment capacity related to the technical facilities necessary for the courses or to the clinical experience necessary, as in nursing, which of course is defined by the institutional care spaces available to provide that part of the educational program.

REAL ESTATE COMPANY MERGER

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing, the minister of high-priced housing.

In the light of the reports that Cadillac Fairview, which is the largest public real estate development corporation in Canada, and Bramalea, which is one of the 10 largest, intend to merge and that the merger would create the largest real estate company in Canada and one of the largest in the world, what steps does the government intend to take to ensure that the result of this marriage is affordable housing for people on average incomes here in Ontario and not just further exports of Canadian capital to build offices and high-rise retail complexes in Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles and other parts of the United States?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the president of Bramalea Limited did call me yesterday morning to advise me that they were having some very preliminary discussions with Cadillac Fairview on a possible merger, and I use the words "possible merger." But I must say, in respect to Bramalea and Cadillac Fairvew, I think they are two companies that have tried to respond to market requirements in this province and in other parts of Canada.

In the Ontario rental construction loan program, which this government introduced about three or four months ago, one of the largest applications for development of rental accommodation in the medium and lower price ranges was in Bramalea, in the Brampton area, involving some 1,285 units.

I think these companies have displayed very adequately to the people of this province that they have contributed substantially to the housing stock in all price ranges.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister aware that Cadillac Fairview, which will make up about three quarters of the combined assets of this company if the merger goes forward, currently has projects in Toronto, Ottawa and Quebec City in the residential real estate market in condominiums, but is currently continuing or starting projects in the United States, in San Francisco; Santa Ana; Los Angeles; Seattle; Houston; Dallas; New Orleans; Mobile, Alabama; Miami; Fort Lauderdale; West Palm Beach; West Chester county; the borough of Manhattan; Philadelphia; Washington; Arlington; Montgomery county and Kona, Hawaii?

My question to the minister is this: What steps is the government going to take to make sure that this conglomerate real estate company, with $3.5 billion worth of assets, puts some housing into Ontario that people can afford and not into every community in the United States, leaving our people out in the cold?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Cadillac Fairview, Bramalea, Markborough, Campeau Corporation, Olympia and York and a number of other companies have developed very adequately in this province. During this period of time, firms like Cadillac Fairview and Bramalea have developed a great deal of expertise; and while they continue to develop in Ontario and other parts of Canada in the housing, industrial and commercial fields, at the same time they have been able to expand their operations into the United States and other foreign countries and to make opportunities for Canadians in those markets.

I see the leader of the third party sitting there with a bit of a scowl on his face. Let me tell him that Campeau Corporation came from the great city of Ottawa -- I forgot, I should have mentioned that one of the Leader of the Opposition's favourite development firms, Minto Construction from Ottawa, has also expanded its horizons beyond the borders of Ontario and Canada into the United States. I believe that is one firm the Leader of the Opposition has always greatly admired for its entrepreneurship and philosophy.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The minister has twice mentioned the Leader of the Opposition when he meant to say the leader of the third party.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. I would not want to elevate the leader of the third party to that position. It would not be very becoming --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister will proceed.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, while it is easy for the leader of the third party to sit here and be somewhat critical of these Canadian companies that have expanded far beyond the borders of Ontario and Canada, I think it speaks extremely well of the talent in this country that now, in most world markets, we Canadians lead in the development industry. They have been invited into the United States. They are making money. They are Canadian companies and are proud to realize to what a great extent their shareholders are Canadian.

Mr. Cassidy: Between the close of markets on Thursday and the close of market yesterday, the shares of Bramalea went up 25 per cent on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the shares of Cadillac Fairview went up by six per cent, all in the course of two business days.

Will the minister explain why the government refuses to allow a dollar-a-bet casino at the Canadian National Exhibition but allows this kind of casino to take place in the Toronto Stock Exchange based on property speculation at the expense of ordinary people in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If one did not own some of the stock, I suppose one might be slightly jealous or envious of those who happen to own some. But frankly --

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, do you?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No. I have to tell the member, as he knows, that the oath of office for a minister states that he can have no outside interest, in the stock market in particular.

I do not know what the relevance of the leader of the third party's question happens to be. We believe in the stock market and in companies being allowed to issue stock in a public sense. If people believe the merger of Cadillac Fairview and Bramalea is going to produce a more viable company, not only in its assets here in Ontario and Canada but also on a world scale, then those individuals will invest accordingly.

