Journal des débats 1982-nov-04 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday in the House I asked the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) a question about the retail sales tax as it related to takeout food services in Ontario. I have now had an opportunity to look at the Instant Hansard in regard to that. You will recall that the Treasurer indicated in response to my question about the decline of sales in Ontario's fast-food outlets that Ontario sales were not down, that they were in fact up by 8.7 per cent.

The Treasurer may well have been referring to the industry as a whole, while my question was directed to that segment of the industry that had been seriously damaged by the imposition of the seven per cent retail sales tax, namely the takeout restaurants. The Treasurer, in choosing to compare the entire industry to this one sector, was comparing apples and oranges, since my question dealt with a sector that had been hit with a new tax while the Treasurer was comparing it with the total picture, some segments of which have been given a tax reduction, mainly the higher-priced dining establishments.

In choosing to answer in this manner, the Treasurer did not deal with the specific question. I rise to point out this error of gross proportions.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the honourable member that it is not a point of order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is a good point, though.

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter of opinion, I guess.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, am I not going to be allowed to respond to that?

Mr. Breithaupt: If you were, what would you say?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If I were responding I would point out that I was answering some of the comments made by his leader, not specifically the member.

Mr. Speaker: How many times must I point out that you should not pay attention to interjections?

NATIVE RIGHTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege to correct the record: On Tuesday, in response to my question regarding the mediation process between the government and the Whitedog Indian band, the Premier (Mr. Davis) gave this House information which I know to be inaccurate and misleading.

In reply to my question, which stated that not one major issue has been resolved between Ontario and the Indian band, the Premier indicated that progress has been made. He stated: "I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is correct. Some issues have been resolved." The facts indicate otherwise.

According to information given to me today by the negotiator for the Whitedog Indian band, there were six major items put to Ontario as their share of an overall settlement in the mediation discussions. The six issues were: (1) a 21-year wild rice licence; (2) restrictions on development in the isolated area of Ontario north of the reserve itself; (3) a request for an automatic arbitration process should development in the area immediately around the reserve harm the community as it did in the 1958 Hydro flooding and the 1960s Reed Paper Ltd. mercury emission; (4) children's group homes to repatriate the 50 children now scattered throughout Ontario; (5) a financial contribution by Ontario along with one from Canada, Great Lakes Products and Ontario Hydro to a job creation fund; and (6) discussions regarding commercial fishing opportunities.

As of November 3, 1982, not one of these major issues has been resolved. Moreover, while little progress has been made with the province, even the pending Ontario Hydro settlement is being held up because the province refuses to ensure that rice growing within the confines of the new reserve will be considered the property of the Whitedog band.

The confusion within the government is highlighted by the fact that while the band negotiators were told by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) to refer the matter to Ontario's negotiator, when he called to determine to whom he should be speaking he was told, "We do not know who is handling the Ontario negotiation."

Further, the Premier responded that progress is being made on the wild rice issue and that he had arranged to meet with Chief Kelly two weeks ago. I wish to draw to the Premier's attention that Chief Kelly is not the chief at Whitedog, never was the chief at Whitedog and never will be. He is the chief of Treaty 3, which is not and never has been involved in the mediation process. Isaac Mandamin is the chief of Whitedog. The discussions on rice with Chief Kelly are unrelated to the mercury mediation that commenced in 1978.

Ontario agreed to the terms of the Hartt royal commission which emphasized the critical need for immediate assistance to Whitedog in view of the mercury pollution and the resulting unemployment. Ontario has not met with the Whitedog band on the rice licensing question since March 1982, over eight months ago. I am concerned that for the Premier to assert that progress has been made after almost four years of negotiation creates a false impression.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must point out to the Leader of the Opposition that is not a matter of privilege which he has raised, and I must further point out to all honourable members they may rise to correct their own remarks on the record but cannot rise to correct another member's remarks.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is a new ruling in my opinion. You may have an interpretation that I do not understand.

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition could more correctly place those questions to the Premier or to others at the proper time.

Mr. Peterson: I am sure if the Premier was misinformed he would want to know about the situation.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Your privileges have not been abridged in any way.

REMARKS BY PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANT

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege: On Tuesday last in this assembly, pursuant to Bill 150, the Municipal Amendment Act, a discussion took place between the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), the parliamentary assistant, about various municipalities enacting and publishing bylaws allowing the use of French in the municipalities.

2:10 p.m.

The member for Ottawa Centre was raising certain objections and the member for Wilson Heights said as follows: "I see Mr. Cassidy's point. You can have the redneck people in Vanier who would not allow English, but I don't think you would." This quotation is in both French and English. I have reviewed the Hansard and there is discussion about the bill but this quotation does not appear to be in Hansard.

I would invite the member for Wilson Heights to correct this impression, because if there is one place in Ontario which has been a very tolerant municipality it is the municipality of Vanier, which is probably 75 per cent French-speaking and throughout has allowed the use of both official languages in that municipality. So to use the word "redneck" in reference to Vanier was very unfortunate, indeed, and should be corrected.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member is not in his chair and therefore cannot respond to that. However, I have very serious reservations, if it did not appear in Hansard, whether it was stated in the House or not. I have not seen the article. We will take it under consideration.

[Later]

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) raised a point of privilege in which he read alleged quotes from myself which he said he could not find in Hansard.

First, to make it very plain and clear, these quotes were not in Hansard because the alleged quotes were not made in the House but were as a result of an interview I had with two reporters outside of this chamber after the House had recessed at six o'clock on Tuesday. To correct any impression, these quotations were not in Hansard because they were not made in the House.

Second, also in order to correct the record, the two quotations, one in English and one in French, are somewhat different. Between them they are almost accurate. In discussing a question from reporters about English and French being made mandatory or permissive within municipal councils -- and I indicated it was the government's decision that it would be permissive to a council -- one of the reporters asked me the direct question which is not quoted in either story.

To quote from the reporter, she said, "What if you had a redneck in Penetang who tried to forbid French in that municipality?" It had nothing to do with Mr. Cassidy's point as the English language newspaper indicates. As Mr. Roy said, I replied, "That would be like saying you could have a redneck in Vanier who would try to disallow English, but I do not think that would happen."

The French version uses three dots and does not include my qualification, "I do not think that would happen." The English version has "I do not think that would happen" but got the quotation wrong. In the next sentence, which neither newspaper included, I said I had confidence that our municipal councils would not do this sort of thing.

If there is any doubt -- and the member for Ottawa East has raised it -- that I in any way was accusing anyone in Vanier of being redneck, it was quite the contrary. I was trying to indicate that it would be a silly notion to say there would be rednecks in Vanier, that I did not think there would be; in the same way that it would be a silly notion to say there would be rednecks in other parts of the province.

To the member for Ottawa East, if anyone in Vanier felt I was accusing him of being a redneck, I did not, I did not mean to, and if there is any doubt I apologize to the people of Vanier. I indicated quite specifically I did not think there were rednecks in Vanier.

Mr. Wildman: If there are any rednecks in Vanier you would know them.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INSURANCE EXCHANGE

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today a rather exciting initiative. Cabinet has approved in principle the establishment of an insurance exchange in Toronto. In preparation for that event I will be appointing a committee to study the proposal and to prepare an implementation plan within six months.

We are indeed fortunate that an individual with a distinguished career in the insurance industry, Colonel Robert Hilborn, has agreed to serve as chairman of that committee. Colonel Hilborn is here with us today in the Speaker's gallery and I would ask that he stand and be recognized.

Colonel Hilborn brings more than 20 years of senior level experience in the insurance industry to this position. He has long been recognized at both the underwriting and brokerage levels as a leading spokesman and educator for the surety industry in Canada and the United States. He served as the first Canadian president of the National Association of Surety Bond Producers in Washington in 1973-74, and was also a director of the Toronto Insurance Conference.

Under Colonel Hilborn's direction, the main work of the committee will be to review and report on experiences in other jurisdictions where insurance exchanges operate; to invite comments from informed members of the industry and financial community on the concept of an Ontario insurance exchange; and to consider the tax, legal and Federal Investment Review Agency implications for the establishment of an insurance exchange.

The objective of the committee will be to submit a detailed plan of a legal and marketing framework for a Toronto insurance exchange and its implementation.

As you may already be aware, Mr. Speaker, an insurance exchange is designed to provide a centralized market facility where the risks associated with insuring a high-risk enterprise are shared by member underwriters for a price negotiated on the floor of the exchange. The idea is not a new one: Lloyd's of London has operated successfully as such an exchange for the past 290 years. It is a place where large risks can be shared, difficult risks placed and new and unusual risks covered by insurance.

In the United States, a determined effort has already been made to recapture premium dollars going abroad. An insurance exchange was established in New York in 1980 to provide US insurers with an alternative to Lloyd's of London. Another exchange was established in Chicago in 1981 and a third is now planned for Miami. The reason is simple. A local insurance exchange helps reduce the tremendous outflow of insurance premium dollars to foreign markets.

In Canada alone, we estimate that more than $1 billion worth of direct and reinsurance premiums leave the country annually. In addition, many general insurance risks of a large nature are placed outside Canada on either the Lloyd's market or the New York market. For example, one of the first items of business on the New York Insurance Exchange was the insurance for the Alberta pipeline project.

Establishing an insurance exchange in Ontario should in time reduce this huge outflow of Canadian dollars and at the same time strengthen Toronto's position as a major financial centre, raise the visibility of Canadian insurance companies and attract fresh investor capital. I perceive such an exchange operating as a self-regulating group with a minimum of government regulation, another example of how government and industry can work together.

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House on my meeting with Mr. Leonard Rosenberg, president of Greymac Credit, the company which is acquiring approximately 11,000 rental units from Cadillac-Fairview Corp.

I was advised that the financing of this transaction will be carried out with domestic funds and, as members are already aware, the purchase price is $270 million. On average, that would appear to be a price of between $24,000 and $25,000 per unit. Greymac will have a 15 per cent equity in the properties. It will be assuming the existing first mortgages and financing the balance with second mortgages of approximately $110 million at a floating interest rate of 0.5 per cent over prime.

In response to my expression of concern about the ability of Greymac to adequately maintain this portfolio, I was advised that Greymac is arranging to acquire the Cadillac-Fairview management staff and it is anticipated that the corporation will be able to maintain the same level of maintenance using the same personnel who have been in charge of this function over the years.

It was also revealed that any major defects existing at the date of closing will be repaired by Cadillac-Fairview at its own expense within six months of closing. Other improvements to buildings would be carried out by Greymac Credit.

From this review of the transaction, it would appear to me that the financial arrangements are fair and reasonable given the current economic circumstances. It is clear from Mr. Rosenberg's comments, however, that should an attractive offer to purchase be made to Greymac, it would seriously consider it. This clearly demonstrates that the impact of resales which take place within a short period of time after the original purchase must be one of the issues that is examined as we review the adequacy of our rent review process in this province.

Recognizing that such a review is an urgent priority of this government, I have been giving much thought to the mechanisms needed to evaluate the ongoing issues and complaints related to rent review in a balanced, yet sensitive way. I expect to have further comments for the House on my plans for such an examination of these issues next week, or at the very latest at the beginning of the following week.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the statement just issued. Did the minister ask Mr. Rosenberg how much the rents in those buildings will go up to finance the purchase and what his calculation is about the potential effect of the rental increases on those tenants? How much are we looking at in the next one, two and three years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I did inquire into that. As the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate, it is not an easy question to answer. Many of the units are different and the value placed on them is different.

I am told that on average the rent for these Cadillac-Fairview units runs at approximately $400 a month, some well below and some well above that. I can only take out my pocket calculator, as the member can, but assuming it is $110 million and interest rates are running today at, say, 15 per cent -- and again this does not apply to each unit, because some will be lower and some will be higher, and this is only our own estimate -- it works out on average that approximately $10,000 would be applied to each unit. The interest on that, since it is being paid only on the six-year second mortgage, would work out to something in the neighbourhood of $1,400 to $1,600 a year. If that were phased in over three years, you are looking at something like, on that average rent, roughly $30 to $35 a month.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Just so I understand very clearly, is that the minister's official calculation, his back-of-the-envelope mathematics, that he has just given us? Or has he asked Mr. Rosenberg what he is going to do with those rents; what he is going to be asking from those tenants; what will be going to the rent review board? Is the minister telling us it is $30 on $400, which is less than 10 per cent, or is he telling us it will be more than that?

We want assurances from the minister that he has looked into this matter and can tell the people who live in those units what to expect from this purchase. The minister's response off the top of his head is not very satisfactory. Or is he telling me that this is the official ministry position and the official Greymac position on rent increases?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know we all live in this House of confrontation and we have to do things for our own reasons. But the Leader of the Opposition knows very well that the second mortgages will be allocated to different buildings in different proportions and that the rents will vary according to the particular amount of mortgage applied to each building. I cannot give him or anybody any guarantee with any certainty as to what rent increases will be. The member knows that and he knows that is exactly what the rent review process is there for: to evaluate rent increases and to make sure only legitimate cost pass-throughs occur.

For the member to demand that I give him the figures right now is absolutely ludicrous. It depends on how the mortgages are apportioned and if there are any other costs involved in the servicing of the buildings. I do not know that. We are talking about my own estimates of what that second mortgage will result in on average. There will be some below it and some above it, and there may be other things depending on what operating costs are. I do not know those things. I am not part of the transaction.

Mr. Peterson: The minister should know.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The Leader of the Opposition knows very well that I have no authority to require people to tell me those things, but the president of the company was good enough to come in and talk to me and give me the information he did.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the minister correctly, he referred to Greymac holding 15 per cent of the equity. I did not hear who was going to hold the other 85 per cent.

Is it the minister's belief that Greymac has a present honest intention of retaining those properties, or is it simply going to pass them through to the first available buyer with a more favourable offer?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if the statement was not clear; I thought it was. I said the equity invoked in the down payment would be 15 per cent, there would be an assumption of existing first mortgages that are allocated among the various buildings in various amounts and there would be an additional second mortgage, again allocated and divided among the various buildings, of approximately $110 million.

I can tell the member nothing more with respect to his second question other than what I did in the statement when I said, "It is clear from Mr. Rosenberg's comments that should an attractive offer to purchase be made to Greymac, they would seriously consider it."

Mr. Peterson: I think this matter raises more questions than it answers. The minister himself is unhappy with the rent review board dealing with these questions and is going to announce to this House next week or some time in the future that we are going to have to look at some of the issues with respect to resales and the percentage of financing to be passed through over what period of time.

Frankly, I do not think the minister has been presented with all the information -- at least he does not appear to have been -- and because of the monumental consequences of this sale on so many people the minister could easily have asked for schedules of the rent increases that will be necessary in order to finance it.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Peterson: The minister cannot tell me that Greymac does not have that information. He should have asked for it. If the minister is not prepared to ask for it, why does he not call a committee hearing of this House, let the whole matter be reviewed and allow his back-benchers, in conjunction with other members of the House, to look at this in all of its implications and use the lessons learned here to come up with constructive proposals on how to improve the rent review legislation? Surely that is reasonable in the circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I can only reiterate what I said very clearly in the statement today. The government considers the issue of a review of the complaints and certain issues with respect to rent review to be an urgent priority. I will be bringing further information to the House, not on some vague, distant, future occasion as the member is trying to suggest, but either next week, which he knows is a very short week because of the --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Stop nibbling away and just listen. It will be a very short week. If it is not possible to do it in that short week, then it will be at the beginning of the following week. But do not try and leave some vague London impression around that things are off in the future. We are talking about here and now.

For the member to try to imply he is the only wonderful one concerned is a myth. It is as though he is living in Alice in Wonderland. If he does not think that every member in this House is deeply concerned about the anxiety that tenants faced with rent increases must be feeling, then he is living in another world, and I do not believe he is. I think he is right here and he knows that is happening here in this House.

Mr. Peterson: For a while we thought the minister had promise. He is just like the rest of them.

CHRYSLER NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let me ask a question of the Minister of Labour, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis). I am sorry the Premier is not here to respond to this because I know he would be concerned about this question.

