role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 3, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION BILL

LAYOFFS AT INCO LTD.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BICENTENNIAL PROJECT

SHELL CANADA LTD.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION

PENSION FUNDS

OVERTIME WORKERS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION BILL

HEALTH CARE REGULATION

LAND BANKING POLICY

CANADIAN CONTENT

DEVELOPMENTAL CENTRES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

AGGREGATES ACT

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION BILL

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On Tuesday, March 27, I raised a point of order concerning the presentation of Bill 142,

an act to ravage the township of Vespra. I wanted to point out at that time that in my opinion the bill was before the House in a rather unusual way, because it was presented by the chairman of a committee that did not yet exist.

I await your ruling on that matter, but it has been complicated somewhat by a copy of a letter that arrived at my office this morning. It was from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) to the mayor of the city of Barrie. I quote a portion of it: "As I understand it, the

schedule reflects a further refinement to the boundary in the Little Lake area."

If the letter is correct, it means the bill that was dealt with in committee was altered by the minister prior to its presentation in the House.

While I think the bill is before the House in a manner that is out of order and therefore illegal, and while it appears to me it will be challenged in the courts, posing a subsequent problem, it also seems very odd that a committee will deal with a bill that has had second reading here, will go through it clause by clause, will subsequently report it to the House and then, prior to its being debated, the minister informs the municipalities the bill has been changed yet again without the knowledge of the members of this House and without its appearing before a committee of the House.

I think this is all out of order. I put it to you that this bill is before us in an illegal and improper manner and should be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

LAYOFFS AT INCO LTD.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record. Yesterday the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) told the House he had precise information that the parties in the Inco layoffs at Port Colborne would get together to resolve the problem themselves, which would be to the long-term benefit of the employees involved.

The parties did get together yesterday, and the company said no to all efforts for further assistance, no to improved pensions, no to job transfers and no to a one-year extension of benefits. What the minister told the House was wrong. I wonder whether he is now prepared to reassess his position.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out to the honourable member that he may rise to correct only his own record, not the record of another member.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BICENTENNIAL PROJECT

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to announce that a ceremony in Cornwall later today will mark the official release of a publication in honour of Ontario's bicentennial of settlement.

This 48-page booklet now begins its widespread travels throughout the province into homes throughout Ontario, a journey which we hope will reach the hearts and minds of all Ontario students and their parents. More than two million copies are being distributed throughout the school system and the libraries of colleges and universities.

Brightly illustrated with old photographs, drawings and antique maps, the booklet was written by Professor Robert Choquette, a historian in the University of Ottawa's faculty of religious studies. Dr. Choquette was selected by the Ontario Bicentennial Advisory Commission to tell Ontario's story. He brought to his task an accomplished background of scholarship in the most sensitive areas of historical research, religious and linguistic history. Dr. Choquette's previous scholarly works have focused on the history of religious and linguistic conflict in this province and on how the people of Ontario have triumphed over those conflicts.

It is not surprising that one of the most important messages in this new booklet is that Ontario has survived religious and linguistic conflicts better than most other societies, mainly through the determination of Ontario's people to overcome diversity and divisiveness for the sake of the common good.

Mr. Speaker, let me also tell you what this booklet is not. It is not a textbook, nor is it an official exhaustive history. It has been designed as an inspirational primer to renew the flow of intellectual curiosity so we can better understand ourselves.

In Cornwall this evening, my colleague the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch) will join members of the Ontario Bicentennial Advisory Commission and its chairman, Arthur Gelber, in honouring Dr. Choquette at the Cornwall Civic Complex.

I commend this new booklet to the attention of all the Ontario families that will soon see it brought home from school. Let us all read it and learn that Ontario's past is indeed prologue to Ontario's future. Our historical methods of resolving our differences have worked and will continue to work. Let us all welcome a publication that has the value to endure and to become an important element in the definition of our provincial identity.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a brief point of order: Is there any reason this very important notice from the minister was not given to the opposition critics? It is an extremely important announcement, and I do not see it on my desk.

Mr. Speaker: I was not aware that it was not, and nobody drew it to my attention.

SHELL CANADA LTD.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, the Premier promised us a statement on Shell Canada today after his meetings today. I understand it was undertaken yesterday and I am waiting for that statement.

Mr. Speaker: Is that a question?

Mr. Peterson: I am waiting for it today.

Mr. Bradley: There is no statement.

Mr. Peterson: Is he or is he not? What is the point of asking a question if he does not know anything? He should volunteer the information. How many times do we have to ask? Is he the only person in this province who is not informed as to what is going on? It is unbelievable.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I have a point of privilege. The Leader of the Opposition, I think by accident, suggested I had committed myself to a statement on Shell Canada today. My memory is fairly good: I know his is excellent, except he is wrong most of the time. Instant Hansard from yesterday records my comments as, "There has been some communication with Shell; there will be more tomorrow."

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, why do we not stop the clock while they have this little chat?

Ms. Copps: It is a point of view, not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I also said, "I am not at liberty to disclose the discussions at this moment."

Ms. Copps: It is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Bradley: Stop the clock.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member's leader started it; I am just telling him I gave no past commitment.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour with respect to the takeover of Local 1059 of the Labourers' International Union by the international.

We have had discussions about this matter in the House with the minister before, warning him of what would happen. Exactly what we predicted would happen did happen because of a deficiency in the Ontario law to prevent this kind of abuse. I know the minister is going to be meeting with people in Local 1059 some time this week.

Why is it he, as the minister charged with the responsibility for protecting workers in this province, has not moved on this question? Now we see the spectacle of this international union taking over a local even though, admittedly, there are illegal practices. The judge was frustrated that there was nothing he could do because of the inadequacy of the law.

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that I have arranged with the six-member executive of the Labourers' International Union in London to meet with me and my senior officials on Friday of this week at nine o'clock. We intend to discuss the matter fully at that time.

Mr. Peterson: That is not good enough. The minister has had meetings before. I refer him to what he said in response to a question on February 11, 1983: "The point I want to make is that we are not leaving the London local hanging out to dry. They do have an alternative. They have recourse to the courts, and recourse to the courts is not something new and different."

The minister has had his meetings, he has referred them to the courts and now he has let them hang out to dry. Clearly, it is an inadequacy of the legislation in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: My question is whether the minister is going to move legislatively to end this abuse.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: At the time I made the statement quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, I felt there was adequate recourse in the courts and through the Ontario Labour Relations Board. That was the legal advice I received, and we acted accordingly. Now it appears we have to take another look at it, and we are fully prepared to do so. That is the reason I initiated the meeting. I want to make that clear; I invited these people to come in and meet with me. They did not call me and ask to come in; I invited them.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I simply indicate to the minister that, as we said at the time it was raised before, it is important to try to find an administrative route, a route that is used in virtually all other aspects of labour law. I would like to ask the minister whether he would reconsider. Would some kind of appeal to the Ontario Labour Relations Board not be in order in the light of what has happened in this instance by going to the court?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a possibility we will look at.

Mr. Peterson: The advice the minister got was wrong. Surely he will now admit that, and surely he will admit that the only way to rectify this abuse is to proceed legislatively. We put forward an amendment in this House some time ago that would have prevented this abuse. Will the minister go forward with an amendment to the act that will force these trusteeships by internationals to be subjected to review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board to protect workers in the province? Why will he not do that specifically?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: At the time this matter was first raised in this House by the Leader of the Opposition, my officials and I took every possible measure to discuss the matter with the leaders of the two parties, their Labour critics and some of the well-respected senior labour leaders in this province. We found it very difficult to reach a consensus at that time.

We are now prepared to look at it again, but I am not going to stand up here today, before I have had the opportunity to talk to these people and to read the decision of the judge in question, and say I am going to do this or that. I am going to take a good look at it, and I have started that process by inviting these people in.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), I will ask the Premier a question. It is a question he should be apprised of that he cannot answer by saying he can neither confirm nor deny it; nor can he say he has no knowledge of it. The Premier's administration, to finance the deficits the government has run up in this province for the past many years, has borrowed $25 billion from captive pension funds, paying below-market rates. Is it his intention to pay back that $25 billion?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this province has always paid its bills.

Mr. Peterson: How is the government going to pay that money back? Will it increase the contribution rates of various pension funds or increase taxes in this province over the next many years, making those who come after us pay excessively for the government's spending practices of the past? How is the government going to pay it back? Specifically, what methods is it going to use?

Mr. Peterson: Frankly, that is a fatuous response. I have a very serious question which I would like the Premier to address. Either his administration or one following his will have to deal with this question.

The government owes $25 billion to pension funds, captive funds, and by and large has been paying below-market rates. That is a reality. That is how the Davis deficits have been financed over the past 10 or 15 years.

Now we are heading into a huge financial crunch. In a couple of years, the government will have to start paying back the interest it has never paid before on the Canada pension plan. In 1991 or 1992, the government will start drawing down capital and, at current contribution rates, by the year 2003 the Canada pension plan will be bankrupt -- that is, assuming the government pays back what it owes.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Who is going to pay so the government can pay back the money it owes? How is that money going to be raised?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Even the Leader of the Opposition, who has been here for a period of time, understands some of the basic functions of government. There are two ways for government to obtain money: one is through taxation, the other is through borrowing. I think it is fair to state that over the past number of years this province has borrowed very little money in the marketplace itself.

There is no question we have borrowed money from various pension plans, such as the teachers' superannuation pension fund. The honourable member can argue as he will about it. I would suggest he talk to one or two of his colleagues who are participants in that plan and see whether we have handled that properly, whether it has been well dealt with and whether we have treated the teaching profession with equity. I think the member will find that most of the teaching profession, even members in his own caucus, will some day be the beneficiaries of that plan. I look at the distinguished member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) --

Mr. Peterson: If you pay it back.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course we will pay it back. The member knows we are going to pay it back, and so does everybody else, just as the member pays his bills. We will pay it back in the same way we have for years, either through taxation or a minimum amount of borrowing. That is how it is done. It is very simple.

OVERTIME WORKERS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the amount of overtime that is being worked in the province.

The minister may or may not be aware that in February 1984, more than 500,000 workers in this province worked more than 50 hours a week and slightly less than 500,000 worked somewhere between 41 and 49 hours a week. That is nearly a million overtime workers in Ontario.

