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

June 10, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

MUNICIPAL ELECTION REFERENDUM

REORGANIZATION OF MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

WITHDRAWAL OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL SALES TAX

TAX BURDEN

INCREASE IN INSURANCE COSTS

SKF CANADA LTD.

RETAIL SALES TAX

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

EMPLOYMENT IN SUDBURY

ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CORP.

EMPLOYMENT IN SUDBURY

GROUP HOMES FOR MENTAL PATIENTS

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NATIVE PEOPLES' RIGHTS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

NATIVE PEOPLES' RIGHTS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in my place today to express what I know is a generally held sentiment throughout this legislature and throughout our province and country. It is on the sensitive and critical issue of nuclear disarmament. I know that others in this House will want an opportunity to express their views, and we welcome that.

Ever since the use of atomic weapons in the closing stages of the Second World War, thoughtful people throughout the world have sensed the tremendous responsibility that we all share to avoid the catastrophic and unthinkable devastation of a nuclear conflict. The government of our country has participated in many discussions on the issue of nuclear disarmament and in the general area of mutual balanced force reduction.

These discussions have involved administrations of both Conservative and Liberal affiliation, and represent the genuine expression on the part of our national government of sentiments that relate to the common desire that Canadians share for peace and for international sanity.

Matters of foreign policy and matters of defence policy obviously do not fall within the constitutional responsibilities of the government of our province. Therefore we have been, in the past, genuinely reticent to express explicit points of view in areas of international negotiation or foreign policy. Such matters are justifiably the responsibility of the government and Parliament of our nation.

Nevertheless, there are certain issues that are so wide-reaching and of such global significance to each and every one of us as human beings and as citizens of the world, that we have a responsibility to search our conscience and share with ourselves the things we care about most.

I believe the nations of the west, and in particular our ally to the south, the United States of America, have shown considerable restraint in the face of consistent Soviet and Communist provocation. We should remember Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland; all of these might well have provoked some military confrontation.

The restraint the west has shown constitutes a significant investment in international stability and peace despite our deeply felt abhorrence of the rank disregard for international sovereignty that the Soviet Union has shown.

There can be no question, as British troops defend democratic principles and freedoms in the Falkland Islands, that perseverance and continuing vigilance are necessary if democratic freedoms are to survive, and if international sanity is to be preserved. The United Kingdom, and the fighting men and women who work together under her banner, are fighting for all of us who believe in peace and in international order.

It is a desire for international order along with simple human decency that moves people to wish for a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons that exist worldwide. It is very important, and I think most hopeful, that the government of the United States of America is prepared to pursue talks in this direction with the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

This does not represent an easy initiative on the part of an administration which is justifiably committed to maintaining America's capacity to defend herself and to discharge her responsibilities within the western alliance. That America should take that step for peace today is a tribute to the innate decency of her people, the farsightedness of her administration and the commitment of that administration to a better world for all people.

2:10 p.m.

What is important is that we understand there is a price to pay for peace and a price to pay for freedom. Canadians have not been known for their extreme views on matters of international politics. We have been known, however, to make sacrifice for principle and to do so at great cost to the men and women who have defended this nation through three wars.

It is for them that the generation of which every member of this Legislature is a part has a duty to express its concern as citizens and human beings. International peace and stability cannot survive if those who would threaten that stability remain unchecked. Similarly it is as courageous to fight for peace and conciliation as it isto respond militarily when other responses are possible. I hope that our children and their children will be spared the horror of war, and above all the unthinkable horror of nuclear war.

I believe the government of this country would be eager to reflect the views of Canadians and in so doing express abroad what so many of us feel in our hearts. In so doing, we should not be naive about those who have used violence and military methods in the past to advance their purposes. In so doing, we should not condone practices, policies and discrimination which so typify modern-day communism as it is practised by the totalitarians in the Soviet Union. In so doing, we must remember and sustain the principles of freedom and self- determination, the principles of democracy and humanity for which Canadians died and which are so critical to the survival of our society.

A matter that we are reflecting upon is the ultimate question of man's humanity or inhumanity to man. That is a matter beyond any jurisdictional analysis; it is a matter of personal conscience, personal responsibility and personal intelligence.

Those honestly working for peace and nuclear sanity have the support of all of us who care deeply about future generations and the responsibility that we, as individuals, have to them.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my party to associate myself and our party with the remarks made by the Premier in his sensitive statement today. I am one of those who, I am sure like many members of this House, are terribly impressed with the broad-based movement in this regard and the number of people from all walks of life who have associated themselves in a sometimes spontaneous and sometimes organized way to bring some sanity to international negotiations today. I am one of those who is very happy to see individual communities and municipalities involving themselves in this great and most significant of international debates.

It seems to me there is more we can do as provincial members of parliament than just make pious speeches. We have been asked by many people to get involved in allowing the municipalities, through enabling legislation here, to include the matter of international disarmament on a referendum in the municipal ballot. There is no question that a lot of us feel that is a legitimate exercise of municipal responsibility.

My colleague the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) has introduced a bill. If the government would prefer, I would be very happy to support any bill they would like to bring forward on this subject. I am sure, with the good feeling in this House, we could arrange for speedy passage of that legislation which would give substance to our collective feelings on this issue.

I recognize that this is not a partisan issue. I recognize that each person is involved, as the Premier said, with his own conscience and his own feeling. But at the same time, rather than just speaking or feeling, perhaps we should ask ourselves what we can positively do. I believe this one small step by this Legislature would help to give credence to this important and significant movement right across this province, right across this country and right across this world.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I also want to associate myself on behalf of the New Democrats with the remarks made by the Premier and by the leader of the official opposition.

As members know, I have been working with my friends the members for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and circulating some resolutions expressing concern about disarmament and support for a world referendum on disarmament. That has been done on a tripartisan basis for some time. I think it is appropriate that we in this Legislature should be able to speak on the most important issue facing mankind -- survival -- with the participation of every party and all sides of the political spectrum instead of seeking to do it just from one party or another.

Some weeks ago I was up on Parliament Hill at a rally and I shared a platform with an Ottawa alderman, Darrel Kent, who is a well-known Conservative. Afterwards I said to him, "I am surprised to hear you making those comments about peace and disarmament." He said, "This is an issue that does not respect party lines; it is something that touches us all." I felt good then, as I do now, to be associated with people in all walks of political life in expressing concern over disarmament.