Can the Minister of Labour kindly bring this House up to date with respect to the Chrysler negotiations? What does he expect will happen tomorrow; what has been the extent of his involvement in that question and does he see any promise?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my ministry has been monitoring the situation and it has been in regular touch with the negotiators for the United Auto Workers. Meanwhile, this morning my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) met with the Canadian president of Chrysler. The situation is certainly not promising, yet it must be borne in mind that in automotive negotiations over the years it has been traditional for them to go down to the wire. That happened earlier this year in the case of General Motors and again with Ford, so there is still hope that a solution can be found before the deadline tomorrow.

Mr. Peterson: I very much hope the minister's optimism is going to be justified.

I had an opportunity this morning to talk to both Mr. White and Mr. Closs, and I desperately hope there is some room to move in this particular question. I am sure the minister is aware of the unemployment figures in Windsor at the present time: currently 17,000 people unemployed. This strike could push the unemployment rolls to well over 20 per cent in that city. Since 1979 we have lost some 45,000 auto industry and related jobs. It is the largest job loss ever experienced and most of these layoffs are for indefinite periods.

He is aware of the complete tragedy in this situation. I am asking the minister to ask the Premier to intervene in this situation this afternoon to prevent this insanity.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Members on all sides of this House are terribly concerned and are worried about the circumstance. We all know what the results would be if there were a work stoppage tomorrow. In regard to talking to the Premier, he is well aware of the circumstances and is being briefed regularly. Again, if I may refer to my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade, I believe he just left the Premier's office and he may want to respond to the member's question.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is true this matter is occupying a significant amount of time on the part of both the Minister of Labour and myself, in addition to that of the Premier and his office and undoubtedly of the two bargaining teams.

There have been some very high-level discussions, as the Leader of the Opposition is well aware from his discussions this morning with the gentlemen he mentioned. Last night the chairman of Chrysler Corp. was in Toronto and met with Mr. Rob White on the matter. There is an agreement for continuance of discussion, as I understand the situation.

If there is anything we can do to resolve the problem, we are certainly pleased to be a part of attempting to resolve the problem. We have to recognize, though, that there is a deadline that is fast approaching and that there does seem to be an intent on the two parties to reach that deadline and to have the deadline go by with the strike having occurred.

In respect of the jobs that are outstanding and the jobs that may be displaced in the process, I have to say that the action at least on the part of either management or labour is an avoidable type of situation. It is in the hands of either the representatives of the union or the representatives of management to avoid this kind of situation; they are the ones who are capable, to the extent that they can, of avoiding any job loss that may occur.

In the event that a strike does occur, I have to say that our reading of the entire Chrysler Corp. situation, at least as it exists in the Canadian framework, shows that there is a fragility to it that cannot be ignored. It is this fragility that has to be kept in mind by management and labour as they approach this wire tomorrow.

It is undoubtedly something that is causing us grave concern. Nobody wants to see a strike. As I perceive the discussions with representatives of labour and with representatives of management nobody wants to see a strike, least of all the people of Windsor, least of all the people of Ontario, and of course the net effect will be very devastating.

If a strike does occur, it is my understanding that some 6,000 people in the United States will be laid off immediately and it is my further understanding that notice has been given to them today of a Monday departure. So there well could be 6,000 people out immediately there.

Because of the world mandate that relates to certain products made here in Canada, such as pistons and trim, this will mean that the entire system could well be tied up.

It must be kept in mind that the entire operation of Chrysler may hinge on the efforts put forward by management and labour to reach a proper reconciliation of this matter. If there is anything we can suggest to the representatives of either side at the moment, it is to take some time to think about their actions.

Some time has been taken in the United States to delay the matter until January 1, 1983. I would like to hope that the representatives of management and the representatives of labour would realize the value of perhaps deferring this strike deadline until a time that is in unison with that of the US workers so that, accordingly, there would be at least a joint effort there. That would avoid the Canadian operation being put into the unenviable position of perhaps destroying the plant, the entire operation, the entire corporation and all plants across North America.

I think it is incumbent, as a plea made to management and as a plea made to labour, to seriously consider the ramifications of the actions that they may take. It may not be possible to recover from whatever actions may occur.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether to place this final supplementary to the Minister of Labour or to the Minister of Industry and Trade.

Mr. Speaker: It should be addressed to the Minister of Labour; if he wants to redirect it, he may.

Mr. Wrye: The minister has just heard his cabinet colleague talk about the fragility of the company, and I believe all parties will agree that it is in everyone's interest that the company survive. The minister understands that, despite his colleague's personal plea of just a moment ago for perhaps a deferment, the union has already indicated it will not follow that step.

If a strike should occur tomorrow, will the minister still not use his good offices to recommend to the Premier, before this strike moves too far, that the Premier perhaps take a look at calling in the top negotiators for both sides and sitting down to explore with them the issues in dispute, with a mind towards seeing whether they cannot resolve what could be in the short run a tragic situation for the workers, obviously, and for the community that I come from, and in the long term -- and I think the Minister of Industry and Trade and everyone else is aware of the tragic situation -- for the whole company.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, "tragic" is a very apt description of what the situation would be if the work stoppage occurred tomorrow, not only for the workers of Chrysler and the communities in which their plants exist but also, because of the ripple effect that would be felt throughout this entire province and throughout this country, for Chrysler's numerous suppliers of goods and services.

Let me assure the honourable member, in direct response to his question, that no stone will be left unturned by this government to try to get the parties together. We are very fortunate in this respect that there are excellent lines of communication between the United Auto Workers and the Premier as well as between the management of Chrysler and the Premier. No one will be sitting idly by watching this develop over too many days. I can assure the member of that.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, who knows that Ontario Hydro, at the request of the government, has deferred its plan to implement time-of-year rates, which would have charged higher electricity rates in the winter than in the summer, thus discriminating against northern Ontario.

Can the minister assure us that, in spite of the Ontario Energy Board's approval of that discriminatory principle, the government's policy will not merely defer the implementation of that principle, which discriminates against the north, but will also ensure that Hydro does not reintroduce this pricing practice in the future?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the honourable member will recall that the communication between the government and Hydro was that, in view of the present economic situation and in an effort to really assess what the impact of this would be, they would defer the implementation of new costing and pricing principles to provide more opportunity to review what the actual impact would be. That is what I would expect Hydro to do: to give that some consideration and to reflect upon it prior to making their application in so far as the 1984 bulk rate is concerned.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister not assure this House that, as a matter of policy, the government will insist that Hydro not engage in the mafia economics they used in making their submission this year; and will he state clearly that his policy will not allow them to make a submission to the Ontario Energy Board which discriminates in pricing against northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am speaking to the general principles of costing and pricing. The existing costing and pricing principles are those that will be applied in so far as the distribution of the new bulk rate for 1983 is concerned.

I have suggested that Hydro should review the impact of making any changes. In fairness, having asked them to defer and to share with me what their findings are, we will have plenty of opportunity to measure what the rates would have been under the new principles and what the rates are under the existing principles to see exactly where equity might ultimately lie.

in all fairness, the member should recognize that the government did ask Hydro to defer moving into the new costing and pricing principles in order that we might review what the impact would be, particularly in these times.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many of us represent ridings in northern and eastern Ontario where this time-of-use rate is very controversial and quite unacceptable, I am wondering whether the Minister of Energy can indicate whether the very distinguished Progressive Conservative member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) was speaking for the government of which he is so prominent a part when the Sudbury Star of Wednesday. October 27, 1982, reported on its front page: "Sudbury MPP Jim Gordon said that this time-of-use rate was 'a try by Hydro at mafia economics.'"

Can the minister indicate whether his distinguished colleague the member for Sudbury was speaking on behalf of the government when he accused Ontario Hydro of engaging in mafia economics in this time-of-use rate matter?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, to put this matter into some context: First, the whole question of costing and pricing principles has been the subject matter of public hearings before the Ontario Energy Board for about four years; so there has been plenty of opportunity for all sorts of input.

Second, the Minister of Energy spent 10 hours downstairs in committee in the last week or so. I do not recall anybody dropping in during that time to talk about time-of-use rates or costing and pricing principles.

Third, I know of no member in this Legislature who has done more than the member for Sudbury to make quite clear to all of us in this House the impact of any policies that might have a negative result. He has been championing many causes in the Sudbury area.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, might I quote the rest of the statement and then ask the minister a question? "Ontario Hydro's attempts to prove it needed the new rate structure were what Gordon called a try at 'mafia economics.' According to Gordon, Hydro tried to take its most inefficient plant and prove that its costs were typical of all Ontario Hydro plants."

First, is it correct that Hydro attempted to do that? I hope the minister answers my question, not what went on in committee. Second, what is his government prepared to do to prevent Hydro from continuing this practice in future?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I must underline the fact that the whole question of costing and pricing was to find a way to trace more accurately the costs to the classes of customers. All I am trying to suggest to the honourable member is that this has been a matter of public review. Everybody has an opportunity to express his opinions on that. The very member asking the supplementary question has some strong views on that matter as well.

Mr. Foulds: Why does the minister protect Hydro from these dastardly charges? Does the member opposite have a supplementary? Mr. Speaker, I bow to a supplementary from the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Gordon: Get off my turf.

Mr. Martel: Get up, Jim. Come on; tell us about Hydro and what a bunch of crooks they are -- mafia. I didn't accuse them of being mafia.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I move that the member for Sudbury be now heard.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that you are completely out of order, as you well know. We will hear from the member for Port Arthur.

ONTARIO RENTER-BUY PROGRAM

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Can the minister explain why the Ontario renter-buy program, which I believe was announced in May, has been cut back from $75 million to $65 million and why only about a half, or slightly more than 7,000, of the projected 15,000 participants have taken advantage of the program? In spite of the changeable weather and the rain today, can he tell me why his ministry has fallen so short of its announced targets?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, it is very logical as to why the cash-flow position has taken a change. The program is for a purchase until the end of December of the current year.

Mr. Foulds: It is supposed to be until the end of October.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The honourable member asked the question. If he will wait a moment, I will give him the answer. The fact is that the closing date for the occupancy of a home --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) would sit and listen, he might also learn something.

Mr. Roy: I like the new image.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is fine; at least it is more image than he puts forward on most occasions, let me assure him. His image when he was running for certain positions did not do him very well, did it?

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

Mr. Roy: That's good, Claude.

Mr. Bradley: Another Marion Dewar.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Ottawa East is the Marion Dewar of this House, that is for sure.

Mr. Foulds: Is it because of the rain?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will not answer that question.

Mr. Speaker: The minister will address himself to the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have a closing date for the sale of a home of December 31, 1982, but an occupancy date of the end of August 1983. The amount of money that will flow to an individual occupancy of the home. It follows that the occupancy will take place some time later, flowing into our new financial year. As a result. the funding will not be required in the current funding program or in the current budget, but in next year's, and provision will be made there for it.

The second part of the question related to the number of units. We had hoped very much we would get something in the range of 15,000 units purchased in Ontario under the program. I acknowledge the fact that the federal government program came along to enhance and improve the quality of our program and stimulate its activity.

I am rather optimistic, even though as of today we have something like 7,600 to 7,700 units sold, that we shall achieve a greater percentage of the 15,000 than would appear possible at this moment. I predicate that on the fact that in this current month and in the latter days of October, the number of applications per day has increased substantially. I look forward, between now and the end of December, to seeing a greater percentage of take-ups of the 15,000.

The member asked the question, and I want to acknowledge the fact that there has been a new confidence expressed in the home purchasing market in this province and in this nation over the past two or three months. That is a direct reflection of the fact that the interest rates on mortgages have declined somewhat. The optimism that has been expressed each Thursday with further declines in interest rates will instill even greater confidence in the purchasing of new homes by the Ontario population.

I expect that by the conclusion of this year we shall have achieved a fairly substantial percentage of our original objective.

Mr. Foulds: I should like to follow up on the minister's optimism because of the drop in interest rates and ask him whether he remembers the fanfare and the hoopla with which he announced the Challenge 2000 program in May. I think it was a cluster of programs which included such things as "inno-rent" and "renthab."

Can the minister tell me why not one penny of the $48 million he stated in his announcement was going to be allocated to "inno-rent" has been allocated? Can he tell me why not one cent of the $9 million for "renthab" has yet been allocated; and why not one dollar of the $1 million for demonstration projects under that program has been allocated?

Can he tell me how he expects people to take up on those proposals if he has no money in the budget for them?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: At the time I announced the program, I said I was in the process of making application to the Management Board of Cabinet and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics for funding to put the program under way. Indeed, we said we needed lead time to try to instill some degree of confidence in the program and to receive applications for possible projects across Ontario.

I am relatively pleased with the number of imaginative programs which have been brought forward and on which my ministry is currently working. The numbers are rather extensive, and I am prepared to get those and put them before the member.

Many municipalities, contractors and private organizations have brought in rather imaginative ideas. We shall not be able to afford all of them; I must recognize that right now --

Mr. Foulds: Certainly, if you don't ask for any money for it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Once again, will the member please sit and listen? He might have the question, but I find that he seldom has the answer or that he seldom even understands the answer after it is given to him logically.

We have taken the opportunity of doing some assessments of the applications that are currently being made to us. There has been some settling in some of the programs by municipalities because of a certain event that takes place next Monday. I imagine that shortly thereafter we shall see a further interest in trying to advance some of those projects they have in mind.

2:50 p.m.

I believe that over the next period of time there will be some funding allocated by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and by the Management Board to get under way with at least some demonstration projects in this field. I do not think we want to jump into a program that neither we nor the private sector is completely satisfied is possible or achievable in putting the units on the market at an affordable rent price.

I do want to compliment again the private sector and those at the municipal level for some of the imaginative projects they have brought in. I am positive, without any fear of contradiction, that we will be able to get some of them under way as demonstration projects, and just maybe we will find that the private financial interests will start to exploit the opportunities offered by some of the ideas that have been put forward.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell me why he made this statement the day immediately after the Treasurer brought down his budget, I think it was? If I understand his answer correctly, can he tell me why the definite amounts of money contained in this glossy press release, which he issued on May 14, and the number of man-years of work which he projected would be created are now going to go down the drain? Do I understand the minister correctly that he is going to wait for next year's budget and about $68 million of the money he promised is not going to be committed?

Can he tell us when he is going to actually start fighting the housing shortage in this province with money, homes and genuine projects instead of fighting them with press releases, publicity and his mouthy words?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The last assessment is one the member would have the greatest competence in making known, because he is usually the one who exemplifies that particular position.

I said the other day, and I repeat it, this government is not going to succeed in answering all the requirements of the housing market. I make that very clear. It is going to be a co-operative effort which will include the federal government -- Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., to be more specific. It is going to involve the allocation of housing units under the private and public nonprofit programs and under the co-operative program.

It is also going to involve the private sector through some schemes that can be designed by the provincial and federal governments. I am thinking of the rental supply program at the federal level --

Mr. Foulds: You said money would be made available in this budget year.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- which is going to make funding available for the development of rental accommodation. I admit that it has fallen short of the market. I said some time ago that it would because there is not sufficient funding per unit, federally or provincially, to make that program fly. It is going to take some realignment of the governments in analysing those programs to try to respond more positively to the rental market.

At the time we announced the Challenge 2000 program, I stated the amount of funding it would take to make it float. I did not say at the time that I had the funding --

Mr. Foulds: You said it would be made available.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is exactly right. I said that it would be made available, and I am in the process; but with constraint programs and so on --

Mr. Foulds: When?

Mr. Martel: What millennium?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, not to mind the interjections.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: He has been caught out and he has no answer.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No; the member for Bellwoods is caught out quite often, but I do not intend to be caught out. I said at the time we were making application to Management Board and the Treasury for funding for this program. We still intend to go forward with the program. In due course, when the funding is made available to us from the Treasury and Management Board, we will advance it.