Given the fact that 13 per cent of the labour force is working more than 50 hours a week, and given the amount of unemployment out there in society, how can the minister justify the amount of overtime currently being worked?

Will the minister please put into effect some measures to amend the Employment Standards Act to get the hours of work down now to share the work more fairly in Ontario? It seems a little unfair to have nearly a million people working overtime at the same time as we have 500,000 people unemployed.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that matter has been under review. The problem is to try to find a fair and reasonable resolution to a very serious problem. I acknowledge it is desirable. On the other hand, in many cases, it is simply a case of good economics and keeping a company viable. It is a lot easier to keep somebody on overtime for a weekend than to hire somebody who then has to be laid off a week or two down the line.

2:20 p.m.

That is one of the biggest problems we are facing today. Because of the economy, because of the recession in certain areas and industries, they have found it easier and more adaptable to production problems to work people overtime than to go out and hire and have to lay off.

Mr. Rae: I would have thought the Minister of Labour, rather than standing up and justifying the business practices of a number of major companies that, as he has said, find it easier to work people harder and to work the existing employees overtime than to create new jobs, would be more concerned with seeing that we create new jobs in this province, share the work that is there more fairly and give a chance to those people who have been locked out of the work force.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: How can the minister justify the fact that there has been no amendment to the Employment Standards Act to get the hours of work down and to require employers to share the work more fairly at a time when we are coming out of the biggest recession we have faced in 50 years? How can he justify not taking steps to give a little hope and a little opportunity to the hundreds of thousands of people out there who cannot get work at all?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have to be frank with the honourable member and indicate to him that I have no plans at this time to amend the Employment Standards Act in the manner he has suggested.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, some time ago -- as a matter of fact, a considerable period of time ago -- I questioned the present Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), who was then the Minister of Labour, about the matter of overtime permits given out by the employment standards branch. We did not get much of an answer then and we are not getting much of an answer today.

I realize this is a very sensitive matter because there are some workers who would prefer to have the status quo. I wonder if the minister would try to take a co-operative approach with the unions and with the industries that are unionized and promote the idea that industries that are allowing significant overtime should possibly be hiring other people who are in the unfortunate position of being out of work so the problem can be resolved without legislation.

We are fast approaching, if we are not already there, the time when legislative action might be necessary. Will the minister try this co-operative proposal and then report to this House on whatever undertakings he has made?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, a certain measure of what the member is suggesting is already being done by people within our employment standards branch.

Perhaps I am repeating myself, but the extent to which employment opportunities would be created is really the crux of the matter, and I am not convinced from the information I have that legislative measures to reduce the hours worked would result in increased employment opportunities. It would possibly and quite likely result in dislocations to the present labour force and to the industries that are trying to recover from the recession they have gone through.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Labour is aware of the letter written by the president of Local 6500 in Sudbury, Mr. Ron Macdonald, in which he complains about the amount of overtime being worked by Inco employees. There are men working three shifts in a row, 24 hours without a break, frequently working seven days in a row, and the company will not even tell the union how many workers are working overtime or the total number of hours; all it will tell them is the percentage of overtime that is being worked on the basis of the total number of hours worked by the employees.

I wonder, too, if the minister can tell me if he is satisfied with this happening in a community with about 15 per cent unemployment. By my rough arithmetic, the amount of overtime being worked would come to somewhere between 200 and 300 jobs that could be done by calling back laid-off employees.

Finally, does the minister agree with the ill-informed member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who said, "I have a riding full of them, and all they want to do is line their own pockets"? Does the minister think that is the attitude of the trade union leadership in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the letter Mr. Macdonald has sent to me from the local in Sudbury. I am totally sympathetic to the problem he is bringing forward, but the honourable member should bear in mind that collective bargaining is almost upon us for that local and that is something which I think should be addressed through the collective bargaining system.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour did not reply as to whether he agreed with the sleazy comment of the member for Brantford. What a bunch of clowns over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Why does the member for Brantford not stand up and say what he just said? Why does he not go on the record officially and say what he just said?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Why do you not make him say it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Surely the member for Nickel Belt knows that is not my role.

Mr. Laughren: I do not know what your role is.

Mr. Speaker: That is quite obvious.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. It concerns a very important matter of health and safety affecting workers at the Inglis plant in Stoney Creek.

Is the minister aware of the fact that the four workers who have been exposed to isocyanates, which as the minister knows are used in making the foam that goes into refrigerators made by Inglis, are now receiving workers' compensation and that as many as 15 or 16 other workers are suspected of having what is called sensitivity to isocyanates, which means they have very severe respiratory problems when exposed to this substance in the air?

If he is aware of that fact, can he explain why the ministry's own report, which was supposed to adjudicate the dispute between the workers and the employer with respect to what was happening at that plant, did nothing to ensure that the area producing the foam would be enclosed and that workers in the rest of the plant would not continue to be exposed to this very dangerous and hazardous substance?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the circumstances the honourable member has brought forward. There was a meeting held on March 27, I believe, with representatives of the United Auto Workers. Mr. Gill of the United Auto Workers was quite upset with the report in question and wanted to meet with the authors, and that has been arranged. Regrettably, one of the authors was not available on that date, and another meeting will be held.

I have been assured the report is all-encompassing and addresses the matter; Mr. Gill feels otherwise. As a result, we are trying to mediate the circumstances with senior officials from our occupational health and safety branch, with Mr. Gill and with the local union officials. I think we are going about this in a very responsible way.

Mr. Rae: A large number of workers are suffering permanent health problems as a result of exposure to this substance. Given that fact, can the minister explain why the report states, "We have not estimated the cost of the enclosure at this point in time"?

Can he explain why there has been no estimate of the cost of the enclosure when his ministry's very own guidelines with respect to the lowest-possible-level concept, with which the minister will be familiar, call for a serious cost-benefit analysis respecting any new technological change to improve the situation? Can he explain why that was not done when his own guidelines call for it?

Why was there no cost-benefit analysis done when there is this number of workers affected and when Dr. Hargreave, who as the minister knows is the chest specialist at St. Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton, is now on record as saying that workers who work outside the area and suffer from this problem of sensitization will never be able to go back to the plant because as soon as they are exposed to the substance they will suffer from an allergic reaction? Can he explain why that was not done?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am completely confident that we have the situation in hand and that we are addressing it. Within two or three weeks, I will be able to give the member and everyone else opposite a complete report and we will be able to bring a proper and just resolution to a matter that happens to be a difference of opinion between experts on this side and experts on that side.

We are going to work it out. I am very optimistic that we will.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, why is the minister using mediation or cost-benefit analysis when it comes to the critical issue of workers' health and safety?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we are using cost-benefit analysis at all, and we are not using mediation. We are just using the simple, civilized process of sitting down together where we have a problem and reaching a resolution.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the ministry did not follow its own guidelines, including the need for a cost-benefit analysis of technological changes that would protect the worker.

I would like to ask the minister if he agrees with Dr. Hargreave, who indicated there is a serious need for tougher legislation so workers know what they are working with and the health effects of this material.

What is he going to do to improve the right to know, especially for people such as Judy Friend, who worked as a maintenance worker at Inglis for 13 years? Beginning in 1977, she had to clean up a number of spills but was never told what she was cleaning up, or even that it was a chemical, or anything about the effects of this material, and now she is a compensation case.

What is the minister going to do to stop this kind of thing in the work place and to ensure workers know what they are working with so they do not expose themselves to hazards when the company is unwilling to give them the information they need?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: What am I going to do, Mr. Speaker? Exactly what I said we are in the process of doing.

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION BILL

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the Barrie-Vespra dispute.

The minister is aware Bill 142 is before the Legislature. He is also aware that last year this Legislature passed the new Planning Act. In the Planning Act, the minister touted the local autonomy he was going to recognize. Another aspect of the Planning Act has to do with provincial interest.

Could the minister indicate to this House how he is consistent with the Planning Act in recognizing Vespra's local autonomy by taking 2,000 acres away from Vespra? How can he square with the provincial interest his policy of bringing in Bill 142 when there is no provincial interest in taking away 90 per cent of Vespra's commercial assessment and 40 per cent plus of its total assessment so that Barrie might have that assessment?

How can he square the Planning Act with taking away the local autonomy from Vespra township?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this problem in Barrie, Vespra, Innisfil and Oro has been going on since before 1970. Indeed, in 1970 we tried to find ways of resolving the problem, and the member will remember we had the Georgian-Simcoe Area Task Force that looked at the overall development opportunities in that part of our province.

In 1970 Barrie indicated it wished to get involved in annexation. This government, through the minister of the day, put it off until the Georgian-Simcoe Area Task Force reported. In 1976, when the task force reported, we then found an application for annexation by Barrie with the Ontario Municipal Board.

Ever since that date, they have been going through a long, difficult process -- "they" being Barrie, Innisfil, Vespra and Oro. They have been trying to find some grounds for communication and, indeed, for settlement. As members of this House well know, over a period of time Innisfil negotiated a boundary settlement with Barrie. We resolved that problem with Oro as well.

The situation with Vespra went on under the old Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act and has continued under the amended act. We even offered a settlement some two years ago which Vespra opposed on the grounds that it did not want Barrie involved in its particular geographical area of this province.

It was not the Planning Act that made this decision, as the member is well aware, for he was at the public hearings that went on for a three-week period. It comes down to the basic problem that we had two municipalities with a difference of opinion. This ministry eventually became the arbitrator in the case and brought in the legislation.

Mr. Epp: The minister is aware of the twin cities we have in Ontario, namely, Kitchener-Waterloo. He is also aware that his predecessor the Honourable Darcy McKeough recognized that more than 80 per cent of the residents of Waterloo rejected becoming part of Kitchener in a referendum. The residents of Vespra, in a similar exercise not very long ago, rejected losing any amount of their land to the city of Barrie.

Will the minister, in all fairness to the people of this province, particularly in fairness to the people of Vespra township, look again at the possibility of establishing a status quo as far as the boundaries are concerned and letting each municipality expand within its own boundaries, and stop gutting the smaller municipalities for the sake of the larger municipalities?