A number of members of the Legislature took half an hour this afternoon to view the film If You Love This Planet, which featured Dr. Helen Caldicott, the chairman of Physicians for Social Responsibility, and which showed some of the implications of what nuclear war would do to this planet were it ever to break out. As she said, the Americans and the Russians both have enough weaponry now not just to kill the populations of each other's countries once or twice, but 20, 30 or 40 times overkill is now in the nuclear arsenals. Sad to say, there are still plans to increase them unless we, all of the citizens of this world, can find some way to stop it.

A single Polaris submarine or a single Russian nuclear submarine with multitargeted missiles has enough power basically to wipe out every city and town in the Soviet Union, in western Europe and in the United States in the course of one exchange. A nuclear war would not be war as we know it; it would be over in the course of half an hour or an hour. Whether civilization would survive in any way after that is hard to say. As Dr. Caldicott said, it may be that those who lived would envy those who had died.

Some of us have been watching very closely, as the Premier said, the tragic war now taking place in the Falkland Islands. We saw today that report of a black day for the British when their landing ships were bombed by Argentinian planes and a large number of crewmen and soldiers were tragically wounded and killed. That is just a small number, though, compared to those who would be affected by even the smallest nuclear exchange.

If a nuclear war were ever to break out we would have no guarantee -- this is one of the tragic parts of it -- that either side, that any of the parties, would know how to restrain themselves. There is no guarantee they would know how to prevent one small exchange from escalating into a global exchange that would mean a nuclear holocaust and bring an end to society as we know it.

We have to find a way to take our nuclear swords and turn them into ploughshares. Of course, we have to try to do it in a way that is balanced, that is staged and that recognizes that there are opposing systems and that people do have deep-seated distrust which has developed over many, many years. It is worth noting, however, that there have been no violations of the nuclear treaties that have been made up until now and that the nations of the world have been prepared to respect those treaties. Perhaps they could carry that principle further.

Canadians have been prepared to fight when necessary. We are also a peace-loving people, and I hope we can find means of leading where necessary too. Such initiatives as the letter that Mayor Marion Dewar of Ottawa is now sending not just to municipalities in this country but around the world suggesting referendums, I think should be encouraged in whatever ways we know now. Such initiatives may lead to finding a way in which the people of this planet can say some things to the leaders of this planet about what priority they put on survival.

What can we in this Legislature do? I hope that, in addition to those many MPPs who have already endorsed the two resolutions being circulated, all MPPs can see their way fit to endorse those resolutions. I hope we can find other means to continue a concern about peace and disarmament. I hope we could find a way among the three parties, without trying to claim advantage to any particular side, to make it possible for those municipalities wishing to have referendums not to be held back because of the fear of legal constraints.

The large municipalities do not see that as a problem because they have the resources, if needs be, to fend off a challenge, but the smaller municipalities do not have those legal resources. I believe we can act in order to make it possible for them to proceed.

No issue is more important than survival on this planet, than life or death, than the kind of world that we bequeath to our children, and our children's children, and our children's children's children. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the Premier's remarks and hope that we in this Legislature, although this is not in our primary area of confidence or of responsibility, can do what we can in order to encourage the cause of peace and the cause of balanced disarmament.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the statement made by the Premier on the vexed question of peace and disarmament, and on nuclear peace and nuclear disarmament, and peaceful uses of atomic energy and warlike uses of atomic energy. I want to take the opportunity of participating very briefly in this exchange on such an important issue.

I cannot help but recall to the assembly, however, that Canada was a participant, with the United Kingdom and the United States, in the original use of nuclear power. Unfortunately for us, it was used for a warlike and destructive purpose.

I was astounded to read just recently, as more and more information becomes available about the events leading up to the decision by the major powers to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, that whatever justification there may have been for the dropping of the initial bomb with a view to bringing to an end the war in the east with Japan, there was in my judgement no justification whatsoever for the dropping of the second bomb by the powers at that time.

I have great respect for the leadership of the nations at that time, but this is a warning to the leadership of the nations at this time. The second bomb was not dropped for any other purpose than to test a second nuclear device of a different kind from the first. It is only recently I learned that. The distinction is one that had never been made before.

As we in Canada take the position that we are for peace and disarmament, I think we have a special responsibility to cross party lines and indeed unite the nation on this issue.

I hope we will stand united on the issue of peace and disarmament in the face of a virulent reassertion of nationalism in various parts of the world. That kind of nationalism will always defeat the cause of internationalism, the cause of peace, the cause of disarmament, which cross the borders of all the nations of the world. It will do so unless it is possible to reflect in our institutions this significant wave of concern existing among people throughout the world about the possible horrors of nuclear war, about the possible horrors of war generally, as it is brought to our attention almost every day in the newspapers.

There is a point I wish to address to the leadership of the government of this province. If I could in any way find myself capable of believing that one can distinguish the peaceful uses of atomic and nuclear energy from nonpeaceful uses, then I would support the development of the technology for those peaceful uses.

But I do think that we, in this province, are a participant in a borderline question when we are engaged in exporting for our own economic purposes the Candu reactor to other countries, believing with the best will in the world that somehow or other the recipients are going to abide by the kind of rules we hope we could learn to abide by ourselves with respect to the misuse of nuclear power for warlike purposes.

I am not suggesting for a moment this is a matter which can be settled in a debate in this assembly. It is a matter of ongoing concern. But my present position has led me to believe over the course of time that one cannot effectively distinguish nuclear peace from nuclear war and the use of the technology for peace from the use of the technology for war.

Therefore I am, and have been over a period of time, driven to the conclusion that this province and country should be one of the first jurisdictions of the world to renounce the use of nuclear power for any purpose until such time -- if there ever should be such a time when one can distinguish the peaceful uses -- as it can be ensured that nuclear power is used for peaceful purposes and it can be made certain it cannot be used for nonpeaceful purposes.

With those comments I appreciate the initiative taken by the government in which all parties join.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, following the Premier's remarks, I think he seems to be following the crowd to see which way it is going. This statement has been long overdue.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: I am suggesting --

Mr. Speaker: You are out of order. Please resume your seat.

Mr. Kerrio: You were mistaken --

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not. He has not really identified what he was going to do.

Mr. Sargent: I have the same rights they have on this very important matter.