I can only say that Bramalea, Cadillac Fairview and a number of the other developers that the leader of the third party would like some people to condemn in this House have contributed substantially to the wellbeing of the people of Ontario and Canada.

Mr. Cassidy: It obviously contributes to the wellbeing of the shareholders. Whether it contributes to the wellbeing of the people who need houses at prices they can afford is another question.

CANADA HOMES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the minister of high-priced housing.

The head of Canada Homes came to the press conference theatre in the Legislative Building yesterday, bowed to public pressure and agreed his company would honour the agreements it entered into last August with people who had bought homes in Markham and thought those homes were going to be taken away from them.

Mr. L. Leibel said in this building that from now on new homes built in the Metro area would sell for $100,000 plus and that a family income of $50,000 minimum would be needed to carry such homes.

Is that the opinion of the minister as well, or will the minister say what steps the government is taking to ensure that this prediction, made by a builder who in the past has catered to the mass market, does not become a reality in the Metropolitan Toronto region?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I suppose Mr. Leibel, who speaks for Canada Homes, was speaking in particular about his firm and the price range at which it might be deciding to build homes.

As I have said before, and I repeat, there are homes being offered in the market in this immediate jurisdiction, as well as in other parts of Ontario, that are reasonably priced and are in an affordable price range for virtually every income group.

2:40 p.m.

It is great to try to take one man's statement that relates to what his company is going to do and to tag it on all of the industry across Ontario. I have the opportunity as the Minister of Housing, as does the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker), to speak to people in the development industry, and they very clearly indicate that they will continue to try to satisfy what they believe is the market. They make it very clear that if they do not satisfy the market they will not be here.

Frankly, while one contractor might try to satisfy the $100,000 price range, there are others who will make units available to the market at a variety of prices, because that is where they will succeed, and not by trying to build exclusively for one price group.

Mr. Cassidy: Given the fact that Mr. Leibel appeared to be trying to find a way to take away the homes from people who contracted for them at $60,000 or $70,000 a few months ago so the homes could subsequently be sold at a much greater price to new purchasers, which he finally backed down on, will the Minister of Housing say what steps the government intends to take to ensure that other developers do not try to back out of agreements that they have made with people, to make new forms of speculative profit in the market at the expense of people who thought they had an affordable home?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That was not the inference I took from Mr. Leibel's remarks, which I happened to read in the last edition of the local press. It was not his intention, and he said it very clearly, to take back property and try to resell it at a higher price. If I read the article correctly, he said very clearly it was a decision made by a national mortgage company that indicated these individuals who had taken a contract, if purchasing a home under the mortgage terms of today, would not qualify.

I am not trying to put words in Mr. Leibel's mouth or write his article, but I think the press indicated clearly that was not the intention of his company at all.

He did go on to make another point that I think is rather interesting and we should keep very clearly in mind. He said very cautiously that these individuals could find themselves in the same detrimental financial position in a two-or three-year period -- I only draw the comparison, if I might be allowed to do so -- that some people got into with the assisted home ownership program. If you will recall, Mr. Speaker, they got in back about four or five years ago at a lower interest rate, and today they are experiencing somewhat the same difficulties.

Frankly, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations should be complimented on the negotiations and discussions with Canada Homes, as the minister has been able to satisfy those individuals who had been turned off by the mortgage company earlier in the week. I trust any further situations of a similar nature will be referred to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for their settling in a very satisfactory way indeed.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I want to ask the Minister of Housing about his commitment to housing in the province. Does he still feel the way as he did a few months ago, which was that the Ministry of Housing should be phased out? If so, what kind of confidence can the consumers of this province have towards him as the minister of a ministry which he says has no purpose and should be phased out?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There again, Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa East would like to try to put his own interpretation on it. I said very clearly during consideration of the estimates last year, and I repeat it, that the Ministry of Housing in its name alone sometimes drew an expectation in some communities beyond the delivering power of this government or of this government and the federal government combined.

The Premier in his wisdom announced very recently that there will be a new ministry of municipal affairs and housing, which collectively will try to resolve the problems of municipalities and, in conjunction with them, to satisfy the serviced land required for the development of the housing industry.