[Interruption]

That is exactly what the minister is doing. He is gutting the small municipalities so the larger municipalities can have some more land for expansion. Why does he not let the small municipalities expand within their own boundaries?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is obvious the members arranged for the Vespra people to be in the audience this afternoon so he could put on some degree of a show for them.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member should hold himself in control. He can go back to the historic factors of his particular operations too.

It is not the intention of this government, and the member knows it very well, to gut any municipality on behalf of another one. We indicated very clearly in the geographic development of this province there would be growth areas. That has been an understood fact in the member's region, as it happens to be in the Ottawa-Carleton area and others.

The Georgian-Simcoe Area Task Force very clearly indicated the economic development area of this community was Barrie. Vespra went ahead and allowed for this shopping centre which was on the periphery. The services to it were all provided by the community of Barrie, and Vespra was very well aware of the fact.

If the member looks at the final conclusion of the task force and at the two OMB hearings, in every case the conclusion was that the lands Barrie asked for and put before the OMB have been accepted by the OMB as justifiably within the Barrie area. I will admit those hearings were cut down because of some minor technicalities.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, is it still the minister's intention to proceed with this bill in the absence of a financial agreement? Is he going to go ahead with this whether there is a financial agreement negotiated among Vespra, Barrie, the county and the province'?

Perhaps he could explain to us exactly which set of boundaries he is currently proposing. We had several before the committee. The committee, with its majority, chose one set of boundaries. I read this morning in a letter to the mayor of Barrie that the minister has changed the boundaries again.

How does he purport to change the boundaries without at least going through a committee of the Legislature? Exactly how does he intend to proceed? Is he going to do away with the legislative process entirely and simply rewrite this on his own? He appears to have made a commitment to the city of Barrie to change the boundaries yet again.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding, as the member knows very well, the committee recommended some changes in the boundaries. That is exactly what we said at the time we introduced the legislation. If the member recalls, we distinctly said we had arrived at some boundaries but they were negotiable, they were flexible, they were the maximum position we would go to as a government. We said the committee could come back in with some recommendations of adjustments on those boundaries and I understand it has done so.

2:40 p.m.

It says very clearly in the legislation that we will try to negotiate with the various partners or parties to find the financial sum required. But if that ultimately cannot be achieved through negotiations or bargaining, the minister has the right to make the final determination. That does not preclude us from enacting the legislation without the financial position being put in place. The negotiations might go on for a period of time. I hope we will find we can get to the financial part of this bill with Barrie, Vespra and the county as quickly as possible.

That does not preclude the opportunity of having this bill in place and the boundaries effective on July 1, with settlement coming thereafter.

I want to emphasize again that I said clearly to this House last week and in previous commitments that we are asking those communities to sit down with us to put in position all the things they believe are negotiable under the financial settlement. We are inviting them to do that.

My assistant deputy minister, Mr. Fleming, has been out in the last little while asking Vespra, Barrie and the county kindly to come forward to let us find some solution to this problem. Ultimately, the boundaries that are recommended in Bill 142 will become a reality.

HEALTH CARE REGULATION

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, if I could have his attention. Could the Minister of Labour explain why his ministry is insisting on a performance-type occupational safety and health regulation for workers in the health care institutions of this province?

That is a recommendation which states an objective without specifying the manner in which that objective is to be achieved, even though the overwhelming majority of the responses from the health care sector workers and the unions that represent them, which are published in the minister's own compendium of comments, reject this approach to regulation as so general that it is meaningless and unenforceable.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that there has been an organized letter-writing campaign in respect to the proposed health care regulation. Let me stress one thing. I said "proposed" health care regulation. That is all it is.

In each letter in which I have responded, I have pointed out that it is proposed. There is further opportunity for consultation. It is not cast in stone. I am totally convinced we will come up with a regulation that will meet the requirements of the act and will address the concerns of the people who have been writing on a regular basis.

Mr. Wildman: If that is the case, could the minister explain why he has refused to hold public meetings across the province for direct input on the development of the regulation and revision of the draft regulation from the unions and the workers in the health care sector? Is he prepared to agree to the proposal made by the health care sector coalition that he establish a structure for the development of this regulation similar to that which was set up to deal with the mining regulations?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: About three or four days ago I received a letter signed by six different union leaders, including Mr. Sean O'Flynn and Ms. Lucie Nicholson, to name just two of the six. They asked for an opportunity to come in and meet with me to discuss the very matter the honourable member has raised in the House today. That meeting is being set up. We will go on from that meeting after I have had the opportunity of their consultation and advice.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not concerned that if the proposed regulation is adopted as it has been circulated, he could be setting himself up for a possible violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when those sections of the charter come into effect?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many letters I have to write and how many times I have to answer. I can only stress again that it is a proposed regulation. We are far from getting to the point where it will be sent to the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments or be gazetted.

We have a lot of procedures to go through before we get to that point. We are totally committed to consultation. I have written a six-page or seven-page letter which explains exactly where we stand and the further steps we intend to take. I think I sent a copy to the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and I will send a copy to the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) as well.

LAND BANKING POLICY

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. During our rural municipalities' area task force meeting in Simcoe, the concern of area residents over government land banking policies was raised a number of times. That concern is the result of poor planning on the part of this government.

Some 25,000 acres of community farm land in the Townsend and Cayuga areas are seriously eroding. Has the Premier been made aware of the concerns of the area residents? Has he given any consideration to their suggestion of providing junior farmers with the opportunity to buy this land at a price that would be acceptable to the farming community so the land could be put back into useful production?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I missed a part of the question. Was the honourable member referring to two specific areas, Townsend and Cayuga?

Mr. McKessock: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say the government has been exploring possible uses for the Cayuga site. The Townsend site, as I recall, is in the process of development. I am not sure it would fall into the same category.

Mr. Peterson: It is forced development. The government is paying outrageously.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say of the interruption from the Leader of the Opposition that he should go back in the historical record of his party and find out how many times he was urging the land banking of real estate in this province. That is when it was the great party of reform, which it now pretends to be again. He can just check what has been the historical position of his party.

Mr. Peterson: Is the Premier trying to justify his government's stupidity?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition will please resume his seat.

Mr. Swart: Throw them both out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. McKessock: Given that this government has been leasing this land to active farmers on a three- and four-year basis, but the crop rotation and conservation programs are carried out only on a longer-term basis, the government is not giving the farmers a chance to comply with what should be the very important goals of food land preservation.

How much longer will the Premier allow this prime agricultural land to be needlessly eroded before he decides what he is going to do with this land, which the government should never have purchased in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think there are several areas in the province where the province has an interest in real estate where there may be more productive activity going on now than when the land was acquired.

I am always receptive to any creative ideas from members opposite related to the use of some of this land, whether it might be a case for 4-H Clubs or junior fanners and so on; I think they are all worthy of exploration. But I think any objective assessment would indicate that many acres that were not in production when certain land acquisitions were made are today in production under some form of lease agreement.

CANADIAN CONTENT

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I am sure the minister will be aware of the Canadian preference

section of the Ontario Manual of Administration, particularly as it refers to the purchase and management of goods and services. May I remind him that it says under the policy statement, paragraph 1:

"In order to comply with the policy of the government to encourage the production of Canadian goods wherever such goods can be economically produced, ministries shall allow a price preference of up to 10 per cent to be given in respect of the Canadian content of goods and services supplied to the government" -- that is, the Ontario government.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: I have here an example of Shoot to Score, a new instant lottery ticket put out by the Ontario Lottery Corp., which comes under his ministry; this is a lottery corporation unique to Ontario.

2:50p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: In light of the foregoing Manual of Administration, would the minister explain why the Shoot to Score tickets are produced and printed in the United States instead of being produced in Canada to provide Canadian jobs?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am pleased the member for Welland-Thorold is playing the game Shoot to Score, and I wish him luck on it.

The other thing I want to say is there is a very simple answer. Although the tickets may be printed in the United States, the company that produces the Shoot to Score tickets is a very successful Canadian company.

Mr. Swart: I wonder if it is the policy of the government now to funnel work to the United States through a Canadian company.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: Would the minister be prepared to tell us what tendering he did for those tickets that are printed in the United States? We contacted the Pot 0' Gold people and they told us their tickets are produced in Canada at Pollard Western Banknote Ltd., Buffalo Avenue, Fort Garry. We also contacted Gaylord Lithographing of Toronto and the people there stated the minister had not asked them to tender on the printing of those tickets.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: Pollard Western Banknote Ltd. can print anything that can be printed in the United States. Will the minister now admit he did not try to get a Canadian supplier? Will he now tell us what he paid Southam to have those tickets produced in the United States?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I can only assure everyone in this House that on any single purchase the Ontario Lottery Corp. sticks to the manual and does it according to the law. I am sure in this instance there was no exception. I will check into it to make sure, but I am totally confident the Ontario Lottery Corp. is sticking to the tendering practices set down by this government.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall a few years ago the government came up with the brilliant idea of buying Constitutional medallions that said "Proud to be Canadian" and were minted in Rochester, New York.

Can the minister tell us today why years after members bring examples of things bought and made in this country into this House day after day, the government has to go elsewhere? Our pens, letter openers and every other piece of stationery we have in this Legislature are made outside this country. When is the government going to get its act together and give jobs to Canadians?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I have great difficulty seeing that as a supplementary question. The member is talking about purchases that might have been made by any other ministry in this place.

DEVELOPMENTAL CENTRES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education relating to the developmental centres across the province, which she is familiar with, specifically Harmony Developmental Centre and West Lincoln Developmental Centre in the Niagara Peninsula.

Since the minister in the past has not assured the House, at least to the satisfaction of the opposition, both in estimates and in this chamber, is she able to assure the House today and also the parents, staff and members of boards of education in the Niagara Peninsula that she is prepared to continue the operation of developmental centres in the province, specifically these two developmental centres, for those who have been designated as profoundly mentally retarded, many of whom have multiple handicaps of a physical nature?

Will the minister also assure us she will not close those developmental centres in the Niagara Peninsula, that the centres will continue to get the same level of funding they have in the past and that they will retain the same staff who are there at present and retain all the services available to those children at the present time? Will the minister give the House that assurance this afternoon, an assurance that has not been forthcoming in the past?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would have great difficulty providing the assurance the member asks for when he knows full well my ministry is not responsible for the operation of developmental day care centres. They fall under the aegis of my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea).