At the moment -- the member knows his party is the same group that wants to talk about government reducing its deficit borrowing and deficit financing -- this government is trying to retain its funding and deficit position at what appears to be a reasonable level for this province. I admire the Treasurer for the challenge he has taken up in trying to keep expenses down but at the same time recognizing worthwhile programs. I am sure this one in due course will have that recognition.

OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Treasurer on one of the most interesting aspects of Bill 179 and his interpretation of it. I want to come back to a question we have asked on a few occasions.

In his budget of last May, the Treasurer will remember that he announced to this House, "Effective for the benefit month of October 1982, monthly OHIP premiums will be increased." I know the Treasurer will remember that the opinion of his legal staff, given to us, was that Ontario health insurance plan premiums are administered prices and are subject to the sort of review available under part III of Bill 179.

My question to the Treasurer is this: How does he now say that Bill 179 applies only to future OHIP increases when he knows any price increase effective between September 21, 1982, and January 1, 1984, is affected? And he knows it because he said last May that OHIP premiums would be increased 14.7 per cent effective October 1, 1982.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this question in the House before. I pointed out that the adjustment in OHIP rates had reflected in effect a historic rather than a future estimation of the increase in OHIP's total spending. The honourable member knows, and I know, that the OHIP premium is somewhere between one sixth and one fifth of the total budget of the Ministry of Health and --

Mr. Peterson: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Foulds: What does that have to do with it?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just a second -- and roughly four fifths to five sixths are coming from general tax revenues of the province. In sum total, I make it up either through taxes, through OHIP premiums or through borrowings. It has been my habit in most of the years I have brought in a budget, I think all but one, to make an OHIP premium increase that reflects the changes in the past year.

The mechanics of the OHIP billing process are such that most people prepay their premiums. I think it is some three months in advance. There are particular points in the cycle when it is administratively feasible to put the increases into place. In effect, I made the change on May 13 and the mechanics of the process allowed it to have an impact in the system on that date. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Wrye: That is very interesting. I am well aware of the fact that the Health Insurance Act provides for a payment date, but I would like to try a little example on the Treasurer and see whether he can explain to me how OHIP slides under this legislation.

Suppose I returned to Ontario late on the evening of September 30, after a stint abroad, and the next day I visited one of their one-stop health windows to make sure I got my OHIP renewed. Since my effective date of OHIP coverage and my payment date would be one and the same, and since both fall after the implementation date of Bill 179, September 21, can the Treasurer tell me whether I would be subject to only a five per cent increase on the $23 I would have paid on September 30, or would I be subject to the increase that others were charged when they made their payments back on July 1?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend is dredging up very theoretical examples -- I am waiting for the right light to come on here so that my words of wisdom get on tape -- indicating that he has come in from outer space into this discussion himself.

He knows there is one rate and one rate only for all of us unless there is assistance because of lower income. The member has to realize that whether the money was paid by the member and myself on OHIP premiums for this year or whether we paid it in taxes, it did not change one whit the total amount of spending required for health care.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer in his last answer brought up the matter of premium assistance. This has been raised numerous times, and it has been pointed out on many occasions that the premium and temporary assistance programs for OHIP subscribers are a complete farce in Ontario, because nobody knows about them and most low-income people have never heard about them.

In view of this, what action does the Treasurer intend to take to protect low-income OHIP subscribers against inflationary OHIP premium increases? And is it the Treasurer's intention to continue to pretend that the OHIP premium is not an administered price under section 26 of Bill 179?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I did not try to pretend it was not an administered price. If the honourable member will go into the record, he will see that I said it was an administered price. What I did say was that the payments to doctors were not, by definition. So it is on the record that we have accepted the OHIP premium as an administered price.

Mr. McClellan: I will have to check the record. but I think the minister said it was not an administered price.

3 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I have not. Please go back and check. I am not being inconsistent in that area.

Second, it is quite true that a few years back our statistics showed a very low percentage of uptake on the use of premium assistance. More recent statistics show that we have a very high percentage of the eligible people on premium assistance now. I cannot recite them without going back to review them.

Mr. McClellan: Table them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will be glad to get them for the honourable member or table them, because there is nothing secret in them. I am sure that. assuming our statistics are good today, the member will be pleased to see that we appear to be getting a much higher percentage of eligible people into the program.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), who was here a moment ago. If he is within the sound of my voice, I would like to ask him a question.

Mr. Foulds: His books are here.

Mr. Renwick: Well, I guess I will have to wait until he returns, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. On October 25 my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) raised the question of the exposure of workers at Trailmobile to isocyanates in the foam spraying operation. In spite of the fact that 14 out of 35 workers now suffer lung function abnormalities and the case has been perking for 10 to 12 years, we really did not get a very responsive answer from the minister.

Further, is the minister aware that there appear to be a number of other plants in Ontario that are using the same foam spraying operation with the same materials? Has he looked into any of the following companies: Ontario Spray Foam Insulation Trailers; Peel Truck and Trailer Repair in Mississauga; Madison Diamonite in Milton; Truchauf UAW of Toronto/Ingersoll; Canadian Hanson Ltd. in Toronto; Truck Fibres in Toronto; H. L. Blackford, Mississauga and Roussi Trailers in London?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I possibly erred on Monday of this week when I was responding to the member for Sudbury East in respect to Westinghouse when I stated that a complete investigation was going on within the ministry headed by the assistant deputy minister for occupational health and safety. I had intended to say at that same time that there were two investigations going on, both with the highest priority and both under the direction of the assistant deputy minister. One was Westinghouse, and the other was Trailmobile.

In the context of that investigation the matter of foam in the work place, not just at Trailmobile, is being examined. I cannot tell the member for Hamilton East whether the companies he has listed today are included in that investigation, but I will be happy to take those names back and make sure they are.

Mr. Mackenzie: Will the minister, then, report back as early as possible to the House with a study of each of the eight firms. Can he ascertain as well if there are any others because of the serious consequences to workers at the Trailmobile plant?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I will be happy to do that, Mr. Speaker.

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTIVITY

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer on productivity. One of the major problems in regard to inflation is productivity, yet we have heard little from either the Premier (Mr. Davis) or the Treasurer about what their thoughts and programs are for improving productivity in the industrial heartland of Canada.

Could the Treasurer indicate to us, since productivity in Canada grew at about 0.2 per cent in the latter part of the 1970s in relation to rates as high as 8.1 per cent in Japan, what exact steps the Ontario government is prepared to take in improving productivity in Ontario? Has the minister had any discussions with his federal counterparts on this problem?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it obviously is one of the major problems to be faced by Canadian industry in the next few years. It is a particularly difficult one to have to address at a time when cash flows from many companies, if they are positive at all, are very limited. Because, as the member knows, it takes a reasonably good cash flow to encourage companies to reinvest in their productive plant.

One of the big problems we have in Canada, as is being repeated by more and more analysts, is too high a debt-to-equity ratio for our privately owned companies. With the high interest rates, the money that could have been used for productivity gains has been drained off to service debts.

In the paper Ontario produced in February, A Blueprint for Economic Recovery, we recommended that a number of measures be taken to improve the chance for productivity improvements in Canada. An economist who addresses me quite often points out that the Canadian manufacturing sector was a late bloomer. It really came on the scene after government had imposed roughly 50 per cent taxes on the profits of corporations, whereas countries like the United States saw the biggest part of their growth occur in the days before that kind of tax rate was imposed. Perhaps that is one of the major reasons we have not seen the growth we should have seen here.

I would take that argument further. That was behind my thoughts when I eliminated in the one sector --

Mr. Martel: Nonsense.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is not nonsense. It is absolute fact. That is one of the reasons we eliminated the corporate tax for the smaller businesses, on the assumption it was a better way to have them reinvest money to which we would hope to have some future access today in ways and means of becoming more profitable, i.e., more productive.

Just yesterday I sent Mr. Lumley a telex addressing the productivity problems in the auto industry. We had about five elements of interest: increased domestic content in cars sold in this country; increased competitive capability, which I would interpret as meaning productivity; better foreign market opportunities for our Canadian suppliers, we hope with access through SITEV, the Societe internationale de transportation et vehicules, which is on at this moment in Toronto; specific assistance to the industry in improving productivity -- one positive step in that area was the auto parts technology centre and another is tax measures; and increased awareness of the Canadian public concerning the critical importance of the auto industry and the benefits of purchasing Canadian or North American-built vehicles. I mention all five because productivity looms in two of them and we strongly believe we have to take tax measures to stimulate that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I appreciate that the minister has given me a better answer than usual. Obviously what we have to do is work smarter, as somebody put it. In the first part of his answer the Treasurer's emphasis seems to have been simply on investment. We are talking about resources, labour, management, Capital, entrepreneurship. All those things go into productivity.

Can the Treasurer tell us whether he has anything specific in mind for bringing labour, management and government together -- this seems to have been one of the greatest factors in high productivity in West Germany and Japan -- for instance, in some kind of tripartite negotiations? Can he give us some idea of exactly what tax incentives he might provide to those corporations, companies and individuals who can demonstrate improved productivity over a number of years?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In my last budget, I argued that, while I did not change a tax, I refused to parallel a tax change that had the effect of reducing reinvestment in more productive plants. i.e., the federal capital cost allowance change. That has flowed an extra $1 billion into the federal Treasury this year, in its estimate. I think that is a bit optimistic because investments in that sector have not been anywhere near as strong as the original predictions. Three quarters of a billion would probably be more realistic today. That is three quarters of a billion the government has that companies do not have, based upon their investments. That is three quarters of a billion not available to go back to work right away improving productivity.

I would argue we should all be working with the federal government to impress upon it that was a retrogressive step if we really want to see productivity increases in Canada.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree the problem with tax measures for improvements in productivity in the current economic situation is that businesses generally are facing such cash-flow problems with heavy debt charges that, if they have additional expenditure room, they will use it to pay off debts to avoid high interest rates rather than reinvest in improvements in productivity?

If that is the case, does the minister not agree that what we should be doing is having the government move in a concerted way to help industry improve productivity in this jurisdiction so we can catch up with other jurisdictions like the United States, Germany and Japan in the ratio of research and development as opposed to the gross national product?

How can the minister justify the fact that a year after the announcement of the tech centres, we still do not have terms of reference for any of them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the latter part is quite erroneous.

Mr. Cooke: It's not erroneous, it's true.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Listen, I sit on the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development committee as chairman. I have been looking at the business plans for the tech centres and I can tell the member we opened the microelectronics tech centre last week and the work plans for the other ones are coming along fine.

Mr. Laughren: Doesn't mean a thing.

Mr. Cooke: How come you can't table them if they exist? You still don't know what the hell you are doing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Let me go back because my colleague was not really listening to my response. That is not abnormal. To the minister for, the member for Rainy River --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Minister.

Mr. Nixon: Soon to be.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If he were on this side of the House he would be a minister. We acknowledge that. We have always had a warm seat and a warm heart over here for him. I just wish a few more Liberals were here today. They must be out campaigning; either that or they have learned how to vote in the riding.

Mr. Boudria: They're out winning.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There are only 10 of them here to hear these great words of wisdom. That is why the member had an opportunity to ask a question today.

I said that in a time of low cash flow there were difficulties. I am not sure whether the member has had business experience or not. We all assume that every business in the world is in trouble at the moment and no one is making any positive decisions.

Thank goodness when I went through today's news clips, for the first day in weeks almost all the little headlines were positive. They are starting to reflect the fact that some Canadians have some confidence in the future of this place. Some are even willing to borrow these days to improve productivity. The member does not have any confidence in the future or in the system that made the country great. I am sorry for him.

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. Yesterday, a constituent of mine appeared in assessment review court 407T in Montrose Public School, presided over by chairman Elmer. Having made her case that the assessment of her house property in ward 8 should be reduced, she was faced in reply by the assessor, Mr. Graham, who replied that the value, that is, the ratio of the assessment to the market value he was using for average purposes in replying and discharging the intermediate onus upon him, was based on 200 sales in the neighbourhood. When asked, he claimed that information was confidential and he would not disclose the identification of the 200 properties or the geographic boundaries of that area.

Will the minister please tell me how a taxpayer can discharge the onus on him when the ministry assessor refuses to disclose the basic information upon which one of the most important indicia of assessment is based, namely, the ratio of the assessment to market value?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, needless to say I do not have specific knowledge of the issue raised by the honourable member. As far as the duties of a neighbourhood assessor are concerned, either in dealing on a day to day or week in, week out basis with his constituency, he is available to discuss and go over the rationale behind the assessments he has put on a property. Part of the research in establishing market value, and the best one, is based on property sales. That is available on a one to one basis for discussion.

With respect to the reviewing before the court, I do not know the basis on which this particular court was operating yesterday, I think I understood, or in the last day or so. As the member knows, the assessment review court per se is administered not by my ministry but by the Ministry of the Attorney General. But there is no doubt that the basis for an assessment, the basis for establishing what has been an area value -- because there is no doubt that this is one of the reasons and one of the necessities for a reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto -- is to have a greater rationale for a consistent and constant percentage of market value relative to the actual assessment.

That is not the case now, so a neighbourhood area value is what is being retained. If that particular neighbourhood happens to average 4.3 per cent, for example, that property would as well; but the very next neighbourhood may be at six percent, and there is no doubt that at one point or another those neighbourhoods come together. For example, a rather accepted one which is more in the downtown area is Bloor Street. There is a difference between north and south of Bloor.

Whether there was some misunderstanding of the nature of the question of describing the area I do not know. There is no reason that description should not be made available. There is no specific area to say it is X number of blocks by X number of blocks, because it varies all over the marketplace within Metro at this time. There is not doubt about that at all.

Mr. Renwick: These hearings are ongoing with respect to the assessments in my area, therefore will the minister specifically instruct the assessor, in that court, and the property evaluator, who is also present in that court? Will the minister instruct those assessors to make available to the taxpayers the data set, namely which 200 properties are being used to establish the ratio? Will he instruct them to provide the geographic boundaries of the particular band of properties they are using in order that the constituents who are having their assessments revalued in that court will have an opportunity to meet the case that is being made by the assessors in reply?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I do not see any problem with that at all.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to make a correction and perhaps to clarify a matter.

On Monday, when I asked the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) of this province about expanding the provincial savings banks and said that they had come on stream at a time when there was hardly a trace of socialism in this province, the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) rose and reminded us that they had come into being during the term of office when the United Farmers of Ontario ruled this province between 1910 and 1923; but he left the impression, at least he did with me, that the United Farmers of Ontario were a group of socialists, and nothing could be further from the truth.

The late Harry Nixon, the father of the present member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, and the late Farquhar Oliver, who spoke at length on this very matter of the expansion of provincial savings banks in one of his last major addresses in this Legislature, were no socialists; nor was the member for Renfrew South, who represented the old boundaries of my riding between 1919 and 1926, Mr. John Carty. Neither he nor, I believe, any of that lot were socialists. I want to further state I have every reason to believe that the late Mr. Carty in his older and declining years voted Tory.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Having listened very attentively and intently to the honourable member, I would have to rule that is not a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, even though the point was out of order, obviously it is going to be recorded in Hansard and one of the people mentioned is still a rather avid reader of Hansard. I am sure the member for Renfrew South did not mean to imply that Mr. Farquhar Oliver is deceased. I am sure what he meant to say was that Mr. Oliver is a former member. He remains very active and does read these publications. We should have it recorded that we all know he is alive, well and doing quite well.

Mr. Speaker: That he is, indeed. I am very happy that you drew that to the attention of the House.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of that fact. It was an error on my part.

Mr. Nixon: Those of us who know of Farquhar Oliver's abilities and have met him fairly recently, are still well aware of the fact that he can deliver a speech better than any member of this House at present here -- an orator par excellence.

Mr. Wildman: With respect to the point, whatever it was, that was raised by the member for Renfrew South, I should point out that the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) did not refer to "any of that lot," as the member referred to them, as socialists but rather social democrats. As the member for Renfrew South would not be able to recognize a progressive one way or the other, he would not understand what social democrat means.

Mr. Kerrio: We all know what it means.

Mr. Speaker: That matter has been thoroughly clarified.