Mr. Speaker: All right. That is all I wanted to hear. Thank you.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, you should have known that. I said the Premier's statement is long overdue. As a private citizen and member of this House, I think he should move to condemn the pending shipment of atomic fuel bundles to Argentina at this time because of the unknown end use of that material. He should make a positive statement in this regard.

MUNICIPAL ELECTION REFERENDUM

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier was asked a question relating to municipal votes on nuclear disarmament. I am pleased at this time to share with the House my opinion and that of my senior crown law officers with respect to this issue.

Of particular concern to the public, members of municipal councils and members of this Legislature is the question of whether a municipal election would be declared null and void by a court if a municipal council authorized the placing of a question on nuclear disarmament on the municipal election ballot.

It is not possible to state categorically that no municipal election could ever be declared null and void as a result of a court challenge in such circumstances. However, it is my opinion and that of my senior advisers that it would be most unlikely a municipal election would be declared null and void only for the reason that a question on nuclear disarmament appeared on the ballot.

An election could be set aside only if it were established that an irregularity occurred of a kind which affected the result of the election for a particular candidate. It is almost impossible to conceive of a situation where any candidate could convince a court that the placing of such a question on a municipal ballot had affected the vote in relation to that candidate.

The issue of whether a particular municipal bylaw placing a referendum question on a municipal ballot is lawful or not may be for the courts to decide. However, I would offer the opinion that anyone seeking to upset the results of a municipal election because an unauthorized question was also put to the electorate undertakes an almost impossible task.

2:30 p.m.

REORGANIZATION OF MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of the Environment faces a set of challenges which are radically different from those challenges it faced at the time of its inception 10 years ago. These new challenges have led the ministry to reconsider its raison d'être.

As a result, the ministry recently adopted the following goal statement: To achieve and maintain a quality of environment, including air, water and land, that will protect human health and the ecosystem and will contribute to the wellbeing of the people of Ontario.

With these needs in mind I am pleased to introduce today a new Ministry of the Environment organization, one which will have solid foundations to meet the environmental challenges facing Ontario today and in the future.

The primary objectives of the ministry's reorganization are: to ensure systematic planning; to provide better service to various client groups and strengthen several existing programs; to increase the capability of the ministry to respond effectively to pressing issues; and to establish and reinforce the vehicles for policy development and long-range planning.

Mr. William Bidell has been appointed to co-ordinate the implementation of this reorganization, which will be effective not later than August 3 of this year. Mr. Bidell will apply his extensive administrative and managerial experience, acquired through many years of service to the government of Ontario. I might say that my colleague to my left hastens to remind me that much of that experience was in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and that is correct. Mr. Bidell will apply that experience and skill to the task of implementing the reorganization plan.

A new position of senior adviser to the minister has been established to assist the minister and the ministry in developing a new mechanism for arriving at environmental standards that will ensure public input into the development of such standards. Mr. Brad Drowley has been selected to fill this important position. He will also continue to chair the Ontario- Canada task force until the submission of its report in October of this year.

There will be an enhanced environmental planning division consisting of the existing branches in air resources, water resources, waste management, and laboratory services and applied research, as well as a new hazardous contaminants and standards branch and the creation of an environmental assessment branch. The head of this division will be selected through a competition process.

The new hazardous contaminants and standards branch will have very major responsibilities. The branch will be responsible for coordinating the 'development of regulatory programs for the control of hazardous contaminants, and for establishing environmental standards which are integral to the environmental protection programs.

The new environmental assessment branch will co-ordinate the ministry's responsibilities under the Environmental Assessment Act. There will be a competition for the position of director of this new branch.

An intergovernmental relations and strategic projects division is being established to coordinate the ministry's efforts in dealing with pressing environmental concerns where solutions require co-operation and involvement with other jurisdictions. This division is of paramount importance. It will have to address issues that transcend organizational lines and indeed provincial and national boundaries. This approach will, I feel, serve us well in addressing the many complex issues of the day.

As head of the intergovernmental relations and strategic projects division, Mr. Walter Giles will have the title of associate deputy minister, commensurate with the importance we place on the activities that have been assigned to this division and on our negotiations to resolve transboundary problems. This is not, however, creating a three-tier structure, and all division heads in the ministry, including this position, will continue to report directly to the deputy minister.

Initially, the following groups will be assigned to this division: the acid precipitation study co-ordination office, the Niagara river improvement project, the waste disposal site project, and the intergovernmental relations office.

The policy and planning branch, to be headed by Mr. André Castel, will have the responsibility to evaluate the ministry's policies, programs and resource needs, and to co-ordinate the effective management and utilization of ministry resources. The branch will provide the technical links essential for the divisions jointly to achieve the ministry's corporate objectives. The branch will also assume responsibility for external research.

The responsibilities of the regions will remain basically as they are and the regions will continue to report through an assistant deputy minister, regional operations division. There will also be a competition for this position. A new environmental approvals and project engineering branch will form part of this division as well.

The consolidation of most of the approvals functions and the engineering expertise within one branch will enhance the one-window approach and permit a more efficient use of the staff. This branch will review and process applications under the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act. It will also encourage the development of water supply and sewage treatment facilities and continue rendering this vital service to the municipalities.

I have, for the convenience of the honourable members, copies of our report entitled, Meeting the Environmental Challenges of the 1980s, which explains and describes the role and objectives of each organizational area.

I believe the organization I have outlined today will give the ministry the means and scope to deal effectively with environmental concerns of the future as well as to continue to provide a high level of service to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have always listened with much interest to the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) report at length about major departmental reorganization, so I was concerned to read today's Order Paper in which the Honourable Alan Pope, QC, MPP, is reported to be the Minister of the Environment. I was wondering if there were parts of the reorganization that the member for Kingston and the Islands did not speak to.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am beginning to think I may have a profile problem. I notice in an

article which was handed to me from the Sarnia Observer that reference is made, quoting a person from Toronto, suggesting that she received a letter on Wednesday "from the Ontario Environment Minister Claude Bennett," so I am not sure where we stand.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you had better check your mail when you get back.

WITHDRAWAL OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege:

On Tuesday evening after one of my moderate and controlled chastisements of the people on that side, you brought me to order by saying that I had used unparliamentary language. At that time I had called the people on the other side hypocrites, or at least I had said their policies were hypocritical.

I was surprised by that ruling and, being the good practitioner that I am, I thought I would go to the library and verify the precedents about the use of "hypocrite." I found that prior to 1958 there may have been some basis for the --

Mr. Shymko: You said "bandit."