If the honourable member does not know it, I have assured the parents in the area that we have been working together with the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health to develop an appropriate arrangement that will provide for the best possible care and treatment for those children, which falls under the responsibility of other ministries, and the provision of educational program, which falls under my ministry.

Mr. Bradley: The minister is well aware that the controversy has arisen as a result of the effect Bill 82 would have on those developmental centres. Is the minister prepared to give assurances as Minister of Education that when Bill 82 is in full operation, outside of the fact she will be providing additional educational services, we will have the status quo for the Harmony Developmental Centre and the West Lincoln Developmental Centre? Will the minister assure those people so they can have some peace of mind and some confidence the Ministry of Education is at long last going to listen to their pleas?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The gratuitous insult at the end of the statement is entirely unjustified because, in spite of the vitriol of the member for St. Catharines, there has been a great deal of co-operation and discussion about this within the three ministries involved and at the local level.

If the member would simply reread the Education Act, he would understand that Bill 82 requires boards of education to provide educational programs for all children registered within a board who are resident pupils within that board. We shall most certainly ensure that responsibility is carried out.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education stated developmental centres are under the responsibility of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Does the minister not realize that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has already stated there will be no funding to those developmental centres come September 1985 and that they are going to be taken over by the Ministry of Education and the school boards?

Will the minister admit that, talk to the Minister of Community and Social Services about the decision the minister has made and then move to assure the parents that the children in the 22 developmental centres across this province will not have less of an educational program than they now have in the developmental schools?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding the Minister of Community and Social Services has never made such a statement and certainly has not done so publicly. I have assured this House that there has been a great deal of consultation, which will resolve all the problems. I can only commiserate with the parents of children in developmental day care centres who have been subjected to the fear mongering of the opposition members in this whole area to try to disrupt the implementation of Bill 82.

3 p.m.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. It concerns a rather serious conflict of interest in the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Is the minister aware that in 1982, the area director for the Peterborough office, Mr. Alan Vallillee, commissioned a study by T. A. Croil and Associates done by Mrs. Dorothy Easton? This study was about a residential treatment centre in Oshawa called Durham House. In effect, the study recommended the closure of that residential care facility.

Subsequent to that, Mrs. Easton moved on to work for a company called Kinark, which provides group home care; Mr. Vallillee is currently on a leave of absence from the ministry, also working for Kinark. We have the unusual situation of a civil servant who commissioned a study that closed a residential group home in Oshawa. He then went on a leave of absence and now works for a private sector group home company providing the same care he had brought out of that study.

Is it not a clear conflict of interest when a civil servant commissions a study that in effect closes a group home, goes on to move to different kinds of group care and then goes on a leave of absence to work for Kinark, the company now providing that group home care?

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that sequence of events. I would be glad to draw it to the attention of the appropriate ministry if the honourable member will give me the details.

Mr. Breaugh: Quite frankly, it seems to me to be outrageous. I want to ask the minister this specific question: is it not outrageous that a civil servant can put out contracts, set in motion policies that give these kinds of contracts to the private sector, in this case Kinark, and then go on a leave of absence to work for Kinark? Is that not a little bit beyond the pale even for this government?

Hon. Mr. Dean: I could not answer that question without having the details.

AGGREGATES ACT

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. When is the minister going to reintroduce the Aggregates Act?

Hon. Mr. Pope: That has not been decided yet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Does the fact that the minister does not want to decide when he wants to introduce the act indicate the reason for backing the aggregate policy into the Planning Act and making the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) the gravel czar of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Pope: This provincial policy has been in the development stage now for some years, and I issued it as a provincial policy statement about a year ago, on February 23, 1983. At the same time, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) introduced the food land guidelines as a provincial policy statement.

Subsequent to that, upon

section 3 coming into effect at the end of August 1983, the process of having it as a provincial planning statement under the Planning Act began. But the actual statement itself was in various stages of evolution from the 10-point program, or the

interpretation of the 10-point program from the cabinet decision of 16 points, over a period of about six years. So a policy statement in the context of the existing legislation, the Pits and Quarries Control Act, is nothing new in this province.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

I understand the minister will soon be making his recommendations to cabinet concerning the final Niagara Escarpment plan. In view of the remarkable series of events at the Niagara Escarpment Commission, including the resignation of two important members and the remarkable reversal of the position of the commission on the protection of the Beaver Valley, will the minister explain whether he understands the reversal of its position from one of vigorous protection of the Beaver Valley to one of supporting some development in the valley?

Will he table all the documentation available to him that led to that remarkable reversal before he makes his recommendations to cabinet or before the plan becomes final?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the documentation the honourable member refers to is relevant to the power I am given under the act whereby I am to consider the recommendations of both the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the hearing officers, who over a period of two years heard 1,000 briefs, some of which were on the Beaver Valley.

I can accept the recommendations of the escarpment commission and the hearings officers, or I can disregard either and submit my own recommendations. I am reading the reports. Those recommendations have been given to me; I have not gone into a lot of detail on that background, but I have on some. I am not familiar with all the documentation the member is referring to, but I will be pleased to look into how much documentation there is and how much of it is within my control before making any commitment.

Mr. Laughren: I assume the provincial secretary is aware that the mineral aggregate resource planning policy of the Ministry of Natural Resources states that all aggregate deposits be included in any kind of official planning document and protected for extraction purposes. In view of that, will the minister assure us the policy of protecting the aggregate deposits for extraction purposes will not apply to the 40,000 acres of aggregate in the Niagara Escarpment? Will he tell us that policy will not apply to aggregate deposits on the escarpment? Otherwise, we are going to lose even more of that precious resource.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I understand that is not an accurate description of the aggregate policy. Having said that, I do not know whether it is relevant, because in terms of my total recommendations on the escarpment plan, I will be making that a part of my decision. Therefore, that recommendation is not a hard and fast decision at this time. If the member would read the act, he would know my recommendations have to be approved by the cabinet of Ontario. Therefore, I cannot make a personal commitment about what would be included in the aggregate.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, which reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition, which reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This was signed by 42 teachers employed by the Lake Superior Board of Education.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from constituents of mine in London North, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983" -- demonstrating the very fine leadership of my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps),

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition is signed by 36 residents of the riding of Beaches-Woodbine, which I have the honour to represent, and of various other ridings in the city of Toronto. I support the petition.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition is signed by 16 constituents of the riding of Renfrew South.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, subsection 109(12) of the Highway Traffic Act now reads as follows:

"The speed limits prescribed under this

section or any regulation or bylaw passed under this

section do not apply to,

"(

a) a motor vehicle of a municipal fire department while proceeding to a fire or responding to, but not returning from, a fire alarm or other emergency call; or

"(

b) a motor vehicle while used by a person in the lawful performance of his duties as a police officer."

The amendment would permit ambulance drivers to exceed prescribed speed limits in emergency situations.

As well, I should just say this bill was prepared by a very able young man by the name of Geoffrey Lahn and by some of his associates who were working on a university project. I am happy to introduce this into the House.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I would like to advise all honourable members that pursuant to standing order 28(b), the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) regarding commercial fishing. This matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening. I thought you would all like to know.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have some news for the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier).

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Let us not hear the same speech we have heard for 17 years.

Mr. Martel: No. If I could start, I was hoping the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) would be here. I have a letter which he and the president of his riding association have penned and sent to all the members of the Progressive Conservative Party in Sudbury. A brown envelope came into my possession containing one of these letters. For chutzpah, this guy takes the cake. I was hoping he would be here because I wanted to chitchat.

For the information of the Minister of the Northern Affairs, one of the items in here says my friend the member for Sudbury brought the following things to Sudbury in his two short years --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He will be back, Elie.

Mr. Martel: I want to compliment him. That is why I was hoping he would be here.

Here he is. I am glad he showed up, because I am not supposed to have this letter. He did not send me a copy and I feel badly about that.

In 1967, the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) said I was a one-tripper. It has been a long trip.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Your former leader told me that too. Stephen Lewis has gone --

Mr. Martel: I was disappointed the member for Sudbury would not send me this letter. This four-page letter of accomplishments by the member for Sudbury, signed by none other than our good friend Gerry M. Lougheed Jr., president of the PC organization, says, "I am writing to you in my new position as riding president. I want to present to the good people that Mr. Gordon has accomplished the following things."

I was here before the last election. The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program included an Ontario Centre for Resource Machinery; it was buried in BILD. I do not know whether the member for Sudbury means he delivered the cheque.

Mr. Kerr: Where?

Mr. Martel: To Sudbury; but it was in BILD before the election was called. I do not know whether he carried the cheques up there. I suppose he did, and God bless him for bringing the cheques, but they are creating the illusion that he was responsible when it was announced in BILD prior to the election being called. I remind my friend that just a week before the Conservative nomination, he declared he was not running. He was not in on the planning.

The second item he takes credit for is $10 million for the Science North facility. Everyone at regional council knew the amount of money that was coming to Sudbury during the election. If the member for Sudbury had said, "I delivered the cheque," I would have no objection. I have no objection to him delivering the cheques, even the dubbed one. They called a press conference for one after it had been cashed. In Sudbury the rumour is -- I do not know how true this is --

Mr. Haggerty: Does he take the credit for the layoff at Inco?

Mr. Martel: No, he does not take credit for that.

3:20 p.m.

I understand a press conference was called a month after about $1.7 million had been obtained. There had been a cheque written, a press conference called, and the member for Sudbury gave this cheque to the Science North facility. I do not mind him delivering the cheque, but to suggest that he got this facility when it was negotiated long before he became a member, I find that a little hard to take. There are several more that I find even harder to take.

If the member has a point of order, I will sit down.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I feel the member is, first of all, being inaccurate with regard to the member for Sudbury and does not have his facts straight. I am surprised, in the circumstances, because as was pointed out he has been in this Legislature for a great number of years.

I would like to address myself to the first point he raised with regard to my dealings with the Ontario Centre for Resource Machinery.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the point the member is anxious to make. However, I have to say it is not a point of privilege and I would suggest that perhaps he reserve that point until his time to speak comes around.

Mr. Martel: I was willing to share the floor with the member. He will notice how generous I was.

Mr. Gordon: Since the member for Sudbury East has said he would share the floor, I would like to take the opportunity, since he has given up some of his time.