PETITION

TAXATION FOR EDUCATION

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 78 residents of Prescott-Russell which reads as follows:

"We the undersigned residents of the township of Cumberland in the province of Ontario, being supporters of the Carleton Board of Education, petition the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Education's 1981 residential financing proposal would significantly alter the balance of authority between a provincial government and local board of education; and whereas the proposal as formulated would eliminate some inequities while creating others; and whereas the extent of adverse impact on residential, farm, commercial and industrial taxation in support of education in Cumberland township is not yet known, therefore be it resolved: That the government of Ontario further study the advisability of the proposal, communicate the results of their study and their differential impact to the township of Cumberland and other interested municipalities, as well as the corresponding boards of education and allow sufficient time for local debate and feedback before implementation."

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Resources development policy; resources development policy program, $3,491,200.

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP.

Hon. Mr. Norton presented the first annual report of the Ontario Waste Management Corp.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of St. Catharines;

Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Thunder Bay.

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

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that in committee of supply, following the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet, estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs be taken, to be followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue, to be followed by the estimates of the Treasurer.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 185, An Act to provide for the observance of Remembrance Day.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the bill is intended to ensure that Remembrance Day is observed as a general holiday on November 11. At the present time, there is no such mandatory requirement in Ontario under the Employment Standards Act or under the Education Act. This bill would make it mandatory so that it is not a movable holiday.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 81(d), I rise with regard to answers to written questions. I raise this with regard to question 545 on the Order Paper. It was tabled on October 20, which means there should have been an interim answer by today at the latest. There has not yet been one.

I suggest this is not a complicated question; it was one which was basically asking for factual information, and although there are a lot of questions on the order paper I wonder why there was not at least an interim answer tabled today.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the government House leader will take note of that and will inquire of the proper minister.

3:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Mr. Kells moved, seconded by Mr. Eves, resolution 36:

That this House, recognizing that airborne pollution and acidic precipitation are serious problems in Ontario. recommends that the government of Ontario seeks to increase public awareness of this subject in general and its effects by: (1) including the subject of acid rain in curriculum guidelines for science and environmental science at the intermediate and senior levels; and (2) ensuring that resource materials, textbooks and other teaching aids suitable for this purpose are available in Ontario schools.

Mr. Speaker: I would advise the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation, and may reserve any portion of that time for a windup.

Mr. Kells: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which I have introduced for the consideration of this House belies the claim that politics is largely made up of irrelevancies.

The subject of this resolution is a complex and important issue which is, or should be, of great and immediate concern to all members of this assembly and to the people of the province. I believe it is imperative that we take what measures we can to ensure that Ontarians are fully informed about the politics, economics and the science of the acidic precipitation problem.

The resolution asks that this House reaffirms that the members of the Legislature recognize acidic precipitation as a grave threat to the economy and the ecology of Ontario. The resolution further asks that, out of the consciousness of the dangers which this phenomenon holds for our wellbeing, this House takes measures which will increase public awareness of the nature and effects of acidic precipitation, specifically by including the subject of acid rain in the curriculum guidelines for science and environment classes at the intermediate and senior levels.

I am aware there are those who would maintain that this step is either unnecessary or unnecessarily alarmist. I read recently that the potential dangers of acidic precipitation have been exaggerated and its causes and chemistry inadequately and improperly researched.

Adherents of this position insist that the portrayal of the phenomenon of acid rain as an environmental timebomb is the work of irrational and ill-informed environmental extremists. Happily, this view is not shared by the government of Ontario or its ministries and agencies.

During the summer months, I conducted a survey of 13 Ontario government ministries and Ontario Hydro. The questionnaire was designed to determine their perceptions of the acid rain problem, their evaluation of current policies and programs, their opinions and ideas on future initiatives, and to assess their capacity to play a public information role with respect to the issue of acidic precipitation.

On the basis of the responses, it is apparent that these agencies perceive the problem of acid rain to be a serious one which demands immediate redress. I shall refer to this survey from time to time during my presentation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all who participated for their encouragement and co-operation. I would also like to thank Elizabeth Gardiner, research officer with the legislative research service, for her invaluable assistance in compiling the survey response data.

Acidic precipitation may be defined as any form of precipitation which has a pH value of less than 5.6. In southern Ontario, precipitation ranges from three to five on the pH scale, which qualifies it as being acidic. Our problem has been to identify the sources and causes of acid rain, and on the basis of that information to design and implement appropriate remedial policies.

Acidic precipitation is caused by the interaction of sulphur and nitrogen compounds with water vapour and other substances in the atmosphere. Upon emission, these compounds are carried up through the atmosphere where they are oxidized into secondary compounds. These in turn react with water vapour, ultraviolet light and ozone to form acidic water vapour. The acidic haze may stay aloft for up to 10 days, and in the process travel incredible distances from the sources of emission. Eventually, however, the acid water vapour washes out of the clouds, and whatever is underneath at the time gets an acid bath. Unfortunately, because of prevailing winds, what often happens to be underneath is this province.

Last year, 3.7 million tons of sulphur dioxide and 24.1 million tons of nitrogen oxides were pumped into the North American atmosphere. American sources accounted for 83 per cent of sulphur emissions and 92 per cent of emitted nitrogen oxides. Canadian sources accounted for 17 per cent and seven respectively. The level of American emissions is a very real concern to us in Ontario. Most of the precipitation in Ontario is as a result of the northerly transport of moist air from the Gulf of Mexico. In its journey north, this moist air passes over the American smokestack heartland where it picks up, transforms and transports the primary pollutants which eventually wash out over Ontario in the form of acidic precipitation.

I will not review here the full range of negative impacts which acidic precipitation has had and will have on the environment of Ontario. We know from the results of the study of the Ministry of Environment, Acidic Precipitation in Ontario, that a great number of Ontario's lakes have been acidified or are acid sensitive. I am sure all members are familiar with the frightening results of that study.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food indicated in its response to my survey that the production of some crops had been severely affected by acid rain and that it was possible that airborne pollution could result in serious losses in food production in Ontario. Recent West German and Canadian studies suggest that acidic precipitation has an alarming effect on forests, retarding growth and shortening tree lifespan. This has profound implications for Ontario's forestry industry, which is a major contributor to our economic wellbeing.

Add to this the millions of dollars of damage that is inflicted on man-made structures by acidic precipitation, and the fact that there is a strong suspicion that acidic precipitation has an adverse effect on the health of people living in the fallout area, and members will have some idea of the extent and gravity of the problem. The economic costs of environmental damage on this scale can only be guessed at and may well be incalculable. However, even from this brief survey, it is obvious that acid rain could potentially have a devastating effect on Ontario's agricultural, forestry and tourism industries.

In Ontario, the government, through the Ministry of the Environment, has taken a number of important steps to reduce our contribution to the international acid rain problem. In taking these measures, Ontario is protecting not only its own environmental interests but also the interests of provinces downwind, such as Quebec and Nova Scotia, which are being affected by our emissions.

We have moved to remove the oxides emitted by our two major sources, Inco and Ontario Hydro. We have introduced abatement measures which require Inco to reduce its sulphur oxide emissions to 1,950 tons a day by mid-1983. This will represent a reduction of 550 tons per day from the 1982 levels. In addition, Ontario Hydro is required to reduce its emissions by approximately 43 per cent from the current average levels by 1990.

We have acted to begin putting our own house in order. However, the final solution of the acid rain problem does not lie within the power of the province. The clouds that carry acid rain over Ontario do not respect international boundaries. Acid rain is an international problem that requires an international solution. Ultimately, a truly effective solution to the acid rain problem in Ontario depends upon Canadian-American co-operation. Seventy-five per cent-- in some areas more than 80 per cent -- of the acidic precipitation that falls in this province is caused by American source emissions. In effect, even if we in Ontario eliminated every single source of acidic pollutants, we would still have a very serious problem.

In spite of a promising beginning, negotiations with the Americans on a solution to our common problem now seem to have arrived at an impasse. Negotiations are complicated in that we no longer share a common perception of the nature or the urgency of the problem. In part, the American attitude can be explained by the fact that they are not as economically or ecologically vulnerable to the effects of acidic precipitation as we are in Canada.

The question arises then of whether we in Ontario should delay remedial action until all the scientific evidence has been collected and until the Canadian and American governments have reached an agreement. My survey responses indicate that we should not -- indeed, we cannot afford to -- wait. Our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) has made it clear to all parties to the negotiations that the integrity and quality of Ontario's environment are not negotiable. We must continue to impress this fact upon both the US and Canadian governments.

In the meantime, we can take steps to ensure that our own population is well informed on this matter and that Ontario's case receives a fair hearing and wide publicity south of the border. I believe we have already taken significant steps towards implementing the latter strategy.

3:40 p.m.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) has on a number of occasions presented Ontario's case on the acid rain issue to American legislators and officials. The Minister of the Environment and his officials have also been active on both the political and legal fronts in the United States. The ministry' has set aside St million of a 57-million fund dedicated to acid rain research to support efforts to persuade US officials to give serious consideration to the merits of the Ontario position and the legitimacy of our claim.

On the legal front, I am aware of seven cases over the last year in which the Ontario government has intervened to protect our interests. Although we have taken steps to publicize our position in the United States, there is still much that we can and should do to increase public awareness of this issue in Ontario. I believe the resolution I have introduced today will help us achieve that goal.

Of course, it is reasonable to ask why people should be informed about this issue, why in the manner suggested and what these measures can be expected to achieve. I think the seriousness and complexity of the issue of acidic precipitation is itself a compelling enough reason for public education. Even beyond that, I would argue it is our duty in this House to ensure that the people of this province are fully informed about any issue that holds such profound implications for their future.

It has been observed that democracy more than any other system of government makes great demands on the energy and intelligence of its citizens. Democratic political practice and the democratic political process are built on the principles of citizens' participation and legislative accountability. However, if the people are to participate fully and effectively in self-government and if the Legislature is to be truly accountable to the people, the people must be knowledgeable about the issues of the day. How else can we expect the people to be able to evaluate the performance of their representatives, judge the adequacy of government actions and appreciate the complexity of the policymaking environment in which we must contend?

Sitting in this House, I have heard many of my friends hold forth on the need for increased accountability in government at all levels. This resolution offers us the opportunity to demonstrate that our commitment to this principle extends beyond mere lipservice and self-serving proclamations. There is an obvious need for public information programs on airborne pollution and acid rain. Not surprisingly, most ministries look to the Ministry of the Environment as the lead ministry in this area to be primarily responsible for this type of activity. A number of ministries have adequate reference materials on this topic in their libraries. However, we do have the problem of getting this material out of the libraries and into public circulation.

Increasing public awareness of the acid rain issue would help offset the effects of what Anthony Downs has referred to as the "issue attention cycle." This refers to the well-known pattern in which a specific public issue leaps into prominence, remains there for some time and then, though still largely unresolved, gradually falls from the centre of public attention. However, whether we are aware of it or not, outraged or complacent, the rain continues to fall and the lakes continue to deteriorate. The more aware the public is of this issue and the more information they have available to them, the less likely it is that they will be duped by myths and half-truths irrespective of source, be it government, coal lobbies or environmental groups.

It seems obvious to me that if one is interested in educating the public, a logical place to start is in the school system. I want to make it very clear, especially to my colleagues across the aisle, that I am advocating a program of education, not a program of government propaganda. The actual content of the curriculum, what is taught and how, would be left up to the professional educators.

The Ministry of Education already has a learning materials development fund, which could, if necessary, assist the production of instruction materials. The interministerial environmental education committee might play a role in encouraging and developing course content on acid rain and airborne pollution.

Under current curriculum guidelines the topic of acid rain does not receive the attention that, in my opinion, it deserves. Raising the profile of this phenomenon in our schools could have a number of beneficial effects. Aristotle once remarked that education is for children who are going to be citizens. Educating the citizens of tomorrow about a subject that has shaped their world and a problem they may well have to address strikes me as being a worthwhile goal in itself.

In addition, these students may develop an interest in a subject which they may want to pursue at a more advanced level, thus bringing more mind power and manpower to bear on some of the outstanding questions about acid rain.

They might talk about these problems with their parents who, in turn, might feel inclined to get in touch with some of us here in this House as to how they think we are handling the problem and what we should be doing about it.

At the very least, we would have one generation of Ontarians which would be fully informed about this very real threat to its environment. It is only the ignorant man who despises education, and only the incompetent and irresponsible who fear the judgements of educated men. Education is but a means to an end. In this case the end is an informed and alert public. Surely we all agree this is a goal worth attaining.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has approximately six minutes left. Would he like to reserve that time?

Mr. Kells: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kerrio: Do I have 10 minutes, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, while in theory there is nothing wrong with this resolution, in practice we should remember that high school students do not cause acidic precipitation. It is industry and electrical utilities in this province, other provinces and in the United States that cause acid rain. These are the culprits and it is the corporate directors of these industrial organizations who need the education.

I think it is important to list the companies I believe need to be educated on the matter because, collectively, they were responsible for emitting 1,694,000 metric tons of sulphur dioxide into our atmosphere in 1980.

These companies include Inco Ltd. of Copper Cliff; Ontario Hydro's Lambton station at Courtright, the Nanticoke station at Nanticoke, and the Lakeview station at Mississauga; Algoma Steel Corp. in Wawa; Falconbridge Nickel Mines in Falconbridge; Imperial Oil's refinery in Sarnia; Shell's refinery in Sarnia; Suncor's refinery in Sarnia; Texaco's refinery in Nanticoke; Gulf Canada's refinery in Mississauga; the BP Canada refinery in Oakville; the Shell refinery in Oakville; Ontario Paper of Thorold; Abitibi-Price of Thunder Bay; Great Lakes Forest Products of Thunder Bay; Boise Cascade of Kenora; Spruce Falls Power and Paper of Kapuskasing; Abitibi-Price of Iroquois Falls; and CIP of Hawkesbury.

These are the companies that need to he educated.

We have to wonder why the member for Humber placed this resolution before the House. He may feel that students are not being educated enough on the topic of acid rain, but we feel science teachers are already taking the initiative to teach their students about the perils of acid rain. We know this for a fact.

For instance, at the Lockview Park Secondary School in Port Colborne, the grade 10 biology class is taught about acid rain. It is taught as a component of the course on ecology. Mr. Clarke Tennier, chairman of the science department at the school, claims there is no difficulty in acquiring literature and information which may be used for teaching the students about acid rain.

This is only one example. There are many such examples. But realizing the importance of the topic of acid rain and the initiative which teachers are taking on the topical interest, we believe that what is happening at Lockview is probably happening at other high schools throughout the province.

The resolution also wants to ensure that resource materials are available to Ontario schools so that they may teach about acid rain. I must submit there is an abundance of resource material available on the subject and any science teacher or science department head with any initiative can surely acquire the literature with relative ease.

There are many articles, reports and books on the topic of acid rain that can be acquired quite simply. In fact, Time has a cover story on the acid rain problem. It is very topical and timely because it is in this week's Time magazine. It is called, "Acid Rain: The Silent Plague."

Last fall, Sports Illustrated had an article called "An American Tragedy." The November 1981 issue of National Geographic published an article entitled, "Acid Rain: How Great a Menace?" The May 10, 1981, issue of Today magazine ran an article entitled, "Stop Killing Our Lakes."

3:50 p.m.

In November 1980, Canadian Business published an article entitled, "Counting the Cost of Acid Rain." In October 1979, Scientific American ran an article simply titled, "Acid Rain." These are just a few examples of the articles published in magazines over the past few years, magazines which for the most part are found in the libraries of high schools throughout the province.

There are also reports that are easily obtainable and very informative, which have been published by Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment as well as other agencies. For instance, the federal subcommittee on acid rain published a report, Still Waters: The Chilling Reality of Acid Rain. It is probably the best document published in Canada on the subject of acid rain.

Environment Canada has produced a number of reports of a nontechnical nature which are suitable for teaching students. Its report, Downwind: The Acid Rain Story, is very informative. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment published a reasonably good report called, The Case Against the Rain, in October 1980. In July 1980, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada jointly published, A Bibliography: The Long-Range Transport of Air Pollutants and Acidic Precipitation.