Mr. Cassidy: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the minister says that in the future, should there be an emergence of similar situations to that involving the people in Canada Homes, they should be taken to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Will the minister say why he has such confidence in the desire of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to deal with such problems, given the fact that he refused to take credit for the successful effort to get rights for those home owners? When he met with three of them yesterday, he said those home owners should thank the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and New Democratic Party researcher Graham Murray and that they should vote NDP next time.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Let's have an answer, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, let me say that the positive results yesterday speak well for the minister and for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister is to be congratulated, along with his staff, for being able to satisfy taxpayers of this province and bring them, we hope, to be happy Ontario home owners.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. .J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I would like to ask the Premier whether he is prepared to support a resolution put forward by Ontario's 330 municipal electric utilities calling on Ontario to assign to conservation measures, resources equal to those given to additional electric generation. How can the Premier justify Ontario Hydro's conservation budget of $8 million out of a total operating budget in 1981 of $764 million?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that is obvious even to the honourable member, who has been demoted to the second row of his party's benches. I miss him in the front row.

I have no difficulty in reconciling it whatsoever. I have heard from some of the member's colleagues that they take exception to Ontario Hydro's excellent public education program, through which they have been endeavouring to communicate to the people of this province the desirability of conservation. I have heard some of his colleagues say that Ontario Hydro should not be doing this.

I have even heard some contradictions with respect to the whole concept of conservation emanating from the Liberal Party of Ontario. You cannot equate what Ontario Hydro expends by way of public information and by its own internal programs on conservation with the necessity of operating that rather significant corporation, which provides for Ontario consumers the lowest competitive hydro rates anywhere in North America, with one or two modest exceptions.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I take it by that rather indirect answer that the Premier is not prepared to support the Ontario Municipal Electric Association's resolution.

I want to ask the Premier why, after five years, the government of Ontario has not yet come up with its memorandum of understanding with Ontario Hydro to define their respective roles and responsibilities. When will we get it?

Will the Premier assure us that he will require that Ontario Hydro provide the same amount of resources to conservation as it does to providing additional electric power supplies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the member that to suggest the government should direct Ontario Hydro to allocate exactly the same resources to conservation as it must of necessity to seeing that people in Brampton at least have sufficient electricity is totally incredible. The people in Georgetown or Halton Hills may not be worried about that; although, knowing a number of the member's constituents, I am sure they would be worried both about that and about their representation.

If the OMEA is suggesting that Ontario Hydro or the municipal utilities might do more with respect to conservation, I have no quarrel with that. But the member should look at some of the things his own members have said about Ontario Hydro's efforts to educate the public with respect to the desirability of conservation.

UREA-FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Health and again concerns urea-formaldehyde foam insulation.

I sent the minister a letter signed by Mr. David Young of the Niagara Regional Health Unit, addressed to Mr. Paul Toderick of 765 Church Street, Fenwick, under date of May 11, 1981. This letter provides new information on the formaldehyde gas level in Mr. Toderick's home. Will the minister note that the tests are 200 times the Canadian recommended standard, as reported by the medical officer of health, and that the Todericks have been advised to leave their home?

Mr. Speaker, I also inform you that the Todericks, who are in the gallery here today, have suffered and are suffering seriously from headaches, insomnia, lethargy and nasal problems.

As the minister is responsible for health in this province and has known about these kinds of problems since 1979, what advice and help does he have to offer to the Todericks and hundreds of other people like them in this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I am not sure on what the honourable member is basing the statement that we have known about this since 1979. I do not believe that is true.

The first time that I am aware this matter came to our attention was when the federal government decided to impose a temporary ban on the use of this product in December 1980. That information was conveyed, as I have told the member before, to the medical officers of health with some technical background about the product and an indication that if they required technical assistance it was available to them through our Ministry of Labour.

2:50 p.m.

That was followed by the production of a report, of which I am sure the member has a copy, by an expert medical advisory committee, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. That report, among other things, states that they do not believe they are in a position to recommend a safe level of exposure. The great difficulty in the report that has been prepared, and the way that the federal minister has so far handled it, is that it has left everybody hanging.

As the member knows, last week I asked the federal minister to indicate what she is going to do about two specific points raised in the report. First is the question of a survey in the country to determine the extent of the problem, and second is the recommendation that the federal government institute a program to assist in those cases where some form of retrofit is required.