The Deputy Speaker: In some forms of debate someone can yield the floor, but on this occasion the member will just have to wait.

Mr. Martel: I want to say the next item is a beauty, and the Minister of Northern Affairs would like this one.

There are five lanes going into Sudbury East on Highway 69. I am told the member for Sudbury went down and told the engineers where to put the passing lanes. He said, 'One passing lane goes here and the other one goes there." He even picked them out. He knows more than the engineers do.

Mr. Gordon: The member for Sudbury East has done nothing. That is his problem.

Mr. Martel: Let me tell the member for Sudbury, rather frankly, that passing lanes were being installed on Highway 69 south long before he became a member.

Mr. Gordon: The member for Sudbury East has been asleep at the switch.

Mr. Martel: Let me go on. I have a few more --

Mr. Gordon: He did not meet with the minister about those passing lanes. He wasn't there.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Mr. Martel: Was that when the member was negotiating with the Liberals?

Let me go on. I have a few more choice ones here.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, let me continue. There are some interesting ones in here.

I want to tell the member for Sudbury that long before he came here there were several cabinet ministers who at my request started to install passing lanes. One of them was the late John Rhodes; another was the present Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). Passing lanes were being spoken of long before the member for Sudbury came to this Legislature.

Let me give him another one, for pure chutzpah -- $255,000 for the Occupational Health and Safety Resource Centre. I want to tell Mr. Speaker that I sat with the then Minister of Labour, the member for York East (Mr. Elgie). I conducted the meetings. The minister granted the money. My friend had nothing to do with it; he would not even attend the meetings.

I will give him another one, the Finnish centre. He says he got the Finnish centre; $96,000 for the Finnish Hall. I was at the opening of the Finnish Hall -- on Saturday. no less. Their application had been turned down. I asked a representative of the Finnish community. "Did you ever approach Jim Gordon?"

Do members know what he said? "No." But the member for Sudbury has written down here: "I got the money. I got the bundle."

It was not even his riding; they had not approached him. He had a press release from the cabinet minister responsible, he ran to the telephone, he phoned Sudbury and he said: "I just got this. I want to announce it."

Everyone knows these things go to the government office, but for someone to try to take credit for something he was not even involved in --

Mr. Gordon: The member is really getting hassled, is he not?

Mr. Martel: No. I want to tell members about this great letter. The Occupational Health and Safety Resource Centre was not involved and the Finnish hall was not involved.

I will give the member a better one, a last one before I leave it. It concerns Ontario Hydro. He says, "I went before the Ontario Energy Board." Do members know what the Ontario Energy Board recommended to Hydro? It recommended the rate increase. Do members know who rolled back Hydro?

We went to see Mr. Macaulay and Macaulay said: "It will be rolled back by the government. It is a government policy. It will not be by the Ontario Energy Board." It was the cabinet that rolled it back; it was not the Ontario Energy Board.

The member should show me where the Ontario Energy Board rolled it back. My colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and I went to see Macaulay. The member for Sudbury can ask my friend if Macaulay did not say: "This is a political decision. It will be determined by the politicians."

Mr. Stokes: That is what he told us. If the member wants to call him a liar, go ahead.

Mr. Martel: If the member wants to say Macaulay is lying, go ahead. When my friend the member for Lake Nipigon and I visited Macaulay, that is what Macaulay said.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member has as much respect for the truth as Ali Khan has for a marriage licence.

Mr. Martel: If that is truth, then I do not know what the hell fiction is. But it is just a little letter that he sent to his constituents.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a certain amount of prevarication here.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member rise on a point of order?

Mr. Gordon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: He has accused the member for Sudbury of being a prevaricator.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member for Sudbury East take his seat, please.

Mr. Gordon: He has accused the member for Sudbury of prevarication in a news release that he put out, or that somebody wrote.

Mr. Martel: I did not.

Mr. Gordon: Yes, the member has and I want that withdrawn. He has alluded, he has insinuated, that the member for Sudbury has lied. That is the furthest thing from the truth. I want that taken off the record. The record will show what the member said.

The Deputy Speaker: All of us should remember our rules of order. I refer the members to standing order 19(d)8. There shall be no allegation against another member, as you all know.

Mr. Martel: Do not play that game. There is no allegation anywhere. Do not come around with that nonsense.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been following the debate and the interjections and there has been a lot of skirting very close to allegations. I have not heard any levelled yet. I would ask the members to bear that in mind, both in the formal debate and in the interjections.

Mr. Martel: I would like to say that I --

Mr. Gordon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The man has accused me of prevarication and I demand that be withdrawn from the record. No member should accuse someone of anything like that. That is falsehood and it has to be withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member for Sudbury East please just take his seat while we clarify the point of order for the member for Sudbury.

Would the member for Sudbury like to state specifically the allegation he feels is involved.

Mr. Gordon: He suggested that the member for Sudbury is a liar and the member for Sudbury is not. I want that withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would remind the member for Sudbury that he cannot call another member of the House a liar.

Mr. Gordon: I did not.

The Deputy Speaker: No, you cannot.

Mr. Gordon: The member on the other side has suggested I am, and very directly. I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to examine the record. You do not have the facts before you. I want that withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes. You are certainly entitled to point out at any time where the member would make that kind of accusation. However, merely appearing to does not suffice. I will be watching the debate and I ask all honourable members to remember the tone, the decorum and the rules.

Mr. Martel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not write the letter. The member for Sudbury did. It is signed "Jim Gordon."

Mr. Gordon: On a point of privilege or a point of information, Mr. Speaker: He pointed out to us quite clearly that it was Mr. Lougheed who wrote the letter.

The Deputy Speaker: There is nothing in our rules about a point of information.

Mr. Gordon: I have no problem with the record. I have no problem with what he is reading into the record because it will show that the member for Sudbury East has done nothing for the Sudbury region for years.

The Deputy Speaker: To the member, last call.

Mr. Martel: Do you not think that is an allegation against my good name, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sudbury East will continue.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Martel: I have to refute that. Even the minister knows that --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member return to the debate, please.

Mr. Martel: I am. The member for Sudbury said I did not do a thing. The minister knows that just three or four weeks ago he and I chatted about a fire truck for Awrey and, with the assistance of the minister, we got a fire truck for Awrey. If the member says that getting a fire truck for the good people of Awrey is doing nothing, then I suggest he should go to Awrey and tell them that receiving a fire truck is not helpful to them.

He might try that. He might go to see some of the Finnish community. I was there on Saturday.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Give the government credit, now.

Mr. Martel: I just said that I worked with the minister responsible. The member is not the government, he is only a supporter of the government. That is his trouble. He thinks he is.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He is part of the government.

Mr. Martel: No, he is not. The minister does not understand the system either. He had better read the rule book. He had better read Lewis. He should read Lewis and see what he has to say about that. He might learn something about this zoo, too, because it does not say that. If the member wants to be a cabinet minister then he should get to the cabinet, but if he wants to take credit for things that he has never looked at then that is --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member for Sudbury supports everything we do so he has to take credit for it. He does not condemn us; he supports us.

Mr. Martel: Is that it? I am glad to hear it. That is what I was saying. He even went down and picked out where the passing lane should be installed on Highway 69 south. I hope that is what he did.

Mr. Gordon: Every time I drive home, I see those new passing lanes.

Mr. Martel: I want to tell my friend that the former member for Parry Sound, the member's good friend Lorne Maeck, used to quote me ad infinitum on my insistence that we have passing lanes until we could afford four lanes. Lorne Maeck will tell the member he quoted me extensively in all his campaigns and he supported that position.

Going back as far as 1971, when I was critic for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, I was recommending passing lanes. Ultimately, some of the member's colleagues started to put them in. I do not take credit for them putting them in. They had to make that decision. I brought the idea forward time after time during those estimates. For the member to suggest that he is doing things, such as the Occupational Health and Safety Resource Centre --

Mr. Gordon: That is the truth.

Mr. Martel: I happen to know very personally the minister who was responsible for bringing that through. I know when that money was granted.

Mr. Gordon: I know him too.

Mr. Martel: Yes. It says here that the member for Sudbury did it.

Mr. Gordon: Right on. I got in and fought for it.

Mr. Martel: By the time the member reached Queen's Park the fighting for the Occupational Health and Safety Resource Centre was over. It was just a case of the money becoming available in the next budget. I also knew that. Let the member tell the people of Sudbury what he wants to tell them. In fact, that is not true. That is the problem.

Let me talk about the throne speech --

The Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member about that. Order. Let us get this clear because --

Mr. Martel: I am going to, sir.

The Deputy Speaker: -- it looks as though we are headed for trouble.

Mr. Martel: No, no.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East ought to know the rules better than he does. He cannot charge another member with deliberate falsehood so let us not skirt around unless we trip into it.

Mr. Martel: I do not think I said that.

The Deputy Speaker: No, no. The member said that what the member for Sudbury told the people of Sudbury was not true.

Mr. Martel: That is right.

The Deputy Speaker: Under our rules, the member cannot make that statement in this House.

Mr. Martel: Wait a minute. Mr. Speaker. Here is the bloody letter that says he got the money for the occupational health and safety centre.

The Deputy Speaker: That may be so.

Mr. Martel: That is right. He did not --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member please take his seat.

Mr. Martel: I did not say he was lying.

The Deputy Speaker: In this House, the member for Sudbury East cannot accuse a member of that falsehood. The member said it was not true. What could be clearer than that?

Mr. Martel: I did not say he was lying.

The Deputy Speaker: According to our rules --

Mr. Martel: Then show me what our rules say.

The Deputy Speaker: No, no. It does not say "lying" in here.

Mr. Martel: Show me where our rules say it. Let me get my rule book. I carry one around.

The Deputy Speaker: Why does the member not carry on with the debate and not use that word "untrue" again, and look it up on the side?

Mr. Martel: All right. I will not even talk to the member for Sudbury. I was trying to be fair.

The Deputy Speaker: Look it up on the side, otherwise we are going to be withdrawing it.

Mr. Martel: I beg your pardon?

The Deputy Speaker: We will have to face withdrawing it if it is used again.

Mr. Martel: I am not even going to talk to the member for Sudbury any more. I am going to talk about the throne speech.

Mr. McClellan: At variance with the facts.