Within its 95 pages are found some 1,400 listings of articles published up to 1979 on the topic of acid rain. There are hundreds of articles which have been published since then.

What I am trying to point out to the member for Humber is that there is an abundance of resource material available. It is relatively simple for teachers throughout this province to obtain any of the articles or reports I have mentioned and most of them are suitable reading material for students or as aids for the teachers themselves.

At the outset, I mentioned that I think it is more important to teach the corporate polluters of the province about the perils of acid rain; much more important than it is to teach the students. I pointed out that already students are learning about acid rain, but I would submit that the corporate polluters have not learned enough.

It is essential that the federal and provincial Environment ministers start demanding more stringent emission reduction strategies for Inco, Ontario Hydro and all the other acid rain polluters in the province. The federal subcommittee on acid rain has made some strong statements about this very matter and I think it is important to read them into the record.

"It is the subcommittee's view, however, that progress has been too slow and that the provincial and federal Environment departments and ministries have acted only reluctantly and cautiously in the past to reduce acid rain-causing emissions. Much more aggressive emission control strategies are essential at all levels to deal with the problem of acid rain.

"Industry in Canada has not always distinguished itself in the environmental area. Some industries have excellent records in emission control but others have effected no controls whatsoever. Too often, individual companies have cited costs as prohibitive factors in effecting controls. This position is unacceptable to the subcommittee.

"Equally unacceptable is a claim by some industries, including some crown corporations (e.g. Ontario Hydro, that their emissions are negligible in the total North American context. The acceptance of this spurious philosophy will effectively doom the Canadian environment to ultimate destruction."

I agree wholeheartedly with these comments of the federal subcommittee and I think it is about time that the corporate polluters of this province take a crash course on the subject of acid rain so that stringent and effective emission reduction strategy is put into place as quickly as possible.

While teaching students about the topic of acid rain is quite an acceptable concept, we know it is already happening. We do not need to debate the resolution in this House to effect something that is already occurring. What is required in this House is a debate on the measures that can be taken in this province to reduce acid rain emissions.

We should be debating why Inco will be allowed to emit 1950 metric tons of SO₂ after December 31, 1982. We should be debating why Ontario Hydro's 1982 emissions have been allowed to increase by 31 per cent from 1980 emission levels. We should be debating why Hydro is indefinitely shelving its promise to install scrubbers at two of its 500-megawatt units at the Lambton thermal generating station. We should be debating why Hydro is constructing its Atikokan plant without scrubbers when, if it conformed to the April 1981 national emission guidelines for new coal-fired thermal plants, it would be forced to install scrubbers.

We should be debating why S0₂ emissions from Falconbridge Nickel were 29 per cent greater in 1981 than in 1979. We should also be debating why emissions from Suncor's refinery in Sarnia were 78 per cent greater in 1981 than in 1979.

These are the topics we should be debating in order to protect our environment from the insidious ravages of acid rain. Students will learn about acid rain; they are doing so now. We must ensure that this government, other provincial governments and the United States government take the necessary steps to reduce acid rain causing emissions.

I leave that as our submission. Of course, we will support the resolution.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, this is a motherhood resolution and there is a catchy phrase in it that says, "To increase public awareness of this subject." It would be nice if we could get the government's attention. That is where the solution lies. If we could only get those 26 people over there to get serious. I will come back to the schools in a few moments, but I want to explain why I say that.

In 1969, I said to the Ministry of Natural Resources, "You are killing the Killarney Lakes with sulphuric acid created by SO₂ and water." Some of the new members will not remember Dr. Clarke, but I believe he was a biologist for the Ministry of Natural Resources. When I made this allegation, he went to the defence of the ministry and said I was all wrong and did not know what I was talking about. He said it was natural leaching that killed all those lakes in the Killarney chain, not SO₂, heaven forbid.

I might tell my friend as well that in my 15 years here and to this day, his colleagues have yet to admit that it is the SO₂ from Falconbridge and Inco that devastated the Sudbury area and well beyond towards the French River and Lake Temagami area. The government has yet to admit that is the source.

We do not need a lot of material. I can recall that the first order passed against Inco was in 1972. That order has subsequently been maintained every two years, always when the House was not in session. Usually in January, the government would announce it was extending the program.

Inco is by far the largest polluter. CIL, which was purchased by Inco a couple of years ago, using Inco's SO₂, operated at only two-thirds capacity for as far back as I can remember. Of the three machines producing acid, one is always down. In other words, they could have taken out of the atmosphere in Sudbury one third more annually just by producing to capacity the sulphuric acid that could have been made. They chose not to, the reason being that they would glut the market with sulphuric acid. So they dumped it into the atmosphere and devastated whole areas.

4 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: The people from Cochrane North would be happy to hear that.

Mr. Martel: I am coming to Cochrane North in a moment.

There are studies that indicated the damage done by Inco in the Sudbury basin was more than $400 million annually.

Now I am going to tell members the best part of this. For years, none of us knew this was available and one day a colleague of mine, Paul Falkowski, got his hands on a document produced by a Dr. Dreisinger. He gave me a copy and I came here and raised a few questions in the House. I recall it well, because that night, after raising it, Dreisinger's report was on every member's desk in this House. That had gone unnoticed for years and years. The government would not even publish it, would not even let it be known, but we ultimately got it via that route.

Let me tell the members about Inco. My friend the Minister of Natural Resources played a game here a couple of weeks ago, and got lots of press back north, when I suggested that phosphates from Cargill township should be coupled with acid from Inco to reduce the emissions to produce fertilizer. They played a little game over there. They said. "Well, Martel wants to rob one area to create industry in another area."

Let me tell the members what the vice-president of Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd., Mr. Topp, says: "Sherritt Gordon is also having problems lining up suppliers of sulphuric acid. Canadian Industries Ltd. has the northern Ontario market tied up through a purchase contract with Inco Metals in Sudbury and Kidd Copper Mines. The search for a primary supplier of acid necessary for refining the phosphates into phosphoric acid one step away from fertilizer is also affecting the timing of the project."

Inco does not produce to capacity one year after another, but now it is saying it cannot produce these fertilizers because there is not an adequate supply. The bottom line is that Sherritt Gordon is looking at the potential of shipping raw phosphates,
"'without refining them,' Topp says." Markets are limited for crude and they are going to ship it out of the north without refining.

The Tories played little games when I said Sudbury has an economic problem and they should produce more acid and combine it with the phosphates from Cargill township, which is near Kapuskasing. If we combine the two, we will have another produce the damage. The Tories are still playing games over there about who is going to get the industry. That is how serious the government is about it.

It bothers me that the government plays off one community against another in northern Ontario when, in fact, we could be doing three things: mining in Cargill, eliminating or reducing the amount of sulphuric acid that gets into the atmosphere from Inco, and producing fertilizer which we could sell and make some money and start an industry in northern Ontario. The stupid Tories play games over there; they are not interested.

Mr. Laughren: Did you call them stupid Tories?

Mr. Martel: I sure did.

Let me turn to the last point, Hydro. We heard the statement of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) about Hydro's mafia tactics. For my colleagues who might not have heard it, the member for Sudbury said, "'The plan was in no way fair and equitable,' said Gordon, adding that Ontario Hydro failed to prove it needed the seasonal rate. Ontario Hydro's attempts to prove it needs the new rate structure were what Gordon called a try at mafia economics."

Let us talk about Hydro, which is the second largest contributor, for a moment. In 1981, Ontario Hydro announced with great fanfare that it was going to use some scrubbers to control its acid gas. Although it appeared that Ontario Hydro would be making reductions in their sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, in reality they were making reductions on projected emissions, which were greatly exaggerated. I am going to come to the exact figures.

The program called for two scrubbers, two 500-megawatt units. The scrubbers could be used at either Lambton or Nanticoke. Here are their estimates: an overall reduction in emissions to 450,000 tons per year by 1985 -- remember that figure -- and 300,000 tons per year by 1990. However, in 1980 the actual figure for total combined emissions was only 463,000 tons. They are going to reduce it by 13,000 tons.

Our friend Hugh Macaulay is running around the province with his cohorts in Hydro trying to tell people why they are not going to go for scrubbers and so on. It is because they actually exaggerated their figures a year ago and they are now saying. "By that time we will have reduced to 450,000 tons," when in fact the amount they are now emitting is 463,000.

I suggest to my friend, if he is serious, that he go to his friends in the front benches and tell them that if they want to deal with the problem seriously, they have got the capacity to do it and they should get on with the job right now.

Mr. Eves: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the House. It is not very often that I get an opportunity to support publicly something the member for Humber (Mr. Kells) has suggested, but this is one of those times.

Mr. Martel: Hey, Morley, I thought it was just the cabinet.

Mr. Eves: In all seriousness, though, I have to congratulate the member for Humber on his initiative on this timely and complex issue. I had hoped that some of the opposition members would have had a less partisan approach to this debate, and I would have thought that all members of this House would be able to support this particular resolution.

The comments I have heard from the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) did not particularly address the resolution that is before them --

Mr. Wildman: That is because it does not address the problem.

Mr. Eves: I suggest to my friends that they are quite free to present their own resolutions in this House if they do not feel that this one addresses the situation.

However, to get on with the debate on this resolution: acid rain has been of particular interest to me and my constituents, and in my maiden speech I dealt very extensively with this matter. As a member of an ad hoc committee that travelled to the United States with several other members of this Legislature to explain Ontario's position on acidic precipitation, we had an opportunity to demonstrate to several US legislators our position in Ontario. I must say that I was suitably impressed by the nonpartisan approach taken on that occasion by the member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Kerrio: It was a battle worth fighting.

Mr. Andrewes: Actually he is nearly a Tory.

Mr. Laughren: That's right; he is a closet Tory.

Mr. Eves: Seeing as how some comments have been made on the federal Liberal government's report, named Still Waters, I point out to the member for Niagara Falls that the report itself acknowledges that 70 to 80 per cent of the acidic precipitation falling in central Ontario originates in the United States of America.

In my riding the Ministry of the Environment has held several open house information sessions and testing sessions on acid rain. On September 13, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) attended an open public meeting in my riding where these issues were debated and questions could be asked. I might note that the federal Minister of the Environment declined to attend.

On three occasions in the past 18 months we have had representatives from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment attend semi-annual meetings of the Parry Sound District Municipal Association. Questions were asked in public there as well and were answered to the best of the people's ability.

I myself circulated a questionnaire in my last newsletter to solicit the opinions of my constituents on the subject of acid rain and, quite frankly, to gain their impressions of Ontario's abatement and control programs, their adequacies and inadequacies.

Acid rain and its environmental effects are of particular concern to my constituents. My riding relies heavily on tourism and forestry and my constituents are not at all reticent about making their views known. They are very worried about the impact that this phenomenon could have on the future of our part of the province.

4:10 p.m.

I have had both the incentive and the occasion to become very familiar with all elements of the problem of acidic precipitation. I would say, and I am confident that most members of this House would agree, that acidic precipitation offers a clear and present danger to the environment of this province.

One might ask what this resolution could possibly do to reduce the threat of acidic precipitation in Ontario's environment. I do not believe, and I am sure my friend the member for Humber does not believe, that this resolution, if adopted, will cause acidic pollutants to vanish from the clouds above the province and that fish will suddenly reappear in acidified lakes.

Rather, I suggest the contribution which this resolution will make to our efforts to control acidic precipitation is much more subtle than that, as subtle perhaps as the pollutant it seeks to combat. I can only hope it will prove to be as effective as the latter has proved to be lethal.

Those members who may be undecided as to whether or not to support this resolution should ask themselves three questions. Is the issue covered by the resolution important enough and pressing enough to deserve the attention of this House? Is there a need for public education on this issue? Does the method proposed by this resolution offer a viable and legitimate approach to increasing public awareness of the problem of acidic precipitation? If all these are answered in the affirmative, the probable environmental consequence must be obvious and the answer must be obvious.

My friend the member for Niagara Falls pointed out the cover story on the November 8 issue of Time magazine, Acid Rain: The Silent Plague. Time magazine is not an extremist or irresponsible publication. Acid rain has evolved into the major public policy issue of this decade.

The economic implications and the environmental damage are of sufficient magnitude to worry us all and to make the cost of remedial measures appear cheap by comparison. Consider the effect that acidic precipitation has on Ontario's $8.7-billion tourist industry alone.

We cannot afford to ignore a threat of this magnitude. There is already a substantial amount of material available to the public on this issue, and Canadians are relatively well informed about acid rain. Be that as it may, acidic precipitation as a public policy concern is, like the phenomenon itself, a complex issue. Arguments to support positions on various matters of the issue are becoming increasingly sophisticated and intricate.

I think the members of this assembly are relatively well informed on the matter of acidic precipitation and perhaps better informed than members of the general public as a whole. But I wonder how many members here are able to explain the pH scale and what a change of one point in pH values actually signifies. How many of us would be able to adequately describe the effects of acidic precipitation on soil and how this in turn impacts on forestry growth? How many of us could describe the national and international legal environment in which solutions to this problem must be pursued?

It seems to me that this is precisely the information which we need to be able to evaluate the claims and arguments made in the House and in the wider public forum. We must also keep ourselves informed if we are to avoid giving yesterday's answers to today's problems. The public also needs this information.

The member for Humber has already discussed the benefits that would attend the adoption of the measure proposed in the resolution. He has made it clear that the programs are already in place which would facilitate its implementation. In addition, I believe the curriculum guidelines are flexible enough to permit its inclusion without causing disruption of any study plans.

I believe this measure has a positive symbolic value that is not to be overlooked. Our American friends tell us that if we expect them to take any significant action, we must be seen to be acting on this matter in a forceful and serious manner. This resolution gives us the opportunity to signal yet again that we hold the problem of acidic precipitation to be a grave and serious one.

In my maiden speech, I observed that the fight against acid rain requires an ongoing commitment. Part of that fight should be public education, and supporting this resolution would be a measure of our commitment.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this resolution. I shall begin by saying that I agree with the opposition members who have already spoken, but I think this is a very small measure in answer to a very serious problem and cannot be construed as a solution.

It is important to include the subject, not only for the purpose of bringing the problem to the attention of young people, but also to bring up the matter of the environment. I know there is already a course on environment, but the acid rain study is certainly a shining example of some of the problems we can get into by not attending to the environment.

I am a practising farmer with an educational background in science, and I was brought up in the pre-war period when society dealt with rather simple solutions to environmental problems. I am thinking particularly of pest control. We had a relatively small number of materials and they were rather innocuous as far as the environment was concerned. Shortly after the war, we were hit with a great variety of organic chemicals that caused us a lot of problems. The most famous example, I guess, is the insecticide DDT. This material was almost magic in its ability to eliminate some of the very bad problems we had at the time.

Some of the insects had come to the end of the rope as far as our simple controls were concerned and were out of control. Overnight they were practically eliminated. Potato yields, as measured in 75-pound bags, jumped from a top figure of about 150 bags per acre to 300, and it was not uncommon to reach levels of even 400 and 500 bags per acre. Suddenly it became economical to increase the amounts of fertilizer and irrigation water, and the whole face of agriculture was changed by these materials.

We know the reason DDT was so effective was its persistence on the plant. It would persist through several cycles of the development of insects and so was very effective. But its persistence led to its becoming part of the food chain and being taken up by birds and animals. I live right on the shore of Lake Erie, where seagulls are very common. Until about 15 years after we started using DDT, I had never seen dead seagulls. I do not know where they went to die, but certainly they did not go to the farmers' fields. Then we began seeing them there.

I mention this personal experience to illustrate that even people who should have been asking questions did not, because we were brought up in a time that glamourized the great scientists. I remember in our public school and high school books there were stories about Pasteur and Lister and Mme. Curie and Banting and Best. We believed that such people had the answers to most problems. In fact, one of the popular radio programs that was put on by Du Pont, if memory serves me correctly, had the slogan "Better living through chemistry." That slogan may have played some part in the later one, "Live better electrically."