Mr. Roy: I will deal with the word "bandit" later.

Mr. Speaker: No, please don't.

Mr. Sweeney: That has already been declared appropriate.

Mr. Roy: Prior to 1958, apparently there were precedents indicating the word "hypocrite" may have been unparliamentary. But the latest ruling in 1975 from the then Speaker, the Honourable Lucien Lamoureux, who had a great reputation for establishing very fair and judicious precedent, was this: "The honourable member for Prince George-Peace River says that his alleged question of privilege will provide the opportunity for an apology to be made, presumably for the calling of members of the opposition cynics and hypocrites.

There is nothing unparliamentary about that language." He states: "It is a matter of disagreement. If I were to take steps to purge all discussion in this House of language of that sort, it would become a dull place indeed."

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would bring this precedent to your attention and ask for a perusal of the authorities. I say in all honesty, according to the precedent, there was nothing unparliamentary.

There may have been something unparliamentary about the word "bandit." I researched that as well, and there is no precedent on the word "bandit," although there are precedents on the words "criminal" and "crook." I thought I would bring these matters to your attention, Mr. Speaker.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that very much. The honourable Speaker to whom you refer is entitled to his opinion, as I am entitled to mine, and I stand by my ruling.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: There is ample precedent for it, and I am not going to quote it again. As I say, we have established a precedent of our own, perhaps.

Oral questions, the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if you could tell us whether or not the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) intends to make a statement concerning the very disturbing rumours out of Sudbury today that would have Falconbridge extending for another three weeks what is already a 10-week shutdown and laying off up to 1,000 more workers.

Mr. Speaker: I think that may be more appropriately asked in the proper period.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We are in fact seeking a ministerial statement on the matter before --

Mr. Speaker: The time for ministerial statements has expired.

Mr. Laughren: That is why I asked the question when I did.

Mr. Foulds: The point of order was raised when it was before ministerial statements expired.

Mr. Speaker: No, it was not, with all respect. The time for ministerial statements expired five minutes ago. I remind all honourable members, in case they have forgotten, that it is Thursday afternoon, private members' afternoon.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this is a point of order or a point of privilege, but I think it is a legitimate point and I would like it to be heard. The minister involved is not present, but I would like you to review Hansard and report back to the Legislature.

On May 31, I raised a question in the Legislature regarding a nursing home in St. Thomas. The minister indicated that he would get the information and report back to the Legislature, as he did on June 4. I would like very briefly to quote what he said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not really interested in what he said; I would just like to hear your point of privilege or order.

Mr. Cooke: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that you have to listen to these two paragraphs for me to make my point.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I will have to rule you out of order because of your opening statement. Would you resume your seat, please? I have mentioned to all honourable members that it is not my duty or responsibility to look into matters and report back to the House.

Mr. Cooke: Then will you let me ask you a question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in the standing orders that provides you the opportunity of asking me a question.

Mr. Cooke: Could you tell me what I am to do as a private member when a minister deliberately prevents --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will you please resume your seat? The most appropriate way is to ask the minister a question when he is here, quite obviously.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Peterson: I have a question for the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of four gentlemen who are sitting in the Speaker's gallery representing the mobile catering association. In two days they have collected some 50,000 signatures -- if the Treasurer does not believe it, he can count them -- to a petition that says:

"I am herein acknowledging that this provincial government has abused their use of power in taxation. We the undersigned are joining all retailing merchants in protesting and denying you this further abuse of our livelihoods."

They have a very important case to make. They requested a meeting with you, Mr. Treasurer, and you will not meet with them; they requested a meeting with the Treasurer and he will not meet with them. They are asking, I am asking and many people in this province are asking the minister to allow the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act to go to committee for a full and open hearing in order to hear these people who have become disaffected because of this bill.

I would like to deliver these 50,000 signatures to the Treasurer. There are many more thousands to come. Why will the Treasurer not allow these people to present their case to this House?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, getting that many responses today makes the horoscope the Star has printed about me today sound a little true. It says, "You could win a 'popularity contest.'" I am not sure that is a popularity contest.

I would like to say I do not know of any refusal to meet. If the member is talking about the Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association --

Mr. Peterson: No, the Mobile --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- I am only suggesting that up to this point I have been very careful, in so far as I know, in the letters I have signed replying to people who have written in after the budget, not to say that I cannot see them. We saw two groups of people this morning. The Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association saw my staff and I in turn saw the Ontario Trucking Association. It is a logical part of every post-budget period to have a number of groups of people wanting to see the Treasurer.

In the main, I try to see representative organizations. The representative organization that looks after the hospitality industry in Ontario is Tourism Ontario. It has several component parts, one of which is the Hotel Association of Metropolitan Toronto and another is the Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association.

If the member goes back in history, he will find that not only did I see the cover organization but the components separately and together; that I received a brief from the restaurant association which said that while they wanted all taxes taken off all food and liquor for a period of time, if they looked at their industry, the part of it that was hurting most was the middle to upper restaurant area where the 10 per cent tax arose.

Secondly, the hotel association came in --

Mr. Peterson: This is the mobile catering association.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I understand --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Treasurer just address his remarks to the original question, please?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will gladly go back and see where there was a refusal. If the member has a copy of one, will he please send it to me and I will accept it as evidence. So far as I know, I have not being saying too many noes. I have said a few to individuals but not to associations as far as I could help it.

Mr. Peterson: Surely the Treasurer has missed the point of the question and this whole discussion in this House. We believe that bill should go to committee. These people want to represent themselves before that committee to explain to the Treasurer the mistakes he has made in that budget.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Peterson: The supplementary is this: I want to point out to the Treasurer that he is aware there is precedence for budget bills going to committee. I refer him to Hansard for Monday, March 19, 1962, which reads as follows:

"Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves that the orders of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on Bill No. 47,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, 1960-1961, be discharged and that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the standing committee on public accounts for consideration."

Mr. T. P. Reid: I accept.

Mr. Nixon: I was at the committee.

Mr. Peterson: So there is precedence for going to committee for a detailed review. Given the fact that the Treasurer has already backed off, as have other Treasurers in the past, and given the significant impact that this bill is going to have on hundreds of thousands of residents of Ontario, he should at least have the common decency to hear them out and let them put their case forward in a public and open way, not just --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question, the member for Windsor-Riverside:

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: That was not a question, it was a statement. you did not ask a question.