Mr. Martel: No, that is not good either. I was going to use the word "dissembling" but that is not very appropriate either. Reckless abandonment?

The throne speech really offered very little hope to us. As Stephen Lewis would say, it was bereft of substance; there were a lot of platitudes, but it was bereft of substance.

The problems of the Sudbury basin actually started in 1978. I remind some of the people who were on the select committee that we knew in 1978 we were heading for tough times in Sudbury, and the government has done very little.

We have put in a provincial building, but the outflow of people -- the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) was startled when I said that -- is more than 10,000 and the unemployment figure still remains at 16 per cent or 17 per cent. As my colleague indicated today, some 8,800 people will come off the unemployment insurance rolls by July or August.

We have had an outflow of 10,000, which is closer to 15,000. I am told that births as opposed to deaths were not calculated in the number of people who have left the city; they took people who were in residence on the tax rolls and simply calculated that, and it showed an outflow of 9,500 people. So we have 9,500, probably closer to 13,000 or 14,000, who left; we have unemployment at 17 per cent or 16 per cent; and we have 8,800 people coming off unemployment insurance benefits by October.

The Minister of Natural Resources can jump up when I say they have not done much, but we have known about this since 1978. Those of us on the select committee were told it was going to go downhill, that it would continue to go downhill to about 7,500 jobs at Inco; and this government has done virtually nothing to act as a catalyst or anything else to create or to help create permanent employment in the Sudbury basin -- nothing.

They stand condemned, because they cannot have those types of statistics and beat their breasts, as they are wont to do, to say they have done something on behalf of the residents or the people of Sudbury; they have not. The outflow has taken care of some of it, many are on unemployment insurance and many more are on welfare; and it is going to increase.

What have we done, having had that warning since 1978? We had some goats, yes. The government of Ontario helped to found Sudbury 2001; we had a few goats, which created a few jobs --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You were on the board of directors.

Mr. Martel: I helped to clear it up for the Minister of Northern Affairs, because his guys were delivering cheques to Ernest. Does the minister remember Ernest Schaffernicht, the goat farmer, getting his cheques down in Texas?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Go up and say that in Renfrew.

Mr. Martel: I did. Those beggars. What have they done besides a few goats in Sudbury? They gave Ernest his cheque and he picked it up down in Texas; they did a provincial building and they helped to establish 2001.

We had six years' warning. Even my friend the member for Sudbury knows that, because I believe he appeared before the select committee at that time and warned about having to have some diversification.

What have we done? My friend the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) was there. He knows full well that we had those warnings six years ago and nothing has happened. We have had an outflow of more than 10,000 people; we have had massive numbers on unemployment, 17 per cent; and we have 8,800 coming off by fall.

What have they done, really, and what is in the throne speech that is going to help us? There are a few jobs; we will get some. I give the member credit for the health stuff; it is going to create a few jobs; we appreciate it all.

Having had a six-year warning, what have we done to provide employment so our people will not have to leave the Sudbury region? There is not a thing in this throne speech that is going to help. Maybe it is going to come in the budget.

3:40 p.m.

Some 18 or 24 months ago my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and I started to try to put together a package of proposals. We sent them to the Minister of Northern Affairs in a document called A Challenge to Sudbury. Interestingly enough, most of the material in that document came from government studies at either the federal or provincial level, suggesting what could be done to diversify the economy in the Sudbury basin.

I have not heard from the Minister of Northern Affairs on what he thought might be functional in that proposal. He acknowledged the letter, but what in A Challenge to Sudbury --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We took it from Sudbury 2001, from the people in the community. It was not a New Democratic Party document we worked from. We worked from a people document.

Mr. Martel: We said where it came from. Perhaps he will read the document. We said most of the material came from government studies.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Not an NDP manifesto such as came out of Regina a few years ago.

Mr. Martel: I want to tell the minister once again he is wrong. He should try reading his mail. We indicated in our report, A Challenge to Sudbury, that most of the proposals came from government studies. The minister can try to play around with it, but most of the stuff in A Challenge to Sudbury was from the Ministry of Natural Resources in previous studies by Tom Mohide, I guess it was, and a number of people. Some of the recommendations came from the select committee report. I think the Minister of Natural Resources was a member.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Why does the member not start building up Sudbury instead of knocking it down?

Mr. Martel: I am trying to build it up.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Gloom and doom for 17 years. Jim Gordon is here because guys like the member have been running down Sudbury.

Mr. Martel: The minister talks about gloom and doom. Ten thousand people have left the Sudbury area. There is unemployment of 16 or 17 per cent and 8,800 people are coming off the unemployment list. What is there to be joyful about? We put this study together to try to get a response from the government. It did not respond in 1978 when it knew what was coming and it has not responded now.

We always get silly claptrap about, "Do not be so much in terms of gloom and doom." The minister might go and talk to the people in Sudbury who are losing their homes. It is not one or two. Many people are losing their homes and many people will be forced to move out because there is no affordable housing for them. The minister should tell them they are full of doom and gloom. That has been his response to everything ever since I came to this Legislature. When it was occupational health, it was gloom and doom.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have done everything for Sudbury it has asked us to do.

An hon. member: The member is creating the gloom and doom.

Mr. Martel: I am glad that is all the city has asked for. I say that to the member for Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have done it so well they sent a Tory member.

Mr. Martel: The minister should tell me what the government did.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: After 10 years of socialism they saw the light and sent a Tory member.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East will please carry on.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The proof of the pudding is in the votes.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I know. That is why 10,000 people have left Sudbury.

We put this package together and we tried to get a response from the federal authorities. We sent it to Erola.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was a socialist paper.

Mr. Martel: With that type of response, we can see why the proposal has not a chance of seeing the light of day. That minister said it was a socialist paper. He has not even listened when I say most of ideas came from the government's own studies.

That has been the problem in Sudbury. I had one of the Tories at city hall tell me recently the reason they have not yet dealt with the paper is that it was a New Democratic Party paper. It was not. Most of it came from federal studies or provincial studies by this government.

Rather than deal with it, we get nonsense from the Minister of Northern Affairs that it is a socialist paper. What has the minister done to provide permanent, long-lasting employment and diversification in the Sudbury basin? One of the things we proposed was a nickel institute.

I am just going to deal with the proposal we put forward that dealt with the resource base. It is interesting that recommendation came out of a government study, I think in 1977, which said we should have a nickel institute in Sudbury that would undertake an independent geological survey of the mineral resources of the whole area. It would implement strategies for increased domestic production of nickel-based products.

In fact, the select committee followed up the Mohide report and in its report of 1978 recommended a nickel institute in Sudbury to find out and try to assess all of the resources in that great basin. I think the Minister of Natural Resources is trying to move in on this now to some degree.

Mr. Haggerty: Is that the Jewett report?

Mr. Martel: Yes, it came out with the Jewett commission. The select committee recommended it in an effort to try to ascertain what resources we had, the market requirements, and what we could do in terms of production or the utilization of the resources of the Sudbury area here in Ontario, what we could use to replace the outflow of nickel in raw form.

Let me tell members about nickel. In 1981 Canada imported $21 million worth of stainless steel cutlery and cooking utensils. We have the nickel and iron ore to make both products right in Sudbury. What do we do? The government of Ontario does nothing; it sits blindly by. It will not act as a catalyst to try to bring that about and create jobs. In 1981 we imported $40 million worth of stainless steel surgical instruments. We could have used the nickel and the iron ore.

I am going to tell members how bad it is. Inco has to dump 100 million pounds of iron ore into the tailings area annually. Do members know why? The steel industry in southern Ontario says there is too much nickel in that iron ore to use it; so we annually dump 100 million pounds into the tailings area. Tell me our society can afford to throw away 100 million pounds. The steel industry says: "There is too much nickel in it."

Tell me a better way of using that material than to make those products from those commodities which we not only have an abundance of but where the iron ore has too much nickel to be used in rolling mills. We would not try to become the catalyst to do any of that, although little Sweden with nine million people is paramount in the world in the production of stainless steel.

We imported $241 million worth of valves, $43 million worth of heat exchangers, $22 million worth of dairy and milk product plant machinery, $92 million of X-ray equipment, and $83 million worth of gas turbines and parts -- all with large nickel content. What did we do? Did we do anything to act as a catalyst to try to alter that? The government had a warning starting in 1978 about the layoffs. Everyone knew in 1978 that Inco was going to get down to 7,500. It has done nothing.

When we make some suggestions that might be workable, many from the government's own studies, it just pooh-poohs it and says: "That is a socialist paper. So much for the people, to hell with them. Let them move. Let them lose their homes. Let them lose everything." So cavalierly do we dispense with it.

3:50 p.m.

We also suggested that if the government of Ontario were sincere about providing jobs, we would do the refining of nickel in the Sudbury basin. Falconbridge Ltd., which is not a small company -- it is owned by Superior Oil -- continues to send every pound of nickel to be refined in Norway. Falconbridge just laid off 1,400 workers, much more than a third of its work force. We take that nickel from the ground in Sudbury, put it in barrels and send it off to Norway to be refined. It makes a lot of sense, does it not? It creates that many jobs in Norway.

I have heard all the arguments. The Minister of Natural Resources argues that they could not get into the European common market. I do not know how the Russians got into the European common market, but they managed to wiggle their way in, but we cannot. Inco sends 35 per cent of its nickel abroad for refining. The government of Ontario has the power simply to enforce its own legislation, which says, "We will refine in Canada." But no, it continues to grant exemptions, and with those exemptions we continue to send out jobs.

For a number of reasons the government of Ontario must sit down and discuss with Inco the possibility of building a new smelter in Sudbury. One of them is that we are killing many of our lakes and rivers, if nothing else. I used to say a little prayer regularly that we could get the stack up high enough so the gas would go far enough south that it would start to affect parts of southern Ontario, and then we would find out just how serious the government was.

Mr. Wiseman: Don't start sending it down to Lanark.

Mr. Martel: I am trying to get it there. If it ever got to those areas where the fruit belt was damaged and so on, they would have to do something about it.

We need a refinery in Sudbury and we need a new smelter. From that new smelter we could establish, I hope, refining capacity sufficiently large to process Falconbridge.

I am told, again by the Mohide report or by one of the reports, that we have excess refining capacity in Canada now. We do not use that capacity; we send it abroad. There is something mad about a society that will not use its own resources in its own country for its own people but rather sends it abroad to Norway, to Clydach and everywhere else.