I think it is quite properly the federal government's responsibility. I am hopeful that the combination of public pressure and pressure from the provincial governments will get them to accept their responsibility and to do something about it.

At this point, and we are checking regularly, we have not had anything more than an acknowledgement from Miss Begin's office, and we will keep the pressure on them to get them to accept their responsibilities and to follow up on those recommendations.

In the meantime, the medical officers of health and the health units are available to consult with individuals about any particular concerns they have.

As the member knows, a medical officer of health has the authority already, under the Public Health Act, to close any premises that he or she sees fit to close -- such an order, of course, being appealable to the Health Facilities Appeal Board -- and to give whatever advice he or she deems appropriate.

At this point we are operating in a bit of a void because, in my view, the report that has come from the federal government has not been satisfactorily dealt with by the federal minister.

Mr. Swart: If the minister did not know about it in 1979, he should have. The medical officer of health in the Niagara region prepared a report at that time pointing out the dangers of this foam. As chief medical officer, the minister should have known.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If the honourable member in making that statement is referring to part of a report he passed to me a week or so ago, that was a memo to file, not a memo to the Minister of Health or to the chief medical officer. It was not drawn to the attention of the Ministry of Health to my knowledge.

Mr. Swart: Why does the minister continue to take this buck-passing, hands-off attitude, when morally and legally he has responsibility for public health in this province?

Will he now commit himself to do three things? One, will he take steps to identify all homes in this province containing the foam insulation? Two, will he have tests done on them at regular intervals by equipment that will show even a minimum of formaldehyde gas? Three, will he initiate steps to the federal government to finance removal of the foam wherever high gas levels are prevalent, as in the case I am talking about?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, it is not a question of buck-passing at all. The responsibility very clearly is on the shoulders of the level of government that approved the use of the product in the first place; that is number one.

Number two, I have made it clear in my communications to the federal minister that we do not have, in the provincial government or in the health units, or combined, all the resources necessary to carry out what has been recommended to her. But we will make all our resources in the government, and at the local level, available to the federal government to assist them in carrying out the responsibility that is very clearly on their shoulders.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: However culpable the government of Canada may be, will the minister not consider cooperating with his colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton), particularly with the offices established on a regional level, so that he can say to those people who are concerned about their health and safety in regard to the gases that may or may not be coming from this improper insulation, that they can go in there at their initiative, and at our provincial cost, and perhaps rebill the federal government eventually?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, come on.

Mr. Nixon: What is the matter with that? I say to the Minister of Education that most of this government's money comes from the federal government. What is she talking about? It certainly does, and this government does not mind spending it and taking the credit for it too.

To get back to the point: Why cannot the Minister of Health accept his responsibility to the medical officer of health? Though the medical officer of health does not have the facilities, the Minister of the Environment through his offices either does or should have and should have them available. He can help these people, rather than having some sort of a nonproductive political argument once a week about it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize and I totally agree with the honourable member that the matter should not become the subject of a political argument, as he says. I would have hoped I could have had a response by now from a supposedly responsible federal minister to carry out the responsibilities that are incumbent upon her and are outlined in this report.

I point out to the member, by the way, if he wants to talk about money -- and my friend the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is more knowledgeable about this than I am -- that 43 per cent of the money that Ottawa takes in and misuses in the main, comes from this province.

We are keeping pressure on them daily, and I hope we can bring this matter to a head in the next week at the most. I remind the honourable member again that if he looks at the report they are saying there may be a danger. That is the difficulty. They are not saying that at a specific level there is a danger. They have made recommendations to the federal minister to assist all the provinces and the territories to determine the extent of whatever danger there is, and then they specifically recommend that the federal government finance a program for any necessary retrofit.

RURAL ELECTRICITY RATES

Mr. Riddell: I have a question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker. Does he recall the Premier standing in his place last April, grandstanding to a gallery full of farmers and stating he would take every measure to see that the rural-urban hydro rate differential would be eliminated?

The minister should not shake his head in the negative, because it is a fact.