We have learned, sadly, that scientists do not have all the answers, that the quick fix was not readily available and that the after-effects of some of the cures were either terribly expensive or not effective. We have looked at the business of liming the acidified lakes, and we have found that the cost is just beyond any expectation of being met and the physical barriers are so great in getting lime into those places. I am sure in certain areas it will be done, but it is not offered as a solution to the overall problem. We have to recognize the need to think through the results of major initiatives before it is too late and we must examine our entire role as a consuming society.

4:20 p.m.

I was jolted and taken aback on a visit to China in 1975 by many of the things I saw there. I guess it was culture shock. On every occasion that we visited a commune, a hospital or a factory, we were lectured on the virtues of their system and the inequities of our own western system. The most common target was our consumer society. Like most members, I had been brought up to believe that consumption was a virtue and was the engine of our economy. In fact, at this very moment the lack of consumer buying in the marketplace is second only to high interest rates as a factor mentioned for causing our economic troubles.

I am not suggesting that we adopt a Chinese model. That model is moving in our direction as they are currently phasing out their commune system of agriculture. But I do believe we need to examine our habits of consumption, especially as they relate to the environment and our ability to live within the constraints of our natural environment. I believe we should study these matters in senior levels of our secondary education system.

We often point out that Canadians are blessed with the greatest per capita gift of natural resources. We make valiant efforts to take our place in the sun and the industrial world, and we must continue to do so. I have to point out that because of our geography, the easily habitable portion of the province is in the south and the food production capacity is largely in the south; the minerals, water resources and forest resources are in the north. From the fact that the north represents about 80 per cent of the acreage of the province, two factors emerge: we are still very much dependent on natural resources in Ontario and in Canada, and the north is very fragile from an environmental standpoint.

The soils of the north are shallow with few exceptions and are very low in their ability to accept acidic precipitation. They are subject to the snow melts and runoff in the spring which compound the effects of acidic precipitation on aquatic life. The forests are slow-growing because of the short summer season. Any further slowing of that growth because of acid rain is an economic and environmental tragedy. Out of all the assaults on our resource base, there is the social tragedy for the native people who rely so heavily on the natural environment where they are living.

I would not want this government to feel that when it carries out the intent of this resolution it has discharged its duties. The solution to the acid rain problem lies in transboundary co-operation. A recent study in the United States has shown that about 50 per cent of our deposition comes from coal-fired generating plants in the Ohio Valley.

In recent years the United States, as other speakers have mentioned, has relaxed its air quality standards. One of the excuses it uses is the fact that we are dragging our feet in our lack of control of sulphur discharges. It may be unfair that they stand behind that argument, but nevertheless they are making it and it seems to be selling with the American public.

If we are going to counter that, it seems to me we have to take the lead. Perhaps in one sense we should take the lead, because the devastating effects are probably worse on us than they are on the Americans. We have to take the lead in demonstrating to them that we are serious about this matter. Then perhaps over a period of time we can persuade the American public it is really an immoral act upon all mankind and upon all society to be churning out those acidic precipitations into the atmosphere.

We will have to persuade our own people, over a period of time, that we must bear the cost, because none of us can deny that there will be a cost for putting in the proper scrubbers and doing the proper thing. It is a cost to us all, whether we pay it directly in the price of the commodities we use or whether we pay it in taxes.

In view of the facts and because of personal experiences, I am happy to support this resolution.

In closing, I wish the member for Humber had gone much further in attacking this problem we all recognize. On all sides of this House, we wish some magic would come along to dispel it, but we know it will only be dispelled by hard work and commitment. At times, we on this side of the House certainly feel that commitment is lacking on that side of the House.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I thank you, my family thanks you and my colleagues thank you.

I rise in support of this incredible resolution. I know that the honourable member who brought forward the resolution has a bit of a history of dealing with environmental problems and policy in the province. I believe he was very closely connected with a former Minister of the Environment of Ontario. So he does have a background. I suspect he knows what he is talking about when he talks about the dangers of the effects of acid rain in Ontario.

This resolution proposes that we increase public awareness of the effects of acid rain, and to do so through the school system. I think that is an admirable goal. But, even given that, it took me some few minutes to decide that I wanted to speak and to support the resolution; sometimes giving the impression of doing something is worse than not doing anything at all because of how it tends to mislead people into believing that something is really happening.

Anyway, rather than getting up and attacking the government and its policies on acid rain, or even to heap praise on the member for Humber, I thought I would pose a series of questions. Did the member leave some time to respond at the end of his remarks?

Mr. Kells: I did not think I needed it.

Mr. Laughren: That is very unfortunate. because I have a series of questions for the member. Perhaps he can reply, in more leisure, in a note or letter to me, or perhaps even in a speech at some other time.

What I want to know is whether the member will see that the information to be provided to the schools will tell the students the whole story. I believe he even talked about the students being informed about the politics of acid rain. I believe that was in his opening remarks, to which I listened quite carefully.

I want to know whether the member thinks the students should be told what happened back in 1975 when Inco, the largest single polluter, prepared this very big report, which is about two inches thick. In this 1975 report they indicated that, for a cost of $300 million -- $299,198,000, to be exact -- they could get their emissions down to 1,500 tons a day by December 1979. They were then emitting 3,800 tons. They were going to reduce emissions by more than 50 per cent in that four-year period, to 1,500 tons.

At that point they were living under a control order which would have directed that they get down to 750 tons by the end of December 1978. But Inco came up with a proposal and said, "We have done our engineering studies and we think it is more reasonable that we get down to 1,500 tons by the end of 1979, rather than down to 750 tons by the end of 1978," which is what the control order that was in effect ordered them to do. They calculated, as I said, that the cost would be about $300 million.

4:30 p.m.

That was in 1975. The same year, after this document was prepared and after this document was forwarded to the Ministry of the Environment, Inco then sent a letter to the Ministry of the Environment in which they said: "Listen, friends, you know that report we sent you? We have decided that we do not want to proceed with it." I will give members the exact wording. This was written to Mr. R. E. Moore, regional director of the northeastern region, Ministry of the Environment:

"On May 23, 1975, we made a presentation to you regarding a proposed sulphur emission abatement program at Sudbury" -- that is this presentation here -- "written copies of which submissions were forwarded to you with my letter of May 27. Our submissions pointed out that the proposed project was not without technical, financial and economic risks. It also indicated that in order to achieve our proposed schedule we had already started engineering."

The letter goes on: "Within the past few weeks this engineering work with the necessary corollary cost estimation has revealed an increase in capital costs, which indicates that our May estimate of $200 million must be increased to at least $300 million" -- well, that is what it said in the report -- "and considerably more if potentially necessary additions of ancillary equipment prove to be necessary.

"This situation obviously requires a complete reassessment of our position if the economic and commercial feasibility of the proposed project is fundamentally changed. A program which is not economically and commercially feasible is, in fact, not technologically feasible." That is the operative phrase in the letter.

"Accordingly and regretfully we must ask that you defer any actions on our proposal of last May until such time as we are able to provide you with a complete re-evaluation. I will be in touch with you in that regard just as promptly as possible," etc. Then the letter concludes.

The Ministry of the Environment bought their arguments. You might say, "Well, obviously if they cannot afford it, you would have to buy their arguments." But Inco turned around and at the same time spent $230 million on a battery plant in the United States, of which they have now divested themselves because it will cost them so much money. It was a terrible, terrible investment. This government, colleagues of the member, allow Inco to put that abatement program on the shelf so they can go out and spend a little less money, $230 million, buying a battery plant in the United States, which did not affect the environment here and did not create a single job in Ontario, let alone anywhere else in Canada.

Those are the kinds of policies we have had to live with over the years; the member must be aware of that. The government of the day caved in to that letter completely , and now, to this day in 1982, we are not down to that 1,500 tons, which Inco admitted they could get down to at the end of 1979. If Inco were operating at capacity now, they would be at 1,950 tons a day. But to this day they have not got down to the level they said they could get down to.

That is one question I have. Is it the member's intention that this kind of story would be told to the students in the school system in Ontario? Is that part of the package of information he would see distributed in the schools? That would be telling the whole truth.

Not very long ago the federal government came out with a report, as I mentioned earlier this afternoon, called Still Waters, The Chilling Reality of Acid Rain. In that report, which was in 1980-81, the government made some recommendations. I wonder if it is the intention of the member for Humber to put into the school system these recommendations and the fact that they have all been ignored by his government. Is that part of the information package that would go to the schools? I certainly hope so.

These are some of the recommendations made in that report: "The subcommittee recommends that the Inco Ltd. smelter at Copper Cliff be compelled to reduce its sulphur dioxide emissions to 750 tons per day and that this level be attained within five years." No action has been taken on that.

Recommendation 8: "The subcommittee recommends that the Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. smelter at Sudbury be compelled to reduce its sulphur dioxide emissions to 210 tons per day and that this level be attained within five years." There was no action on that.

Recommendation 35: "The subcommittee recommends that accelerated capital cost allowances continue to be granted for air pollution control devices and that these allowances be extended to new plants." Perhaps the member could tell me if that has been done.

Recommendation 37: "The subcommittee recommends that the federal government in co-operation with the provincial government and the private sector convene a task force on the sulphur byproduct utilization with the aim of developing a national marketing strategy for sulphur and sulphur products. Such a marketing strategy would invoke finding new uses for sulphur products and may include the formation of a marketing board for sulphur and sulphur products." Nothing has been done on that.

The member's colleagues scoffed at us when we wanted to combine the phosphate deposits from Cargill township near Kapuskasing with the sulphur from Sudbury to create fertilizer. His colleagues made a mockery of an excellent proposal.

Recommendation 38: "The subcommittee recommends that Canadian phosphate deposits be developed as a market for the sulphuric acid produced by control of sulphur dioxide in nonferrous smelters."

This government has done absolutely nothing on that either. I wonder whether the member would have that information go out to the school system.

Would the member admit to the school system that the government has never allowed public hearings on the control orders issued by the Ministry of the Environment? Would that be part of the information he would put out to the school system?

Would the member also tell the people in the school system, the children of this province, that whatever it costs Inco, at least 55 per cent will be picked up by the taxpayers; that even if it costs $600 million to clean up the act there, about $270 million of that would come from Inco's coffers alone and the rest would be picked up by the difference in the taxes they would pay?

Would the member see the package of information including copies of Hansard debates from this chamber go out to the school system as well?

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I want to endorse the resolution presented by my colleague the member for Humber and, without reservation, recommend that it be adopted by the House.

As the member has indicated, acidic precipitation is an international problem which will require an international solution. This does not excuse us from taking what action we can within our own jurisdiction to reduce and minimize our contribution to the problem. It is all the more important we do so.

American source emissions are responsible for a significant percentage of the acid precipitation which falls on Ontario. The major sources of sulphur dioxide emissions in the US are the large coal-fired electrical generating plants. One large plant of this type in a single year can emit as much sulphur dioxide as was blown into the atmosphere by the May 18, 1980, eruption of Mt. St. Helens, some 400,000 tons.

Some idea of the magnitude of American source emissions relative to our own can be gained from the fact that the 11 largest thermal plants in the state of Ohio alone emit more sulphur dioxide in one year than all of Ontario's sources combined.

I note with some alarm it is predicted that American utilities will double their output of sulphur dioxide by the end of the century. The end result of this is that 50 per cent of the acid precipitation which falls on Canada originates from American source emissions.

In some extremely sensitive areas in Ontario, such as Muskoka-Haliburton, as much as 88 per cent of the acidic precipitation is attributable to American source emissions. In Ontario, we have never used these facts as an excuse to delay implementation of our own control measures. We practice what we preach.

Permit me to call to the attention of the House an article on acid rain entitled, An American Tragedy. That article was drawn to our attention by the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) as well but he neglected to quote from the article. The article appeared in Sports Illustrated last fall. The answer the writer gives to the crucial question, "What is being done to curtail acid precipitation?" is, "A lot in Canada." Most of what is being done in Canada is being done right here in Ontario.

Ontario is recognized as a leader in monitoring, research and control of acidic precipitation. Any member who wants to gain some idea of the range of our programs has only to consult the report, Acid Deposition, Knowns and Unknowns, The Canadian Perspective, issued by the federal-provincial long-range transport of air pollutants science committee.

4:40 p.m.

Should anyone take the time, they would discover that Ontario's programs are the most extensive and comprehensive in the country. Our programs include deposition networks, susceptibility studies, terrestrial studies, long-range transport modelling, socioeconomic studies and public information programs aimed at the United States.

Perhaps the most important element in Ontario's acid precipitation programs are the first-step regulations put in place to cut the emissions of our major contributors to acid pollution. Ontario has not waited for bilateral agreements but has acted to reduce the emissions. This not only protects our own environment but also protects the environments of jurisdictions downwind of these emission sources.

In Ontario, the two major sources of sulphur dioxide emissions are Inco and Ontario Hydro. The Ministry of the Environment has introduced regulations which require both these operations to reduce their emissions. They have put in place regulations that require Ontario Hydro to limit its emissions to 450,000 tons a year by 1986. I think the member for Niagara Falls also gave us these details.

Apparently, I have run out of time so I will not be able to give all the added detail that is being sought here. But I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate and I thank the member for Humber for bringing this matter to our attention.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Di Santo moved second reading of Bill 89, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the attempts of the New Democratic Party to try to focus the attention of this assembly --

Mr. Kerrio: It's private members' hour.

Mr. Di Santo: I did not want to start on a sour note with my friend the member for Niagara Falls, so I will not accept his provocation. I think he will agree with me on this bill even though he has taken so many wrong positions in many instances. But I do not want to go into that now.

As I was saying, this is one of the attempts of the New Democratic Party to focus the attention of the assembly on an issue that is extremely important, not only for this assembly but for all Ontarians.

The purpose of the bill is to facilitate the teaching of heritage languages, to make the program accessible to more communities and to reduce the second-class stigma that is caused by having the program taught outside regular school hours.

Since the program was first introduced, the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board has been teaching heritage languages programs during an extended school day. At present, 27,000 children in 63 schools take heritage languages classes during the regular school day.

When the Toronto Board of Education attempted to implement a similar program, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) reacted hysterically. I regret she is not here today, for two reasons. First, if she had spoken on my bill, she would have reinforced my conviction that this is the right bill. The other reason is that I wanted the minister to express her reactionary views so that the people of Ontario would know once again what type of education minister we have. We will listen to other members of the Conservative caucus and I hope that some of them with ethnic backgrounds finally will understand the purpose of this bill.

Members will recall that last June we had a lengthy discussion on the program that the board of education of the city of Toronto was trying to introduce. On that occasion, the minister reacted quite hysterically. She is quite consistent, I might say. She told the Toronto Star there was a very grave danger of balkanizing the school system on the basis of language. In the minister's statement, she showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the heritage languages program.

Heritage languages programs give people a stronger sense of self-esteem and of the value of their language, culture and tradition. Heritage languages programs have overcome the barriers faced by people for whom English is a second language. Heritage languages instruction teaches people skills that allow them to learn English and other languages better. Heritage languages programs are vital in a society based on equality and one that accepts the ideal of multiculturalism.

I have been listening very carefully to the comments of the government members to find out whether they have learned anything since the program was introduced. I am afraid that many of them will simply view heritage languages as a sop to ethnic groups rather than an integral part of our educational system. if the government accepts the necessity of the heritage languages programs in the schools, they should support this bill.

If the bill is passed, heritage languages programs could be taught during the regular school day. Languages other than English and French could be used as the subject of instruction in cases where this will improve the child's learning of English and adjustment to the educational system. Finally, the bill would make it mandatory for other school boards to provide a heritage languages program whenever 20 parents ask for a specific class.

Ontario will never have a first class heritage languages program until the province makes a full commitment to the ideal of multiculturalism. Until that time, the New Democrats will continue to fight for a broader recognition of the value that heritage languages play now in society and for their acceptance as a part of our education system.