Mr. Peterson: What kind of unfair ruling is that?

Mr. Speaker: You did not ask a question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will you please resume your seat?

Mr. Peterson: The question was, "Were you aware of the precedence?"

Mr. Speaker: No, you did not word it that way, with all respect.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No, he did not.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Treasurer --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, surely there is a special importance to the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition. In your opinion there was nothing interrogative in his statement. In our opinion he asked for the reconsideration that this precedent must obviously bring from him either now or later. I assure you the Treasurer was rising in his place to answer when you simply took the play down to the other party. I would ask you to reconsider so that we can hear from the Treasurer on this matter of importance.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I think the honourable the Leader of the Opposition made his point. He did not in fact ask a question. I do not want to hang my hat --

Ms. Copps: He asked, "Are you aware?"

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, he did not, with all respect.

Mr. Nixon: Whether he said it or not, the implication was there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I hate to rule on my friend and I would not have done this had my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk not seen fit to do so last Monday. Rule 28(

a) of the standing orders says, "The Speaker's rulings relating to oral questions are not debatable or subject to appeal." He must take his chances. He can appeal it but he cannot debate it. He should make up his mind.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, in my opinion the Leader of the Opposition made a statement. He made his point very clearly, in my humble opinion, it did not contain a request nor did it require an answer.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, rather than your having to read Hansard and embarrass yourself, I would like to appeal your ruling in this case.

This is very important. The other day, the Treasurer rose in his place and said there was no precedent. He said my colleague the House leader would agree with him. That is just not the case. The question was, was he aware of that precedent and would he reconsider given the fact there is a precedent? That was clearly the question, and I think if you have any fairness at all, you would allow the question to go through and allow him to answer it.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a question of fairness; it is a question of fact. With all respect, you did not ask a question. I have made my ruling. I do not see how anyone can answer a statement.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Treasurer is aware that on the day after the budget we asked that the retail sales tax bill be referred to committee. We renewed that request a week ago.

I would like to ask the Treasurer if he remembers that in the blueprint they presented to the federal government at the first ministers' conference, the following was stated: "All governments should agree that any major restructuring of the tax system should be subject to a process of public consultation and review."

How can the Treasurer not follow his own recommendation and by that demonstrate that he is hypocritical, two-faced and undemocratic in not allowing this bill to go out for public hearings?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I thought I detected a couple of unparliamentary words there, but that is fair enough.

First, I would gladly have answered the question of the Leader of the Opposition had there been one and had it not been ruled out of order. I have been used to statements before. I will try in a general way to discuss these.

If my colleagues have found a precedent, I am the last one to try to deny what is a fact. If it is there, it is there. However, I would like to know the conditions and reasons for it. I suggest that at this point in history there is a forum in terms of review with ministers. The public has talked to ministers through associations. We have done that every year.

Our regulations in general reflect the kinds of things suggested to us in those post-budget decisions. The purpose of regulations is to allow for the great difficulty of putting into regulations the principles enunciated in a bill and all the nitty-gritty, administrative problems one finds. That is always part of the post-budgetary process and always will be.

When an amendment to a bill is required, I think the committee of the whole House is the best route. Unlike Ottawa, the many months we spend discussing it in advance with the public is a useful and well-received system.

In answer to the member for Windsor-Riverside, I did not dramatically change the tax system. I can refer him to an

article in the Toronto Star a while ago. One of its columnists wrote an

article some time after the budget, pointing out that I was suggesting a review of some fundamental tax restructuring both in the Ontario health insurance plan and in personal income tax. I put out a paper --

Ms. Copps: You suggested that last year. It's a year old objection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Treasurer has the floor in response to a question by the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That

article made a comment saying they thought this was the proper way when major tax changes were proposed. We see the extension of items covered by the retail sales tax as something that happens every year. Let me tell the member he has not called for this kind of review before, when we took some off.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, before I rise on my supplementary, I would like to rise on a point of personal privilege. I would like to read from a letter from I ames M. Parks, of the firm of Cassels, Brock, Barristers and Solicitors, to Mr. Alfredo Andriano, president of the Ontario Caterers Association:

"Dear Alfredo:

"I confirm our telephone conversation of this afternoon during which I informed you that I had had a telephone discussion today with Mr. John Godlewski of the consumption taxation policy branch of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

"Mr. Godlewski is the person to whom I had spoken last Friday after I had sent my letter on Thursday to Mr. Miller requesting a meeting to present the association's brief.

"Mr. Godlewski informed me that the matter had been discussed with the assistant deputy minister and that a decision has been taken within the Treasury department that there is no need for a meeting to be held with the association. The Treasurer has adopted a position on tax policy as it relates to retail sales tax on prepared food products and the Treasurer (through his staff) sees no point in meeting with you."

So much for the consultation.

Why will the Treasurer not meet with these people? Why will he not hear from these people who are so broadly affected by his retail sales tax? Why will he not hear from these people in view of the fact that it also appears there are a number of mistakes in his legislation? For example, he has said that livestock will not be subject to taxation, but under subsection 3(6) of Bill 115, the exemption for livestock is cancelled and is nowhere else specifically reintroduced in the bill.

The legality of that is a question mark because we believe, as do thousands of others, that he has not thought out what he has done either legally or in economic terms. Why will he not at least allow all of these people to express their points of view rather than refusing to meet them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The letter the member has read, and I am going back to verify the facts too, is from a staff member and alleges to speak for me. Obviously, staff members often do and I would assume in this case he has verified with somebody. I tell the member that I do not recall that and I am quite willing to meet with them.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Treasurer that we were in Hamilton yesterday and we heard from Alderman Bill McCulloch, a former Tory candidate, who is representing the point of view of Hamilton with respect to the impact of the budget on that community. He believes that the Treasury did not understand the impact that the budget would have.

In view of the fact that it is going to have a tremendous impact not only on the current budget but future budgets with respect to debenturing for the arena, which could cost up to some $300,000 a year extra, will the Treasurer not consider listening to Alderman McCulloch and a variety of other municipal officials with respect to the effects of this bill and what it is going to do to the property taxpayers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as Treasurer, I recognize that virtually every municipality will voice that kind of suggestion. I have suggested to my staff and to my colleagues that it would be best to meet with their association representing all municipalities, and I assume all school boards will want to do the same thing.