Now that Ontario Hydro has proposed an 8.6 per cent average increase in its 1982 wholesale power rate, can we expect Ontario Hydro to eliminate that rural-urban differential in hydro rates? If we can expect that, what method will be used to eliminate it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the government commitment was quite clearly enunciated here by the leader of the government that the differential would be reduced. That was the word that was used.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Look at the record. Even the honourable member can read it. The government took the first step with the $20-million grant to provide that and at that time indicated further steps would be taken. These are currently being studied to honour the government commitment to reduce that differential.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That statement was made before March 19. We went to the people of Ontario with that statement quite clearly articulated.

Mr. Riddell: Whether it is going to be reduced or eliminated, or whether the man on the minister's left, the man of broken promises, is going to start to fulfil some of his commitments, can the minister tell me -- and just give me the plain facts -- will the urban-rural rates be equalized, or are the rural rates merely to be reduced to 15 per cent above the urban rate, as Ontario Hydro has recommended in the report to the government of November 1980? Just give me the straight facts.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There are a number of options currently before us. The commitment to be reduced stands. When the decision has been taken with respect to the further steps, these will be announced in this place.

Mr. Riddell: There is no help for the farmers on interest rates and no help for them on hydro rates.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister agree that despite the grant from the provincial government to Ontario Hydro the differential has increased by a total of $4 million? If he agrees that is the case, can he give us a date as to when there will be an enunciation of exactly what the government policy is with regard to the differential and the elimination, not just the reduction of the differential?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The further steps that will be taken to honour the commitment will be announced in due course.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, proudly from the second row, I say to the Premier --

Mr. Watson: The member is sensitive about that.

Mr. J. A. Reed: At least I had the choice of where I sat. I wonder if some of his friends did or did not.

Mr. Speaker: Ask the question and do not be provocative.

3 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Does the Minister of Energy remember the quotation from the last provincial budget which said "eliminate the undue differential"?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We can have some exchange with respect to the vocabulary involved. I am sure the Treasurer meant those words to be consistent with what the leader of the government said, the reduction of the differential.

TRAVEL FUND

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of the growth of direct selling by travel agency wholesalers that are not registered as retailers under the Travel Industry Act, what is the minister going to do to protect people whose claims to the travel industry compensation fund are denied because they booked with such wholesalers? How is a member of the public to tell the difference?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, with some encouragement from us this matter is going before the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal to decide just that question. By our reading of the act, we think the wholesaler question would be resolved by payment being made to the people who purchased directly from wholesalers, even though that is considered to be an inappropriate approach.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am not sure exactly what the minister has said. Since the registrar of the act has clearly stated he has never issued a warning to wholesalers not to sell to the tourist industry directly, are we now being told by the minister that these people will be recompensed for their losses?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I hope that will ultimately be the course taken. One must keep in mind what has transpired. There has been a collapse of a very significant firm. In spite of that collapse the travel fund, which was set up by my predecessor, came to the rescue of an awful lot of people. Only a small fraction of that number happens to fall into the category of having made their deals directly with a wholesaler. Of those who made deals directly with a wholesaler, a good many knew they were trying to get a special rate by going through the wholesaler rather than going to the normal retailer.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Having been an owner of a couple of travel agencies, I cannot agree with what the minister just said. In fact, a lot of people reading the advertisements and dealing even through registered travel agents did not understand they were dealing with a wholesaler rather than a retailer. In many cases, there is no difference in price. For instance, if one buys a ticket from Air Canada or through a travel agent, one pays the same price. There is no difference.

To ensure the good name of the travel industry in Ontario, and since he has indicated funds are available, will the minister not agree that a directive should go from the cabinet that these people be compensated?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, does the member think I am prepared to interfere with what I expect to be a decision by the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal? I am not prepared to do that.

HOOKER CHEMICALS DUMP

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware of the statement made today at a press conference by Pollution Probe, Operation Clean and the Canadian Environmental Law Association indicating their intention of applying to the Honourable Judge John T. Curtin, US district court, to bring a motion to appear as amicus curiae, friend of the court, at US versus Hooker Chemicals et al, in civil action 79-989, relating to the Hyde Park Hooker Chemical dump, where one of the largest deposits of dioxin in the world has been deposited and there is grave concern about the security and guarantee of the site?

Will the minister consider similar action on behalf of the citizens of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of that question, I am aware there was a press conference held this morning. It was my understanding the groups the member referred to had indicated their intention to seek an opportunity to be present at the hearings as amicus curiae.