For some time now we have experienced in this province a program that was introduced in 1977, and was called the heritage languages program, under the pressure exerted by our caucus and by other groups in our society, including many, but not all, ethnic groups, and by people who are in the educational system at every level: elementary, secondary, or the highest. It would have been thoughtful of the minister to acquaint herself with the results of very interesting studies made by people like Professor Cummins of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, who, after extremely good research, came to the conclusion that those children who learn their mother languages in school become better students. They learn English much more easily and fare much better in their education.

The problem we are discussing is not whether teaching third languages should be allowed or not, because I think everybody accepts that now. There are people who, for reasons that escape me, unless they are reasons based on pure bias and prejudice, are objecting to the teaching of other languages because they detract from the students' regular subjects.

4:50 p.m.

One of the many and unsubstantiated reasons that are reported once in a while is that if children take languages other than English or French, they will not be able to learn English or French well. We know, on the basis of experience, that is not true.

The Metropolitan Toronto School Board, which is the largest educational body experimenting with third languages -- they were introduced there successfully five years ago -- made an extensive survey of some 10,870 parents. I said earlier that 27,500 children take heritage languages in the public school system and of the 10,870 parents, it was discovered that 88 per cent felt their children were speaking better, 79 per cent felt their children were reading better and 76 per cent saw an improvement in their children's writing ability in the mother tongue.

What many people do not realize is there is a lack of self-confidence and self-worth felt by many of the children of immigrant parents. They have a sense of insecurity in our society because of the language and culture gap.

A survey made by the Metropolitan Separate School Board showed, and this is extremely important, that 82 per cent of the parents reported that since their children have been attending the classes they have increased in confidence and in their feeling of self-worth. This means that third-language classes are performing a very positive and useful role in our society because it makes them better citizens and more able to integrate themselves into our society.

The problem is not recognition of the teaching of third languages in our school system. With the exception of a few rednecks, a few people whose prejudice cannot be counteracted by statistics or by the results of the program, I think the majority accept the teaching of third languages.

The problem is whether that teaching should be part of the curriculum. The Minister of Education, with her extraordinary hypocrisy, said to the Toronto Star -- in the same interview in which she said teaching of third languages would balkanize the school system in Ontario -- that because the heritage languages program is classified as continuing education and is not an integral part of the curriculum, it cannot be taught during school hours. This is one of the most extraordinary discoveries that the human mind can make.

The Minister of Education may have thought that if she changed the regulations, the problem would no longer exist. And that is exactly what my bill asks for: an amendment to the Education Act so that the teaching of third languages is permitted during school hours.

It is done successfully by the separate school board. It does not create chaos and has not created balkanization in the separate school board. In fact, the experiment is so successful that it has been extended to other separate school boards outside of Toronto. It is now being done in the Peel region. So that is not the real problem. There must be some reason which I do not understand: a political reason, certainly.

In September 1982, the Minister of Education suddenly discovered that school hours should be extended, so she added half an hour. That half an hour created immense problems because in the Metropolitan Separate School Board third languages were taught during school hours. By extending the school day by half an hour it becomes difficult, of course, to teach third languages.

Not only that, but the extension of school hours have created serious problems in the schools even for the children who do not take third languages. The decision taken by the minister has not been explained. In fact, the deputy leader of our party asked the minister, last June, to give the rationale for her decision and she refused. That is also typical of the Minister of Education. That decision, which was not rationally explained, has created many divisions in the schools between the students who are taking third languages and those who are not.

Now that we have a Speaker who, I am sure, is sympathetic to this issue, I can address this with even more confidence.

I hope the members of the Conservative caucus will take a moment to reflect and will agree that this is a time that they have to exercise their right as individual members. If their background is Ukrainian or Russian, they should say, "This is the time to count myself among those who are supporting my people, or other people of the same origin."

They should not be trapped by party discipline or by loyalty to the boss, because bosses come and go. If they are courageous and take a stand on this occasion, they will give an example not only of independence but also of loyalty to people who have no voice. If they had the right to speak in this House, they would speak in the same vein as I am speaking. They would speak in the same way as those who are supporting this bill. They should not be afraid. As Tories, they know very well the pragmatism of their party.

If this bill is passed and becomes the law of this province, then the government, their own boss, will take the credit for it. They would indicate that there are people in that caucus of Ukrainian background who stood and spoke in favour of the bill. This government will say it is open-minded and it will take credit for that. But if they vote with the government, that is a problem they will have to settle with themselves. I cannot help them. But certainly they will do a disservice to the people they represent.

I think my time is almost up.

Mr. Nixon: Two minutes.

Mr. Di Santo: Two minutes? I have almost two minutes left. I want to say that if this bill is passed, I think all of us will benefit. I will reserve the two minutes for the end.

5 p.m.

Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate with much interest and to emphasize, as I think all honourable members know, that the government of Ontario has frequently reaffirmed its commitment to our policy of multiculturalism. it does so again. This policy ensures equal access to and full participation in society in our province for all of our residents. At the same time it maintains the right of every person in the province to choose to retain features of his or her own cultural heritage.

Contrary to what was alleged on this topic a few moments ago by the member for Downsview, the Minister of Education does have an extremely well-developed sense of the worth of heritage language instruction.

The member for Downsview should be well aware of the minister's consistent support of the funding provided to boards of education for this kind of instruction.

Our system ensures that the goal of our multicultural society and the policy of our government will be met for the young people in our schools. This concern is particularly evident in the provisions made by the Ministry of Education every year in the estimates. It is evident every day in the schools for heritage language learning at all levels. Many children in fact do speak a language other than English or French, and it is clearly an educational capability that should be cherished.

Before there was ever any thought of heritage language in the schools, I felt it would be a pity if children did not retain the culture and language of their parents. I know it is easy to lose it if one does not really work at it. The role the educational system plays in assisting that is very important, and one that is going to stay with us.

For many decades, Ontario secondary schools have provided opportunities for students to learn additional languages such as Spanish, German, Italian and Russian. These have long been available under the curriculum guidelines of the Ministry of Education for diploma credit. In my days in high school, which may have been slightly before yours, Mr. Speaker -- and in those days there was a Liberal government in this province; it is hard to imagine one's memory could go back that far.

Mr. Nixon: That is why you were such a good student.

Mr. Dean: Yes, there were good teachers in those days too. I had an opportunity to learn German as well as the normal French. I think it has made my life richer, and everyone should have an opportunity to learn different languages.

The range of languages offered for credit was substantially increased in 1971 to recognize the changes in the composition of our population. Now the ministry makes provision for boards to offer any heritage language for which there is sufficient demand, for grades 9 through 13, for credit.

At present, 15 languages are being taught for graduation diploma credit as part of the program in Ontario secondary schools. They cover such a diverse list as Chinese, Cree, Croatian, Dutch, Finnish, Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, Lithuanian, Ojibway, Punjabi, Polish, Portuguese, Ukrainian and Yiddish. I left out the ones I mentioned before, which are also taught.

At the elementary school level our students, under provisions of the Ministry of Education's heritage languages program, are able to maintain their mother tongue or learn a heritage language that may not have been their mother tongue. Many briefs to the ministry's committee on multiculturalism from parents' groups supported the procedures for introducing this program. Introduced in 1977, the heritage languages program has been praised by educators in Canada and in other countries as an extremely innovative solution for meeting the language needs of students from Ontario's 70 or more ethnocultural groups.

The program was started in response to the educational and cultural needs of students whose mother tongue is other than English or French. The minister recognizes that the composition of the school population differs from school to school and that is why school boards, in co-operation with parent groups, were granted permission to offer heritage languages as subjects of instruction outside the regular school program under the provisions for continuing education.

This program receives generous funding from the ministry. In 1981, the cost involved for 78,208 Ontario elementary school students studying 45 different languages amounted to $6.2 million, and it is anticipated that for 1982 the cost will rise by about 10 per cent to $6.9 million. Under the proposals of the bill we are discussing this afternoon, Bill 89, we would see an escalation in the numbers of students studying heritage languages, resulting in a considerable increase in cost to the taxpayers.

In addition to the increase in basic grants, which is one factor, there would be increased costs associated with new administrative structures such as advisory committees, supervisory and administrative personnel as provided in the bill. To that we must add the cost of textbooks, instructional materials, transportation for pupils -- because that is also a possibility under the bill -- additional teaching staff, additional teacher training programs, summer school, adult programs and so on.

I would like to remind all honourable members that several of the items of cost that I have listed should be multiplied by 45, which is the number of heritage languages currently being taught somewhere in Ontario. Additional costs would be incurred by the formation of classes or schools where students may elect to be taught in their heritage language. Should the taxpayers of the province be subsidizing these programs at the expense of other subjects in the curriculum? That is a matter worth pondering.

The Ontario education system has accepted full responsibility for providing immigrant students with the orientation and language skills needed to live and work in Canada. The Education Act permits a teacher to use a heritage language as a language of instruction in the process of helping the student to learn English or French, whichever the language of the area is.

This outline of the ministry's policy on heritage languages as a course of study or as a language used for transition purposes clearly shows that our government and the Ministry of Education are in the forefront of heritage language education.

Bill 89, in proposing that heritage languages be subjects of instruction and languages of instruction for transition purposes, repeats provisions that the ministry already has in place. Bill 89 would make these classes or groups mandatory on written request if a school board could assemble 20 or more students. It should be pointed out that this minimum requirement for enrolment would be far more restrictive than anything the ministry requires at the present time for elementary school heritage languages programs, since the ministry grants now are applied to a minimum grouping of 10 students.

We should not be misled by the outward appearance and we should not miss the intent of Bill 89. The significant change proposed in this bill is that heritage languages could replace English and French as the alternative languages of instruction for Ontario students whose mother tongue is a heritage language. If students were to choose this alternative --

Mr. Di Santo: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I do not know if the member is doing this deliberately or not, but he is misrepresenting the bill, because in no way is it said in the bill that the teaching of a third language will replace the teaching of French or English.

Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that, so I do not have to respond to it. What I said was that it could replace English and French as the language of instruction, and that is certainly provided in the bill.

Mr. Di Santo: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think that either the member does not understand the bill or he is misrepresenting it. The bill says that third languages should be used as languages of instruction on a transitional basis, which means in grades 1, 2 and 3, and not on a permanent basis, as he wants us to believe.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, if students were to choose this alternative, Bill 89 proposes to introduce unilingual heritage languages classes or schools with English or French as a subject of instruction rather than as the language in which instruction and the management of the school will be conducted.

We believe this is in conflict with our multicultural and educational policies through which the ministry --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kerrio): The member's time has expired.

Mr. Dean: In any case, I would recommend that we support the kind of policy which guarantees instruction in heritage languages wherever it is required as at the present time and do not support this bill.

Mr. Spensieri: Monsieur le Président, senior président de l'assemblée, j'ai le grand plaisir de m'addresser à vous et à mes collegues dans la chambre pour appuyer le projet de loi 89 proposé de notre cousin de Downsview.

It is extremely difficult on this side of the House to have any philosophical or practical objection to the proposal contained in this bill. It is an eminently sensible piece of legislation and in its philosophical implications it simply says that a third language, a heritage language, is to be accorded a status it very amply deserves in today's society.

On a more practical basis, it says it is right for a third language to be used as a pedagogical tool during the transitional phase. For a spokeman for the Conservative Party to allege any potential or possibility of mischief as a result of replacing English and French as the language of instruction is stretching the truth beyond limits that are acceptable to this side of the House.

The operative words of the bill are that there is to be an opportunity to study a language, and opportunity to us has always meant chance or availability. There is no positive duty thrust on anyone who does not want the program to be invoked to invoke it. I submit that if the opportunity referred to in clause 277b(a) is afforded, then in those districts and those boards where the need exists and where the numbers warrant, that opportunity will be taken up.

The other question is the transitional--and that is the operative word--nature of this bill. I have had some modest experience in the defining of a transitional period, as I happened to arrive in this country in time to enter grade 9 and I spent two days in grade 1, two days in grade 3, and so forth, and by the end of the week I was in my grade 9 scheduled category. It seems to me, without patting myself on the back unduly, that is precisely what this bill tries to do. It tries to shorten the transitional period to ease facility in either the French or English language and to bring about a proficiency in the level of understanding of that language that would otherwise take longer.

In those happy days of 1962 when I arrived, when multiculturalism was coming into its own, it was easy for teachers, devoted servants as they were, to give freely of their time, especially to students eager to facilitate that transitional period. As we have had wave upon wave of immigrants, particularly in the Metro area I am familiar with, that aura of goodwill and that aura of volunteerism has disappeared and we now find the overburdened teacher, especially if he is involved in an English as a second language program, sometimes resorts to the fact there is really no statutory basis for a third language, no compelling reason for the third language. That creates a lacuna or an undesirable vacuum in the educational process, so the transitional period becomes longer and more costly.

I would like to address myself briefly to what my friend the member for Downsview said about such considerations as self-esteem, removing barriers and promoting equality, which he sees as the guiding principles and guiding reasons for introducing this legislation.

I think it goes deeper than that. We have now learned and have seen that a working, practical, viable knowledge of a third language represents a desirable, good and positive contribution to the way of life. It is no secret that a doctor who has otherwise qualified as a medical practitioner is a better doctor if he speaks a third language. A lawyer who has a third language has a potential client base of 10 to 15 times that of a unilingual lawyer. We see that a businessman who has access to the markets of Europe and other parts of the world through the use of a language is a better Canadian businessman.

Therefore, I would like to emphasise to the members opposite that there are practical and businesslike reasons for introducing and passing this bill.

It seems to me the objectives could have been more easily achieved by simply amending clause 8(1)(y) of the Education Act, which reads in part that the minister may "permit a board to establish for English-speaking pupils programs involving varying degrees of the use of the French language."

It seems to me that if we are talking about a sound juridical basis all that would have needed to happen would have been after the words "French language" to add "and heritage language." That would have been the simplest and, I would submit, most technically sound way of dealing with the problem.

Addressing myself to the question that a third language may already be used, I suppose my friend from the Tory party is indicating clause 235(1)(f) of the present Education Act, which says in part that instruction and all communications must be in "the English language except where it is impractical to do so by reason of the pupil not understanding English."

If that is the clause in the section he uses to indicate that we already have the facility for using a third language as a language of instruction, then I submit to the member for Wentworth that he is using a section couched in the negative, a section which is restrictive, to say that we already have a sound juridical basis for the program.

I reject that argument totally. Unless this government is prepared to amend clause 8(1)(y) of the Education Act and completely restructure clause 235(1)(f) to make it permissive and, as a matter of fact, mandatory that a language other than English be used in the transitional phase, then I think it is simply introducing a red herring to lull us into a false sense of security.

As far as the question of why this program should not come about is concerned, we have heard about balkanization and escalation of costs. We have heard we have good programs at the secondary school level anyway, so why begin earlier. Those arguments sound to me very much like the arguments contained in this orange booklet that has been so kindly provided to us, the so-called orange response, which deals with the question of French language instruction and separate Catholic school instruction.

It seems to me the same types of arguments that are being advanced in this booklet are being advanced by the government party, if it decides not to support Bill 89. I plead with them not to give us an orange response on this very important matter and this very important piece of legislation.

5:20 p.m.

I want to wrap up by saying that to those of us who work and live in a multicultural and ethnic community, this type of legislation, the two modest amendments to the Education Act that I have suggested, is a must if this government and the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) are to have any kind of credibility.

All we ask is that the government set up a sound, permissive, legal basis for the program and then let the local elected boards, in which we have the greatest faith and in which we repose our confidence, set about determining the extent and nature of the programs they want to bring about.

Without the legal basis that will be provided by either my friend's proposed legislation or those two amendments, we will always be in a position where the third languages will take a poor third backseat. I do not think that is a tenable state of affairs for this province.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise and support the bill of my colleague the member for Downsview. It has been about six years since I have spoken at any length on educational matters, which was when I held the portfolio as Education critic for my party.

I want to review with the House some of the feelings I have about this bill as it affects our society. I want to pay tribute not only to my colleague the member for Downsview but also to my former colleague from Parkdale, Dr. Dukszta, who introduced a similar bill in a previous session of the House, and to my colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), who has spoken during Education estimates and in debates many times on this very important matter.