I would like my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) to he present when the municipalities make their briefs. I would like my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Education (Miss Stephenson) to be present when they make their briefs. That is exactly what overall associations are for.

Mr. Peterson: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is apoplectic about the Treasurer's budget and there is fighting all across this province because of it. I want to ask him what kinds of studies he did about the effect on the 838 municipalities in this province. What studies has he done? Why did he not share those with the municipalities, or did he walk into this thing blind without having thought about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That has been the member's assumption and he has pointed that out time after time. I pointed out that the average impact on municipal budgets was estimated at 0.5 per cent of spending for this year. I think for the school boards it is 0.4 per cent and for the hospitals, 0.1 per cent. I point out that that kind of tax change is no different from those we impose on industry and individuals year after year, whenever tax bases, tax rates or Ontario health insurance plan premiums are changed.

3 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, is the Treasurer aware that the effect on the Hamilton-Wentworth area and the city of Hamilton is roughly the same kind of effect that the federal government had on the provincial government when it unilaterally declared its transfer cost-cutting program? At that point the Treasurer complained, rightly in my view, loud and long about the lack of consultation ahead of time.

Since this involves for Hamilton and for every other municipality a massive shift in taxation, does the Treasurer not agree that the increased costs to the municipalities are worthy of at least public hearings before the committee we have called for?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether 0.5 per cent is a massive shift or not. There is quite a fundamental difference in the two problems that the member for Port Arthur likes to link together. The change in the sales tax base and the fact that the federal government withdrew from statutory obligations to the provinces are quite different matters, and he knows it.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not understand my leader's first question. In the city of Hamilton alone, notwithstanding the debenturing of the arena, the impact on the region and the city is going to be more than $1 million. The question is --

Mr. Speaker: "Is the minister aware?"

Ms. Copps: The former Conservative candidate in my riding has asked the minister to bring this to committee. Will the minister listen to the former Conservative candidate in the riding of Hamilton Centre, his colleague, who is begging him to allow this to go to committee so the public can be heard? Will the minister listen to his Conservative colleague or not?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued that Conservative colleagues find that they need to come to the member for Hamilton Centre for a proponent. It is nice to hear.

Mr. Epp: You don't even listen to them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I want to tell the honourable member that when municipalities or school boards talk to provinces, when provinces talk to federal governments, they talk from a point of view of business, and not from a point of view of partisan politics. It has been that way since time began. Many very good friends of mine who are Conservatives, and most of the elected people in Muskoka are, have come to me and complained about something the province has done. That in no way stops them from being supporters when the chips are down.

Ms. Copps: Are the chips down?

Mr. Cooke: No. The chips are taxed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

INCREASE IN INSURANCE COSTS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer about his disastrous budget and a new side effect that has not yet been discussed in this House.

Is the Treasurer aware that one of the side effects of his seven per cent sales tax on labour repairs will be an increase in insurance costs for home and automobile owners in Ontario, amounting to $40 million to $60 million annually, and has he estimated the amount of increase in premiums that will result for home owners and car owners in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I can answer yes to both.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister then give us the estimate of that cost? Also, can he confirm that he has been approached by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, I believe it was the day after his budget, and that he has responded by saying he "will look into the matter"? Is he now prepared to withdraw the sales tax, given this consideration that he seems to be giving the Insurance Bureau of Canada?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We have seen the insurance group. A number of individual companies wrote in. They had a hearing, I believe during the week of May 24. A complete review was made in my presence last week. A letter was sent back to them upholding our decision to go ahead and tax.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in response to one of the questions by my leader and subsequently by the acting leader of the New Democratic Party, the Treasurer seemed to suggest that one of the reasons for denying this bill to go to committee, first of all, was that there was no precedent. The minister has now heard that there was a precedent. As a result, does that not give the minister cause for reconsideration?

Secondly, if I heard correctly, the Treasurer stated that there was no reason for a public hearing because he had much discussion prior to the budget with all those groups. Is he trying to tell us he discussed it with municipalities, school boards, charitable institutions or the people who are here today? Is he suggesting he had a discussion about the impact of the sales tax on them prior to the budget? If that is not the case, why will the Treasurer not give them a forum to do it after the budget? Why will he not confirm that the only reason he does not is that he does not want this political flak to carry on any longer than it has to?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud of my budget, much as the honourable member may find that difficult to believe. I point out that the people in the restaurant business who are complaining about the sales tax will discover they no longer pay corporation tax and they have some money to reinvest.

Mr. Nixon: Do you mean these guys with the coffee trucks? They are not corporations.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Those people forgot that we have had sales tax off the purchase of equipment for the past several years.

In this process people assume that if you do not do what they suggested, you neither saw them nor heard them. The democratic process does not mean you accept the advice you get; it means you listen to the reasons for it, and that I did.

I have said I will meet with the representatives of municipalities and with the representatives of the school boards, with the ministers present. That will be done. I will meet with other organized groups. That is being done. Where we find legitimate, technical problems, we will do our best to solve them in the regulatory way.

Mr. Foulds: Is the Treasurer telling us that he met with the Insurance Bureau of Canada and individual insurance companies?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No.

Mr. Foulds: He did not say that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: May I clarify --

Mr. Speaker: Was that your question?

Mr. Foulds: That was a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Treasurer can clarify when I proceed with the question.

If he has met with those representatives or has had representations from them, which he has denied, will he give at least the same consideration to school boards, municipalities and groups of restaurant owners before the tax is finally passed? Is not the most expeditious way of doing that before a standing committee of this Legislature?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No. The member knows that in budget procedures, the tax day of effectiveness is named on the night of the budget. Many tax measures take place effective midnight of that night, while others take effect on predetermined dates according to whatever factors influence them, such as the need to send out information data, the need to allow collectors of tax to become ready, etc. We have done that. The date of tax will not be delayed through the process we are going through.

I assure the member, as I have told the others, that I will be meeting sooner or later, I am quite sure, with the group that represents the boards of education and the group that represents the municipalities, and I will be listening to them.

To answer the member's specific question, I think it was during the week of May 24 when my deputy minister specifically met with a representative of the industry representing the insurers. I am not sure whether a second meeting was held with the organization representing the industry, but I believe it was; I can verify that for him a little later. I had at least two meetings, one with my staff for an hour or more, discussing the pros and cons of the arguments made. They were very carefully laid before me and, following that, I ruled that the principle should stand and that the tax should stand.