In terms of any action that I might be prepared to take, I believe it is still a little early at this particular point in time to determine that, because we are aware that an agreement apparently has been arrived at which is subject to ratification by the court in New York state. The contents of that agreement are not yet known to us in detail. I expect that by tomorrow I shall have received a copy of that, and the reason it is of particular importance is I understand the control mechanisms and the proposals with respect to the recovery of any leachate from that site are spelled out in that document.

Until such time as I have had an opportunity to assess that and the staff of the ministry has had an opportunity to assess that, it would be very difficult for me to say it was a situation in which it would be appropriate for intervention on the part of the province of Ontario.

I can assure the honourable member, as he may already be aware, that we have been monitoring that site, particularly in terms of the Niagara River, both through testing above and below the Hyde Park site and in the area around the water intake for Niagara-on-the-Lake. The testing that has been done up to this point has not shown any detectable presence of dioxins, and that is using the current techniques, which will detect it in parts per trillion. There has been none detected at the present time.

We continue to monitor it on that basis. However, in saying what I have said, I want also to make it clear that I have not precluded some further action depending upon the information that comes into our hands within the next day or so.

Mr. Kerrio: Does the minister not recognize the very grave danger that is abundantly clear to everyone that there is a great deposit of dioxin in a given site, and that so far there are minimal concentrations in Lake Ontario, and that it is not in the best interests of the people of Ontario to wait until that dioxin gets from the site where it is deposited to the lake? Does the minister not recognize that there is movement occurring now and that it is in the best interests of those people to see that the company is made more responsible?

The minister has seen fit to take action on acid rain. He has personally visited, diametrically opposite to the last minister, who would not go to the United States of America, and has protested what they are doing to our river. I am asking him now, will he take a personal interest and go himself?

Hon. Mr. Norton: First of all, the honourable member errs in suggesting that my predecessor at no time went to the United States on matters of common environmental concern. In fact, he did so on a number of occasions.

Mr. Kerrio: He was not representing Ontario, though.

Hon. Mr Norton: Yes, he was representing Ontario -- absolutely -- and I am not aware of any other capacity in which he might have gone. I do not know who else he would be representing. It was in his capacity of Minister of the Environment that on a number of occasions he had meetings in the United States with the commissioner of the Environmental Conservation Commission in New York state.

Mr. Roy: Never mind that. Get on with the question.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I was responding to some references he made that I thought were both in error and unfair. I will continue to respond to those kinds of innuendoes since they relate to my predecessor, for whom I have great respect. He did an excellent job in this ministry.

To respond to the member's question: I recognize that if the evidence indicates the mobility of the leachate in the direction of the river, that presents a serious threat. But it is important that we be responsible in our assessment of what is happening and our assessment of what is being proposed.

I suggest to the member that unless he has access to documents from New York state, which I at this point do not, then he is whistling in the dark, because the information in terms of the technology or the technique that will be installed and put in place to control any leachate and try to deal with that potential threat, he really cannot make the kinds of statements he is making.

I will assess the information with the staff of my ministry as soon as it is available to me; I expect that to be by tomorrow. Of course I am not going to sit back in a situation where there may be risk to residents of this province. I have no intention of doing that. By the same token, I am not going to prejudge that information and go off half-cocked and suggest that I might intervene in a situation where intervention might not be necessary.

3:10 p.m.

PENSIONS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Treasurer a question about the government's proposals for pension reform. Why has the Treasurer wasted no time in declaring his support for recommendation 35 of the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions, that is to say, that there would be no increase in benefits under the Canada pension plan?

Why is it that he has been totally silent on the other major recommendation of the royal commission, recommendation 40, which reads in part: "The government of Ontario should institute by legislation a mandatory retirement savings plan for all workers in Ontario, which would be called the Provincial Universal Retirement System (PURS), to be based on an individual account money purchase design"?

Why has the Treasurer not stated his position on the PURS recommendation? Will he now state his position? Unless, of course, he is too embarrassed to endorse this essentially crackpot proposal.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the comment the honourable member just made is an indication of his whole approach to the serious problem of pensions. We have had one of the most thorough studies ever made of the pension system in Canada, and it was made by representatives, as far as I can tell, of labour, of government and of the private operators. They have given us 163 recommendations over the whole field.