I want to say very seriously that I feel it is a disgrace that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is not in her place during this important debate on this important bill. It is not surprising that she is not in her place, because her attitude towards third language instruction can be described only as obstructionist and bull-headed. She has treated the subject with disdain, and I regret to say she has displayed a total lack of sensitivity to the reality of what is Ontario today.

I have not yet heard in the debates in this House any reasonable or logical objections to this bill or to third language instruction. I will try to do it without heat, but I cannot express too strongly the objections I feel when the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education raises the kind of scaremongering tactics that he does during his prepared, written and not fully thought-out remarks on this debate.

I do not know what the objection is to teaching children in Cree, Italian, Serbian, Slovenian or whatever language. The reality is that Ontario is a multicultural society, like it or not, whether the Ministry of Education likes it or not, whether the Minister of Education likes it or not. A third of our population has as its primary language, its heritage language, as its normal language, a language other than English or French. It is about time in 1982 that the government recognized that.

I also want to say that the bill introduced by the member for Downsview is the only one that makes common sense from an educational point of view. The key educational principle in teaching, and I happen to know a little about that, is that you take someone from what he knows to what he does not know; and if the language that the person in the school knows happens to be other than French or English, it only makes sense to teach him in that language while he is learning English or French, depending on what is the majority language in that part of the province. It is only common educational sense.

This bill and what I have said about the multicultural nature of our province do not apply just to Metropolitan Toronto; they apply also to the vast majority of cities and the vast majority of the population of our province. The vast majority of the people of Thunder Bay speak neither English nor French as their primary language. The primary languages of the people of many communities in the remote north that my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) represents are Cree and Ojibway. It makes sense to me to have those people taught in those languages in which they feel most comfortable. If you want to avoid culture shock and the kind of confrontation the parliamentary assistant wishes to stir up, then it only makes common sense.

I also want to make it very clear that there is no compulsion in my colleague's bill. He says very clearly, and the word is operable, "A board may establish..." It gives them the authority to establish. It does not force the establishment of a language program on those boards that do not wish to, but it gives them the authority to do it with the same dignity and equality as they would programs in English or French.

His bill says, "A board may establish and maintain classes for the purpose of providing a heritage language as a subject of instruction or as a language of instruction for the purpose of transition to English or French." It is very important that the honourable member who is now trying feebly to interject understand the voluntary nature of my colleague's bill.

The rationale for instituting the heritage language program during the --

Mr. Dean: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The deputy leader of the third party has correctly read from one section of the bill; but if he were to read from the ensuing section, he would also see that there are circumstances where it is not permissive; it is mandatory. The word "shall" is used.

Mr. Foulds: Name them.

Mr. Dean: Section 2.

Mr. Foulds: Yes. Where "French shall be a subject of instruction in all grades."

Mr. Dean: "Where, after the first school day in September and on or before the first day of April next following, written evidence is presented to a board that a number of students resident in the board area and directly related to a heritage language community has elected to be taught the heritage language as a subject of instruction, the board shall forthwith determine whether students can be assembled for this purpose in one or more classes of 20 or more; and where the board determines that such students can be so assembled, it shall provide the language as a subject of instruction."

Mr. Foulds: Where the board determines that it can be done.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member has asked for further elaboration. You have made your point of privilege.

Mr. Dean: Yes. "Where the board determines ... can be so assembled, it shall provide..." My point is clarified.

Mr. Breaugh: There is a little trouble with the English language.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is having a little trouble about where the board determines that such students can be assembled -- when it can be done, where it can be done.

Do I have three minutes left, Mr. Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: Two minutes.

Mr. Foulds: Is the member's point of privilege taken off my time?

The Acting Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: Well, I want to dissociate myself from any of the remarks made by the parliamentary assistant during my time.

5:30 p.m.

The rationale for instituting the heritage language program during the regular school day is very simple.

1. It would help to preserve the students' culture and native language and to afford students the opportunity to study their native language and culture.

2. It would give the students' mother tongue and culture a recognized status in their regular school program and thus contribute to the students' development of positive concepts of self-worth. Recognition of the integrity and worth of the students' culture and language would place it in the students' frame of reference.

3. It would increase communication between the children and their parents and grandparents, and the school should be the instrument for so doing.

4. It would eliminate the physical and family strain of after-school programs and the psychological impact of separating students in those after-school programs.

5. It would promote consistency in the study of languages other than English.

It is illogical to argue the way members of the government party are, that we should be doing this on the wishy-washy kind of basis their minister has proposed. If there is any minister in this House who is inconsistent and illogical it is the Minister of Education.

Finally, I urge all members of all parties to vote on this according to their consciences, not according to a party whip. I believe it is important to this kind of bill to promote tolerance and understanding among all of our ethnic groups.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. As a Canadian born in a household in which the mother tongue was neither French nor English, any discussion of heritage language teaching is of great personal interest to me. From my own experience, I know the significance of language to any people preserving and celebrating their native culture on Canadian soil.

Language is important. It defines one's heritage and opens up many vistas for both personal and professional development. When each of our three children entered the public school system, my wife and I made certain that he or she participated in heritage language programs. The youngest, I am proud to say, has achieved grade 12 standing in heritage language studies. Her achievement and the experience of her brother and sister indicate to me the present system works.

I have studied the view of the member for Downsview on heritage language. I can understand his point of view and his concerns about heritage language. But while I do, I have no reservation in saying that I believe his conclusions to be dead wrong.

The way I see it, the prime goal for any education system is teaching the tools and attitudes required for responsible citizenship. Paramount in achieving this goal is the teaching of the working language of the nation. In Canada we have two working languages, English and French. One of the prerequisites for responsible citizenship in Canada is a working knowledge of either of these two languages.

The current heritage language programs offered by the Ministry of Education are both effective and fair. Where else can various groups have the opportunity of using public facilities to learn their language and culture? Do Turkish labourers in Italy, France or West Germany have the chance to have their children taught in their native tongue? I think not. Nor do they demand it. Those labourers realize they have emigrated to a new nation to seek a new future. They accept the customs they find there as par for the course.

I think that attitude is shared by immigrants to Canada. No one forced them to come here. They came of their own free will because, in Canada, there is an opportunity to grow and thrive. They recognize there are two official languages in our nation, English and French.

There is another question, a question frequently avoided by the New Democratics, who, if their party label more accurately reflected their policy, would be called the New Deficit Party. What is the cost of the proposals of the member for Downsview? Where will the local school boards of our province find qualified language teachers to meet the needs of the various cultural groups now active in heritage language programs and planning to participate in the program in the future? To my mind, these administrative problems overshadow what little benefit the member for Downsview's proposal might bring.

Let me return to my first point, which is the responsibility of our school system to give children the tools and attitudes required for responsible citizenship. In her address to this House on Citizenship Day, May 16, 1980, the Minister of Education said that the government's multicultural policy is a citizenship policy. What she meant by that statement is that this government's multiculturalism policy supports two objectives: the sustaining of the identities of distinct cultural groups and, at the same time, the sharing of those things we have in common so that all can live in harmony together.

I firmly believe that a balance between cultural identity and civic responsibility is effectively maintained by the current heritage languages program offered in Ontario schools. Let us remember that our provincial school system is a public school system. Public education has a special responsibility for being a positive force in promoting participation in our democratic government structure and our free market economy.

The Ontario government believes that the first priority of our elementary school system during the regular program must be the preparation of each child with the knowledge, skills and attitudes he or she will require for active participation in the community. This priority can be best achieved through the encouragement of positive relationships between children of different backgrounds during the learning process.

The mandatory insertion of programs that will segregate children along cultural and linguistic lines in our schools weakens the ability of our schools to properly achieve this first priority. This is not theory. This is not vague meditation on current educational dogma. This is cold, hard fact.

In the light of the recent developments in various schools in Ontario where there may have been plans for programs of this nature, it would appear that the creation of mandatory programs within the regular school day created the potential for tension and conflict among the language groups that attended the school. This tension and conflict threatened to erode the spirit of goodwill and co-operation among these groups which the school had so carefully tried to encourage.

The bill before this Legislature presents members with a fundamental choice. I ask the member opposite, is he prepared to support legislation that has the potential of creating tension and conflict within our schools? Is he prepared to support legislation that has the potential of upsetting the harmony between cultural groups that is one of the important goals of our public school system? I honestly cannot.

As my colleague the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) so ably pointed out, this government does not believe in mandatory bilingual or unilingual education. The heritage languages program, as it now exists, provides equality of opportunity for all students to study a home language as a subject of instruction without discriminating against those students and their parents from other cultural groups who do not wish to participate in the program.

It is basic to our system of education that local school boards must reflect the needs of the community they represent and provide educational programs that meet local needs and priorities. The proposal before this Legislature would overrule that local input. It is through a spirit of co-operation that the Ontario Ministry of Education has become successful in conducting heritage languages programs involving 45 languages, 64 school boards and an expenditure of more than $6 million. To deprive local communities of a personal involvement in these programs will destroy that sense of community and civic commitment that is the essence of the democratic process.

The creation of mandatory heritage languages programs will weaken the link between our schools and the communities they serve. It will weaken this important link in the growth of responsible citizenship. It will create tension between school and the parent and sow the seeds of disunity from one end of Ontario to the other.

I believe we have one of the finest and most comprehensive heritage languages programs in the world. I believe, however, that Bill 89 will blast that success. It will destroy the successful balance that has been established in our school system to bring together the needs of distinct cultural groups with the needs of the community as a whole. Therefore, in good conscience, I cannot support this bill. I would just like to add that I have made up my own mind on this particular bill. I have never been whipped into line on this or any other bill. I cannot support it.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, among the many failings in our education system that have come to light in the last 20 years, the greatest has been the inadequacies in language instruction. There was a time when all the students in our secondary system took French as a matter of course. It was not a matter of making a choice: it was taught to everybody who was warm and present in the classroom. The member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) indicated that in his time his education was under a Liberal administration. He said he had an opportunity to take German and undoubtedly he was exposed to Latin as well. It did not do him any harm and there may be those of us, who have watched his academic career with a great deal of respect, to whom it would indicate that he had a considerable advantage in that connection.

The approach to language instruction in the last two decades in this province has been a disaster, in my opinion. We have in fact turned out people, and I really must associate my own education to some extent with them, who have not seen fit to take advantage of language instruction and, in many respects, must be said to have had almost an illiterate approach to modern education. In almost any other country in the world where one might meet people who have been subjected to the ordinary education system, one will meet people who have had an opportunity to learn something of probably two more languages beyond their mother tongue and to be exposed to some at least of the literature in those languages. We cannot say we have achieved this here.

One of the biggest changes in the last 20 years and a bit longer has been the immigration of people with other cultures and other languages into the community. We have not turned this to our advantage. In fact, we have allowed many of those people to be somewhat embarrassed because their background was not English or Scottish and they had other languages in their home besides English. It has been a shame that many young people, in particular -- not so many now, perhaps, as a decade ago -- have not seen fit to keep up the knowledge of a second or third language and a knowledge and respect for their culture.

For these reasons, I am delighted indeed that this bill has been brought forward. I congratulate the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) on his initiative in that regard. I particularly want to associate myself with my colleague the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri), who spoke so effectively in support of this concept.

For one thing, I cannot listen to the argument that by allowing these subjects to be taught during the school day we are needlessly restricting the students from getting a rounded, so-called liberal, education. I believe the school day is far too short now. I notice in my own community and other small communities, as I drive around through the constituency, that the school buses, and we have many score of them, deliver their loads of students back to the farms and to the homes and everybody is home watching cartoons and eating junk food before 4 o'clock. Of course, the farm boys are out doing the chores, which is in the grand tradition and accounts for farm boys being so much better than the others.

They too would have a great advantage if they had an opportunity to learn a second and a third language, particularly when it comes to the cultures associated with those languages. I cannot see the great advantage of everybody being exposed exclusively to the cultural aspects of the English language. I personally believe that a young person might get as much of an expansion of his mental processes and an improvement in his cultural heritage if he studied the poetry of Taras Shevchenko in the original Ukrainian as he would if he read Shakespeare in the original English.

There is no reason that we cannot have both. My own feeling is this can be done without the exclusion of other subjects necessary to a basic education.

We know that in many of the areas of our present cafeteria-style education, brought so much into an area of prominence by the Ministers of Education before the present incumbent, going back to the days of the now Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and even, in the more remote past, to the days of the present Premier (Mr. Davis), almost any of the real structure in education, any of the subjects which would give a young person an appreciation of a broader scope in this world of ours, have been ruthlessly eliminated. They have been replaced by this cafeteria-style approach which I do not think has served our young people well.

In all the areas of the province which have had the advantage of immigration from other countries of the world, the numbers would warrant the sort of education envisaged in this bill. The costs are certainly something to be reckoned with. The member who spoke just before me brought that to the attention of the members.

Those who are now filtering into the House to vote at the behest and command of the chief government whip will, I know, have been listening carefully to the arguments put forward and are prepared to make an individual judgement.

I must join with the other speakers who have called upon all members of this House not to respond simply to the rigidities of the narrow- minded Conservative approach to education, which has been so damaging in this province that once had a broadly-based education system that provided benefits which have no longer been part of our system in recent years. Here is a chance, not necessarily to respond to certain ethnic compulsions in either one's own background or one's own community, but to see the fairness in the bill that is before us.

If, God forbid, this bill does not carry this afternoon, I suggest there will be other occasions in the next few months and years when this House can move in the direction of providing the sort of education, particularly with regard to languages and the culture and literature associated with those languages, which can make our educational system in this province as great as it once was and, I would certainly hope and pray, far better than it once was. It is inadequate now. It is needlessly restrictive. Somehow or other we are imposing far too narrow an approach on the cultures that are part of our community and which should be brought into our formal education for the good and benefit of all of us.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the members who participated in the debate. I want to thank all of them although, I must say with regret, I did not expect the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) and the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) would come with arguments that are pure rubbish, if you will excuse my words, Mr. Speaker. They each made arguments that have been stated previously and repeated and which, to my knowledge, have not been proved. There has been no evidence to support them.

The first argument was that if we teach third languages during school hours, that will be to the detriment of the two official languages of the country. The member for Lakeshore stated that argument time and again.

The other argument was that if we allow the teaching of third languages during school hours, we will burden the school system with an unbearable deficit.

It has been proved by people who have studied the system carefully, including Professor Cummins in an extensive study done by the separate school board, that those students who take third languages are also those who become more proficient in English.

Nowhere in my bill is it said that taking a third language should be to the detriment of the English language -- or the French language where that is the language of instruction. Teaching a third language should be one of the subjects allowed during school hours. The members of the Conservative caucus have been unable to justify why it is okay to teach Italian, Ukrainian. Portuguese or any other third language alter school, but it is not okay to teach them during school hours.

5:50 p.m.

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

Mr. Di Santo: We are now paying for heritage languages programs and the same money would be spent if those languages were taught during school hours. I regret the Conservatives are voting according to their whip orders and not according to their consciences.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kells has moved resolution 36.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Di Santo has moved second reading of Bill 89.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Call in the members.

5:55 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just been advised that because of the possibility of an error in the drafting of Bill 89, which we are considering, an extra amount of time should be allowed before the vote is taken. Of course, I have to be governed by the rules and the only way we can change those is by unanimous consent. So I am asking the House whether the members would be in favour of extending the vote for another two or three minutes.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, since there is an error in the drafting, we would ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the bill at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have that consent?

Hon. Mr. Wells: In withdrawing the bill, that does not preclude it from coming up at some other time. But it will have to come up at the time of some other private member's ballot item. Is that agreed?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Martel: It will have to be dealt with, Mr. Speaker. If you want to delay the vote, we would like to hav5e an opportunity to address it quite carefully.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: I have asked for consent to withdraw the bill. I want to withdraw the bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Fine.

Mr. Speaker: I am asking for unanimous consent to withdraw the bill. Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

4 novembre 1982