SKF CANADA LTD.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I would like to send the Premier a diploma with a Tory-blue ribbon around it. I will explain why when I ask the question.

Is the Premier aware that there is a public auction, which started at 10 a.m. yesterday and is continuing today, to sell off the remaining equipment of the SKF plant in Scarborough, which has been closed by its multinational parent company? Since the Premier is so fond of attending ribbon-cutting ceremonies when plants or buildings open, will he consider cutting that ribbon, because of his government's inaction, which sealed the fate of and killed 325 jobs in Scarborough?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, I was not aware that there was an auction. I am aware of the difficulties at SKF. In answer to the second part of the question, with the greatest of respect, it was not because of government inaction.

Mr. Foulds: A study carried out by York University and funded by the Ministry of Labour indicated, and I will give three brief quotes:

"The SKF manager in Philadelphia said with regard to the Canadian plant, 'They closed the wrong plant.'"

"An SKF manager in Canada said: 'If this were a Canadian operation solely, there is no way it would be closing. In fact, it would be booming.'"

The authors of the study itself said: "A condition facilitating closure was the absence in Canada of legislation that effectively controls the circumstances under which firms can cease 4 operations."

After this tragic loss of a booming, effective, money-efficient, work-efficient plant, will the Premier now bring in legislation to control plant closings and to protect Canadian jobs here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the honourable member is aware of the legislative changes that have taken place and of the record of this government in terms of the stability of economic growth in this province. I am quite aware of the contents of the study. I am quite aware of the fact that we do not have legislation in place that forces a company to remain in operation, whether it is a multinational or a Canadian one.

I recognize that the New Democratic Party, as part of its philosophical approach to life in an attempt to direct the lives of individuals and companies, would perhaps have such legislation. I guess that is one of the differences between that party and the point of view of the government.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, while the Premier might not know the auction is going on, I wonder whether he does know that in many places when they have auctions, they will take consignments. I wonder whether he will add his jet to the auction today and see if they will auction it off with all the assets of that company?

Mr. Speaker: That really is not a supplementary. It had nothing to do with the main question.

Mr. Kerrio: Oh yes, it had.

Mr. Speaker: We were talking about SKF, as I remember.

Mr. Foulds: Is the Premier admitting to this House that his own philosophical and ideological hangups are such that his government refuses to bring in legislation that will protect the jobs of Canadians here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. That is not what I said.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, it is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it is not.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to know that I am in fine voice, and I understand the order of business will be Bill 111 again at eight o'clock this evening.

Mr. Speaker: I hope you have a question now.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question for the Treasurer, who is going to be the unseen guest at every meal as of Monday, June 14, in regard to the tax on meals.

Given that our views on the regressivity of taxing low-priced meals and take-out food have now been vindicated by the spokesmen of Ontario's food service industry and the mobile caterers -- and I am sure the Treasurer has seen the ads that are appearing in the papers -- I would like to ask the Treasurer about the about-face the government has taken on the need for providing an essential meal on a tax-free basis to certain groups in Ontario.

I remind the Treasurer of what was stated in the 1977 budget: "Ontario has over the past few years increased the level of the retail sales tax exemption for prepared meals so that residents and visitors alike are able to purchase essential meals free of tax."

Can the Treasurer tell us what circumstances have changed the economic circumstances that are now requiring him to bring in this tax on black Monday?

Ms. Copps: Bye, Bette.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am going to Hamilton to make sure you don't get re-elected.

Ms. Copps: He who laughs last, laughs best.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did your candidate really refuse to answer a question the other night?

Ms. Copps: Your candidate did not even show up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What, at your meeting?

Mr. Peterson: The Premier is such a liability to him.

Mr. Bradley: The Premier is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Treasurer was answering a question of the member for Rainy River.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I tried to explain that the food services of the province are delivered by a number of different kinds of groups and organizations of different entities. They banded together under something called Tourism Ontario. It includes all those people who either handle food or hospitality services, such as motels and hotels, or those who do both, such as some of the tourist lodges. Each has its own separate organization and, of course, they do not always agree. The fact remains that I saw the umbrella organization and I saw two of the component parts, both in advance and one after the budget. I got letters from them.

Going back to November, the honourable member may recall that we had given a year's notice that the sales tax was going to go back on room accommodation on January 1, 1982. At that time the hotel organization asked me to see them. They wrote me a letter, which I would not consider to be my greatest fan letter but which says:

"Your disappointing letter of December 2, which said that you are putting the tax on, has been received today. From the comments contained in it, our meeting with you satisfied the form of listening to an industry while at the same time paying no attention to the suggestion proposed by it. As an industry, we feel that you tolerated our meeting but had little concern for it or the problems which will result in hardship for our industry."

Does the member know what the recommendations were? The recommendations were that I should tax all meals at a rate lower than 10 per cent and that I should reduce the rate of taxation on rooms. I did that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Treasurer has been sitting too close to the Premier. The answer had nothing to do with the question. But I will ask a supplementary in any case and try again.

The point of all this is the regressivity of the tax on people at the lower income levels.

In the 1962 budget of the Honourable J. N. Allan, who was a Treasurer who really knew what he was doing, he said, "By exempting food, fuel, rent, children's clothing, books, school supplies and medical expenses, we have avoided taxing most of the items that represent the greatest expense to families with small budgets. It bears lightly on low-income groups and more heavily on high-income groups in accordance with the principle of ability to pay."

That is what we are complaining about. Why has the Treasurer put a tax on those meals? Is he telling those people in the lower income levels, "Do not eat out. Do not have your pizza once a month. Do not have your chicken," or whatever?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, I agree with the member completely. If there was ever a Treasurer of this province whom I respect for his intelligence and warm personality, it was James N. Allan.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Right. But apparently he couldn't pass that on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You should read what the Liberal critic said about that budget, Pat.

Mr. Kerrio: You could use Jim Allan right now.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: At 87 years of age, he still is going and contributing to the province.

Mr. McClellan: Especially at Niagara-on-the- Lake.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In the Niagara area, let me tell the honourable member, there has to be someone in that area who contributes to the province.

But getting back to the comment: The member would imply that there was never ever any need to review the state of the economy or the tax base or the things we do in this province. Of all the dollars spent by consumers in this province, it is my understanding that fewer than 50 cents out of every dollar draws any sales tax.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: You have had your supplementary.