I certainly expressed my confidence in the private sector, and that would imply some confidence in that specific recommendation. I am not going to get into detail as to whether PURS is the way to upgrade the pensions for people not currently included in plans, but I do believe in general that the topping up of pension benefits above the old age security plus Canada pension is best done in the private sector and not by government.

Mr. McClellan: Surely the Treasurer will agree that the PURS proposal, which will take 47 years to reach maturity, will provide absolutely no specific benefits to individual subscribers. The only thing we know is that it will give profit to the vendor and that it is a mandatory plan that represents government intervention to expand and guarantee a market for the services of the private pension industry.

Surely the Treasurer is embarrassed by that proposal and is prepared today to say that it is not a pension-reform proposal acceptable to the government or to the people of this province.

Hon. F.S. Miller: No, I am not prepared to say that. I also believe you cannot simply wave a wand and increase benefits without being sure there is money to pay them.

Even the present Canada pension plan is totally underfunded. You cannot increase it by twice -- which is the recommendation of a large number of people who favour only the Canada pension plan as the route to increased benefits -- you cannot do it overnight or give benefits without any funds. There have been enough criticisms that the present benefit ratio is underfunded.

In fact, that plan tackles that problem and points out that we do not have enough money for benefits by the year 1985 or thereafter and suggests mechanisms to deal with it.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I respect the fact there are a number of very basic issues that will be looked at in depth by the select committee this summer but, before that happens, why will the Treasurer not implement some of the things that can be implemented now? I refer specifically to the child-bearing step-up provision, which the Haley commission in recommendation 32 suggests should be implemented immediately and without delay. It is an important point; it should be done now. Why not do that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not going to rule that out, Mr. Speaker. There may be a number of steps that can be taken before a select committee reports, but I sense there may be some difficulty in choosing those you want to act upon right away while saying a select committee should review the recommendations.

My staff at this time, in their review with me, have concluded that there are some things we can do on the private side, and we shall start doing them.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Education has an answer to a question previously asked.

FILM PRODUCTION COURSES

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was approximately 10 days ago that the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) asked a question regarding the film production program at Algonquin College.

As honourable members must know, the community colleges' role is to provide educational programs that meet the needs of the students but also provide the students with some very real access to employment opportunities. They regularly review the offerings which are made on the basis of the requirements for employment in the local community or the rest of the province.

The program on film production in French was reviewed by Algonquin College approximately a year and a half ago. The decision was taken as a result of the criteria that were used to examine that course along with a number of other courses, including all the programs provided in both English and French, to decide which programs should be maintained; these were enrolment, the rate of attrition in the course, the rate of placement after the course and the level of cost of the course.

There had been 72 students enrolled in the course at the beginning, and of these only 14 graduated. Apparently little attention was being paid by French-speaking students to this course, because there were few employment opportunities. Because of this and the fact that the attrition rate was so high, the board of Algonquin College determined that the course would be discontinued, and no new students were enrolled in the first year in 1980-81. In 1981-82, only the third year of the program will be offered.

The board recognizes that many Franco-Ontarian students are interested in pursuing careers in radio, television, photography and high technology in business. Therefore, those courses have been expanded.

The board also reviews the provision of courses regularly through an operating group of that college along with the co-ordinator of francophone educational affairs in the province. If there seems to be a sufficient number of French-speaking high school graduates in that area who apply for the course, the course will be reintroduced.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since I raised this question, will the minister be prepared to ensure that the film production program is reinstated if the advisory committee on film production coming from the industry, which was not consulted before the program was cancelled, can demonstrate, as I believe it can, that the statistics on which the minister's statement and the college's decision were made were in error, and that the overwhelming number of students in that program had successfully found jobs in the film industry? If those are the facts, will the minister ensure that the program is reinstated?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it will be the decision of the college to reinstate the program. I am sure that information will be available to the advisory committee.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that when the House adjourns on Friday, May 15, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, May 19.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OBUDSMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the recommendations of the 1980 report of the select committee on the Ombudsman be referred to the committee of the whole House for clause by clause consideration.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The purpose of this is in order that when the House considers the report of the Ombudsman this Thursday evening, we can do it in committee of the whole, recommendation by recommendation, rather than as a complete report.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE MARSHALS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 59, An Act to amend the Fire Marshals Act.

Motion agreed to.