Falconbridge, which refines all the nickel from its mines in Ontario outside the country, has been granted yet another exemption from 1980 to 1989, authorizing the company to ship 100 million pounds of nickel-copper matte per year to its Norwegian refinery. The reason given is: "The capacity of existing refining facilities in Canada is inadequate to refine the applicant's nickel-copper matte, and the construction of a new facility by the applicant is presently economically unfeasible." I guess Falconbridge blew a bundle of money a number of years ago on a company that never turned a wheel after they had built the plant. Inco has an exemption as well.

What can we do with a new refinery and a new smelter? I say to my friend the Minister of Natural Resources that I was somewhat amazed because there are many things we could achieve with a new smelter and a new refining capacity.

We send out all the precious metals. We are the third-largest producer of the platinum group in the world, and it all leaves Canada to be refined somewhere else, not here in Canada. I hope that with a new smelter and the refining capacity we could do it here and create some jobs here. If we refined all the nickel from Falconbridge and Inco, we could do the same. We could create jobs here.

But we will not do that and we will not even try to become a catalyst at least for manufacturing. If we sent some of the nickel out, then fine. If we were going to put only some of that nickel into the manufactured goods I suggested we were importing heavily, we could say it balances off. But we do not do that either. We ship it out raw or semi-processed and buy it back by the boxcarful as finished commodities. And we wonder why we have 1.5 million Canadians unemployed.

It does not take any genius to understand that, and it is going to get worse with the new General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. There will be more factories leaving Ontario. The Ministry of Trade and Industry, I think, is now looking at 2,000 companies that are going to leave Ontario by 1988 when the full GATT agreement comes into effect. What are we preparing in that field? Nothing.

There is another thing we could do if we developed a new smelter. I hope the Minister of Natural Resources is listening, because when my friend the member for Nickel Belt and I suggested that we combine the sulphuric acid from the Sudbury area with the phosphates from Cargill township, the Minister of Natural Resources and the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) made a little game of it. I have this stuff; I cut it out.

The member for Cochrane North said, "Well, that guy Martel wants to take phosphates from my area," and he got up in an indignant state in the House one day. The minister who promised the food terminal jumped up and said: "I agree with you. We are not going to take these phosphates out and send them down to Sudbury. We are going to send them to the food terminal to be processed."

However, Topp, the beggar, wants to send it out of northern Ontario totally unprocessed. That is what it says in an interview with Topp in Northern Ontario Business. He wants to ship it out unprocessed. That is great stuff, is it not?

We have the two resources there, the sulphuric acid that Inco would produce and the phosphates from Cargill township, to produce fertilizer. But my friend the Minister of Natural Resources gets up and says, "We are not going to allow it to be moved out."

One of the reasons Sherritt Gordon says it cannot do it in Canada is that there is an inadequate supply of sulphuric acid.

Mr. Piché: No.

Mr. Martel: I am glad the member said no. I have the thing right here: "Sherritt Gordon is also having problems lining up a supplier of sulphuric acid. CIL Ltd. has the northern Ontario market tied up through purchase contracts with Inco Metals."

Let me tell my friend the latest out of Inco. I am glad he put his foot in it. It says here, in a presentation made by Inco to the United Steelworkers, Inco's acid plant capacity is 850,000 tons. They cannot sell 400,000 tons of it. Tell me that Sherritt Gordon cannot get an adequate supply. Baloney! That is the latest; it was sent to me on March 5, 1984.

Between the member and the minister, they are prepared to see it shipped out unprocessed rather than to take two communities in northern Ontario that could work together to create a product in the north, employing people in the north. They are so picayune about it.

In the Kapuskasing Times -- I do not know who owns the Kapuskasing Times; the member who owns it can stand if he wants to -- there is an editorial headed "Leave Our Grass Alone." I do not know who penned that great article. I have a suspicion he might be sitting in the House in the third row, on the back benches.

4 p.m.

The editorial says: "Sudbury East MPP Elie Martel seems interested in boosting the troubled economy of Sudbury at the expense of this region." What a lot of claptrap. They feel they are better off if they leave it in the ground and do not have any jobs up in Kapuskasing or in Sudbury. At least we will settle it. We will all be unemployed rather than produce something in northern Ontario, a new product involving people from Kapuskasing and Sudbury. They might build it halfway rather than kill it the way they did.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: As long as it goes somewhere. People could get rapid transit, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) promised in 1978 with the layoffs at Inco. None other than the Premier came to Sudbury and said, "What we need to look at here is rapid transit from Sudbury to Elliot Lake." We are still looking, and Elliot Lake is being built up in leaps and bounds. Most of the people have left their homes in Sudbury to buy new homes in Elliot Lake. The Premier said, "We could build a rapid transit system across the country for about 55 miles." That was more smoke to mesmerize the good folks.

What becomes frustrating is that we have potential, yet we get into this petty nonsense. We hear the Minister of Northern Affairs talking about "the socialist paper." We hear the Minister of Natural Resources saying: "We are going to keep it. We don't believe in sending it out." I wish the Minister of Natural Resources was as determined and tough about nickel not being sent out unrefined as he is about phosphates leaving the Kapuskasing area. He said: "I will not allow it to be moved out. This is government policy." Why does the minister let nickel out when he will not let phosphates out? He is full of phoneybaloney excuses.

Mr. Piché: I do not know where the member gets his information, but it is not correct.

Mr. Martel: I have the information before me, from an interview with Mr. Topp in the paper put out by Mr. Atkins. I heard the Minister of Northern Affairs using his name in vain a while ago. There was an interview with him headed, "Alan Pope Assures Piché Jobs Won't Be Exported." I wish he would assure the people of Sudbury the jobs will not be exported by allowing nickel to go to Norway under another exemption until 1989.

They will not even plan; they will not think. They would rather get involved in petit bourgeois nonsense than try to become the catalyst in developing a complex that could achieve a number of things: reduction of the emissions; total refining of nickel in the area; refining of the platinum group of which we are the third largest producer in the world; and a reduction in emissions by taking the sulphuric acids from Sudbury and combining them with the phosphates from Cargill -- halfway, if that will satisfy the minister -- and producing a product that would keep people in northern Ontario.

It goes on, just in this one area I am going to talk about, a complex for refining. If we built a new smelter in the Sudbury basin, there would be new technology developed in emission control. If the production of that equipment, because it was developed in Sudbury, went on in Sudbury, we could be selling that technology and creating jobs for youngsters in northern Ontario, maybe for Hydro equipment, or perhaps up in Wawa because of the emissions from the plant there; all across this province and for export. We would make up for some of the jobs that have disappeared by creating a new industry.

If we built that new smelting capacity, we would be developing new technology for environmental control. That is the sort of package the member for Nickel Belt and I tried to put together to present to the government. Each and every one of them has totally ignored it. This government and the federal government have systematically refused to look at that possibility or to become the catalyst.

If the government of Ontario wanted to be helpful, it could say to Inco: "We know you do not have the money today. We know you are running in the red and have been doing so for the past three or four years. But we are prepared to put up loan guarantees."

Better still, that new convert who sits in the Tory front benches, that greatest of right-wingers who used to be the Treasurer, none other than the former Treasurer, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), was in Sudbury recently. He was there to announce a 37.5 per cent equity participation by the government of Ontario in a company in Sudbury. That fellow was on the road to Damascus recently and obviously he was struck by a bolt of lightning.

At the luncheon he said: "I know what my friend Mr. Martel is going to say. 'Is there nothing these beggars will not nationalize?'" They are into it. If socialists say, "Take equity participation," it is horrible. If the Tories do it, it is fine. We finally convinced the jolly Miller that he should take equity participation, and he has done so for 37.5 per cent.

I am suggesting that if Inco is in financial trouble and cannot build that smelter, the government should say, "We will provide the loan guarantee." It would be better still if they said: "We will take you in as a partner. We will take a little equity."

We could develop that total complex, which could create many jobs in the long run as well as creating jobs for construction workers in the short run. It would replace the unemployment there with employment.

The government of Ontario has had six years to look at it. It has had nearly two years to respond to our paper and there has been nary a whimper.

The other thing I wanted to talk about, which ties it all together, is the production of mining equipment. When I was on the select committee in 1974, we finally got the Conservative members to sign. None other than the former Minister of Industry and Trade, the member for London South (Mr. Walker), signed that paper. He said, "We have to produce mining equipment in Ontario."

Hon. Mr. Walker: How can the member say that?

Mr. Martel: The minister signed it as member for London South.

Hon. Mr. Walker: How can the member raise these old things?

Mr. Martel: I just keep remembering them.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I will go back to some of the member's remarks.

Mr. Martel: I wish the minister would.

We called for it then. We have an annual trade deficit in mining equipment of $750 million. We are the largest importer of mining equipment despite the fact that we are the largest producer of mineral wealth in the world. Does it make sense when there is that much potential?

Again we need someone to act as a catalyst. We have simply not seen this government act as a catalyst in any major way. A little Band-Aid here, a little Band-Aid there, a little summer work, a winter job.

I received a letter today from a young graduate of Cambrian College. He said: "Mr. Martel, I have finished a three-year course. I got a job at $32,000 a year. I am now laid off. I am down to $11,000. I am destroyed. There is no future."

My office in Sudbury is inundated with young and middle-aged people looking for a job. It is heart-wrenching to go to the office to meet these people, because one knows the only solution is for them to forgo their homes, pick up their families and go somewhere else where they might find jobs.

This government could act as the catalyst in a number of ways, utilizing the abundance of natural resources we have for the benefit of the people of this province. It would rather sit by and tinker with it.

4:10 p.m.

As I said, the minister came in and said, "We will take 37.5 per cent equity." Why do the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt), the Minister of Natural Resources and perhaps the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) not come in and say to Inco: "We definitely need this smelter and everything that could be developed from it. We will provide loan guarantees"? It would take a number of years to get it going, but it would provide hope for young people who do not have a job or the hope of a job. Let us look at it.

Sudbury has been in existence for 100 years. In 100 years we have not had one company that produces something from the resources that are extracted. If the government thinks it is going to happen by itself, it is crazy. It is not going to happen by itself. The government is going to have to act as a catalyst in some way, it is hoped with participation by the federal government. The region cannot do it.

Various ministers have attempted to hide behind the Tom Davies reports in the three emergency debates we had last year on the situation in Sudbury. I listened to it ad nauseam. We are waiting for Tom Davies and his committees to report. I have a copy of a report being prepared by Tom Davies. My colleague the member for Nickel Belt quoted extensively from it last week.

It is interesting what they have adopted. When they appeared before the Macdonald commission, I read their presentation. Many of the ideas we had in A Challenge to Sudbury were plagiarized from Ontario and federal government studies. We brought them together, threw in a few of our own ideas and presented it. The majority of those ideas came from Ontario and federal government studies.

They are saying the government could act as a catalyst. The region cannot create the employment that is necessary; it does not have the capacity to do it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are trying. They are doing everything in their power. Give them credit for what they are trying to do.

Mr. Martel: That is precisely the point I am making. The minister makes the point for me. They have worked like mad creating short-term jobs; I will give them credit for that. But they cannot provide the long-term security that is necessary. That is the minister's responsibility. He sits on his haunches and says I am being pessimistic. He sits there doing nothing.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member is knocking them all the time and pushing them down. He should build them up a little. He knows what I mean.

Mr. Martel: Pushing who down? Where is this guy from? Do the members have any idea?

Can the minister tell me what he has suggested in diversification for long-term benefits since he became a minister? His attitude is, "Just let it ride."

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The list is endless, right across Ontario.

Mr. Martel: The list is what? In long-term diversification in the north? Let him tell me where. Let him surprise me.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member has blinkers on. He should go around northern Ontario and see what is happening.

Mr. Martel: Can the minister tell me what this long-term diversification of his is? Can he give me a few examples of the diversification?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member does not want to listen anyway.

Mr. Martel: Will the minister tell me what he has done in Sudbury? Come on. Let him tell me about the diversification.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Does the member want to hear it?

Mr. Martel: Did you say I do not want to hear it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He should go around northern Ontario and see for himself. Things are happening.

An hon. member: Tell us.

Mr. Martel: Yes, tell us. I have read some of René Piché's --

Mr. Piché: When was the last time the member was outside Sudbury?

Mr. Martel: What?

Mr. Piché: When was the last time he travelled the north outside Sudbury?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: René, I was in your area three weeks ago at a conference on cancer. Were you there?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sudbury East will carry on. I remind the member that we are all mindful --

Mr. Martel: I was going to say, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We are all mindful that we should refer to other honourable members either by their titles, if they are ministers, or by their ridings. That might help the debate and lessen the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He needed a rest anyway.

Mr. Martel: I needed that little respite. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would love to stay, but I have to go.

Mr. Martel: I wish the minister would go, because we are not going to reach him anyway. It is hard to permeate stone. One cannot get through it. Nothing sinks in.

I have heard the guttural remarks through interjections, "Doom and gloom." When 10,000 people leave an area in five years, there is something to be gloomy about. When 8,800 people are going to go off the unemployment insurance list by September, that is something to be gloomy about. My friend can say it is gloom and doom.

What have they done, knowing six years in advance it was coming? They knew it. I believe the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) was on the select committee on Inco layoffs.

Mr. Van Horne: No.

Mr. Martel: No? There were three or four members, anyway. To what end? Everyone knew.

Before I switch to another topic, I say to the government, for God's sake, look at A Challenge to Sudbury. If government members do not agree with it, let them respond. If there is something in there that is worth while, let them pick it up and run with it, and become the catalyst for developing northern Ontario. I hope the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) agrees, because he has felt the problem in Nipissing.

I want to talk briefly, while the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) is here --

Mr. Van Horne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to clarify the confusion about my being on the Inco closures committee. I sat on the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment. By the way, that committee did make a report to the Legislature that I do not believe was acted upon. Maybe that proves the point for the honourable member.

Mr. Martel: It helps. I thank the member.

I want to talk to my friend the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Back in 1972 or 1973, the minister will recall, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) had a study instituted by his friend, one Bill McMurtry. The study made certain recommendations. A number of years later, we had another study; a very good study, by the way. I thought the McPherson report was excellent. If we could implement the attitude that was in the report, if we could ever get it across to the public, we would have a great game out there again.

I am not interested in government intervention in the sense that we intervene and pass laws. But I ask the minister responsible, when have we had enough? That is what is worrying me. We have had two major studies in a 10-year or 12-year period. There has also been Larry Regan's study out of Ottawa. I am trying to get a copy of that now so I can have a look at it, because I believe Regan indicated there were serious problems. I know the minister got Syl Apps trying to do some work to curb what is going on.

I do not know how long we can go on. That is my concern. It is a question I raised with the minister yesterday. If we know, for example, that blind-siding is causing aggravation and serious injuries, I am not sure why we do not say, "You will adopt this and we will prevent it." It is as simple as that. I understand the complexity of that maze out there. I have done nothing for a week and a half but talk to people on this issue. My phone has not stopped ringing. I say that honestly. Parents, legal officials, just about everyone has called me.

I understand the complexity. How many branches are there? There are at least 10 official leagues. We have church leagues, we have leagues that operate outside the church and outside the other leagues. We have a morass, and everybody wants to be a big frog in a small pond. They all want their own rules applied in their own way. No one wants to give an inch in terms of uniformity, of regulating the game; they all have their own little

interpretation. I really do not know how one gets to it. That is why I am talking to people every day.

I do not how we say to volunteers, "It makes more sense to do it this way, so everybody is on the same level." We are doing things in a uniform fashion for the benefit of kids. There are too many coaches, although I hate to say it. They are all applying for the job that became vacant today from Harold Ballard. Every one of those guys think he is going to the big leagues -- not every one of them, but a lot of them, unfortunately; I have seen some good coaches.

4:20 p.m.

We were in Elliot Lake two years ago -- it was my oldest boy's last year of juvenile -- and we were getting our clock cleaned. Not physically; I think the score was 14 to one, and a couple of our kids had been hurt.

All of a sudden some guy from Elliot Lake, the juvenile league, throws a punch. Do members know what that coach did? He got him over to the side and said: "You go to the dressing room and take your equipment off. You can play in the second game tomorrow, but we do not tolerate that." The second kid said to the coach, "If you are going to do that to my friend, I am quitting too." The coach said: "Fine. You go in there, take your equipment off and you go home too."

The coach came around afterwards and we had a long chat. I said, "You know, I really admire what you did." He said: "It is really nothing to be admired. I am here so those kids have fun. They are not going to the National Hockey League. It is sport, it is fun and we should be developing the skills."

I thought to myself, "If every coach in this province had that attitude, the refereeing would not be nearly as tough as it is." People can blame the referees all the time, but as a former teacher and principal I can tell members that I set the tone for the school at the beginning of the year. I used to say to the teachers, "For the first month be tough, and then ease up; because once children know how far they can go, they will go to that point and not beyond."

I say to those people who are coaching that if the players under them know they can go only so far, if the coach is not going to stand stickswinging and cross-checking, then it is not going to happen. It will certainly reduce the job of the referees. It is a very difficult job those people have: different leagues, catering to one set of rules in one game and another set of rules in another; it is just a horrible situation, and they are mostly volunteers. I know some of them are up tight because of what I said, but one has to jolt them, because the injuries are there.

I was amazed, though, at the responses from those people who are responsible for the league, because they want to maintain it; they want to continue this system. I say to the minister, it is long overdue.

How do we form an umbrella group; or if we cannot form an umbrella group how do we put all the pieces of the puzzle together to be able to reach coaches? There is no other way we are ever going to get it, I would suspect, until we have a group that represents everyone and we sit down together and try to work out agreements. I do not know how the minister is going to do it.

I have suggested that the game is a game of hockey, it is a sport and a skill and we should get rid of bodily contact up to age 16. Let me quote from Father R. J. Cullen, one of the many letters I have received. He is a hockey coach at Assumption College in Windsor. He said:

"I was very interested in the media reports of your disgust with current teenage hockey theory and practice. The Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations has been attempting to encourage skilful hockey as an alternative to rough hockey. The enclosed paper was sent to all high school hockey associations in Ontario last October. The leagues that tried to implement it were not completely happy with the results."

I just want to read one paragraph about the problem as they see it.

"The problem: Hockey is a game, not war nor a vocation. Success at all cost is not necessary. It should be a game of skill, not physical confrontation. The emphasis should be on the movement of the puck, not the crashing of bodies. We must praise the player skilled in his skating, passing, stickhandling and shooting, not the player who can eliminate these skills by interference, charging, holding or hooking. According to the rule book, hockey is not by nature a contact sport. Rules limit the use of the body. To describe a hockey team as physical is a contradiction. When the player starts chasing the man instead of the puck he is on the wrong path."

How much sense is there in that paragraph? "When the player starts chasing the man instead of the puck." I have to respond to Father Cullen, because those high school teachers who are trying to move to that sort of game will have a better game than we now have.

People have said to me: "You are going to stifle it. You are trying to kill it." What about the statistics about dropouts in the last seven or eight years? I recall when the last study was done -- the minister might correct me if I am wrong -- I believe there was a drop of about 150,000 participants over a three- or four-year period. Why?

In my own case, my three boys quit hockey. They said to me: "It is not fun, Dad. It is not fun because we have an attitude that we are going to win in what in too many areas is at all costs." We do not have an attitude that first and foremost it is a sport for youngsters to develop. It is the finest game on earth and we do not need the mayhem that is there.

I have said the age level should be 16 for bodychecking. I say that for good reason. I recall from my teaching days that some of the most gangly kids were the 12-, 13- and 14-year-old kids who shot up suddenly. They do not have co-ordination. When they were smaller, they might have had better co-ordination but when they start that big jump at ages 12, 13 and 14 that can see them grow a foot or 18 inches in a year or a year and a half, the co-ordination is not there.

Have members ever been to a school dance where there are grades 7, 8, 9 and 10 kids? If they had, they would see the kids are unco-ordinated. Some stalk around like giraffes because they do not have co-ordination. That comes. What I am saying is we have to wait until they are at an age where that maturity and skill is there.

I suspect one can teach body-checking the proper way quite easily once they have acquired all the other skills such as shooting, passing, stickhandling and picking up the puck properly without having to look at the i