3:20 p.m.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Chariton: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson), I have a question of the Treasurer.

Is the Treasurer aware that his budget has increased the operating costs of McMaster University to the tune of 51,480,000 this year and, in addition to that, has added a cost of $770,000 for sales tax on research equipment and supplies? Does he not understand that these additional costs will jeopardize many important research projects and, as a result, will cost jobs as well? What is he prepared to do to deal with situations like this?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member asked if I was aware. I am getting many specifics read into the record. I am in no position to verify that the figures the member has just read are accurate. I assume that they are.

I point Out to the member that we gave the universities of this province a 12.2 per cent increase this year, which is more than inflation --

Mr. Martel: And took seven back.

Mr. Sweeney: And took half of it back.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We believe that is a fair increase. In the budget itself I allocated certain moneys for the Minister of Colleges and Universities to give to universities to help them carry out certain necessary major repairs which also were not in their budgets when the year began.

Mr. Chariton: I should point out that the 12 per cent increase this year only helps the universities to catch up with part of the amount they have fallen behind in the past number of years.

In the case of the research projects, most of the funds are federal funds which are already allocated; there are no additional funds. We have a specific case involving Dr. McCandless of McMaster University, who is conducting a research program dealing basically with food chemistry, which is a very important research project; all the funds are already committed. The Treasurer's budget has put in place an additional $700,000 of tax costs which they do not have the money to pay. What is this professor supposed to do? Pay it out of her own pocket?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As in any university, I trust the management of that university will carry out its allocation.

I point out to the member that through two agencies of government we have earmarked considerable research money, most of which I believe will end up in universities.

The Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp., through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, has received a major amount of money for research, and the technology centres have also got major amounts of money for development. A good deal of those moneys is going to be spent with universities. Not only that, but through BILD last year we allocated about $8 million for research equipment that was not in their original budgets.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, is the Treasurer aware that a further impact of this budget will be to cause the curtailment of courses such as engineering and computer sciences, and that as a result of underfunding by this government over the past four years, McMaster University has fallen back almost 27 per cent in relation to the funding it received in 1982 compared with 1977-78?

This budget will further undermine the quality of education not only at McMaster University but also at universities across Ontario. How can the Treasurer continue to carry on with these inadequate budget measures when the universities are already hit with underfunding, which in the case of McMaster University will amount to a further 27 per cent?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to reconcile what the honourable member is saying with the comments made by the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), who said I was spending too much money.

Ms. Copps: That is ridiculous. He was talking about Suncor and jets, not about engineering courses.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EMPLOYMENT IN SUDBURY

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have been given to understand Falconbridge Nickel Mines announced at two o'clock today that up to 1,000 workers will be laid off permanently, effective January 2, 1983. What I want to know is what the Minister of Natural Resources is prepared to do, along with his federal counterpart, the Honourable Mr. Axworthy, to see that this permanent layoff is ameliorated as much as possible. I think it is a good indication of what happens in the north when we are so dependent on one resource.

Hon. Mr. Pope: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am now reported to be Minister of the Environment; so I do not know who should be answer in this.

I am aware of the announcement by Falcon- bridge, which I greet with regret. The analyses of the nickel market by our experts in the Ministry of Natural Resources, who are recognized throughout this country and the world for their expertise, indicate that there are no great long-term prospects for any significant increase in demand for nickel or in the price of nickel. Therefore, there is no relief in sight in terms of the health of the nickel industry. That is something I said to the media in Sudbury when I was up there recently for a meeting of some of the municipal organizations in northern Ontario.

We have already made contact with officials of the federal Department of Employment and Immigration, specifically with the deputy minister at noon hour, to attempt to find out what he was aware of in terms of the impending announcement and to indicate that we are prepared to work with him in long-term and short-term programs for these workers and for the Sudbury area.

Under

section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, we already have in place a joint employment program where the Treasurer and the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development committee of cabinet have contributed substantial sums of money to employ laid-off workers, from Inco principally, with the cooperation of the regional municipality and the conservation authority and with the advice and assistance of Inco. We are prepared to look at specific project proposals from Falconbridge and from the regional municipality of Sudbury.

We are also prepared to look at how we can adapt the Ontario mineral exploration program to the entire Sudbury area. We think there are some changes we can make within the context of our existing budget, and without changing the program too dramatically, which could have some impact on employment in the mining sector there and in surrounding communities.

We have got together groups of officials from my ministry with respect to developing some of the industrial mineral potential outside the immediate Sudbury basin while at the same time providing some benefits to the Sudbury area.

We are also prepared to look at a couple of proposals that have been made recently by a member from the Sudbury area with respect to existing mining operations in the area that have been shut down in the past but have some potential.

We will do what we can in terms of additional programs. We are analysing what we can do within the current budget at our disposal. We have made ourselves available to the federal government to assist them in planning for the Sudbury community. We are also willing to listen to suggestions from interested parties about potential government programs.

I emphasize that, given the programs we now have, there is no way we could possibly alleviate the situation for each and every one of those workers in that community, unfortunate though that may be, and that the long-term prospects are not good for the nickel industry.

Mr. Gordon: I hope the Minister of Natural Resources, along with the Minister of Industry and Tourism, is prepared to get the Minister of State (Mines) in Ottawa and her confrères off their collective butt to get something going with regard to a mining machinery business within northern Ontario. It is my understanding that they are looking at ways and means to renege, because they are not interested in seeing northern Ontario as being anything but a resource area. That is the way the federal cousins sit.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East; final supplementary.

An hon. member: The minister didn't answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: That was not a question and does not require an answer.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. For the information of the member for Sudbury, who seems to be so informed, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism in this province no longer exists.

3:30 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if the feds are not prepared to enter into the Jarvis Clark agreement, is the province prepared to go it alone despite the disclaimers by the federal member from North Bay, Jean-Jacques Blais, that we should, and despite the federal Conservative from Parry Sound?

Second, I agree with the member from the Sudbury area who asked the minister whether he is prepared to use National Steel for some other things such as the milling of gold, which has been requested, even though it would only create maybe 50 jobs. I would like to know if the minister is prepared to move in on both of those immediately to ensure there will be at least some jobs to take up the slack. And I do not mean make-work projects.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Pope: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) --

Mr. Speaker: He did not ask the question, with all respect.

Hon. Mr. Pope: -- and the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) have once again proved that a northern Ontario Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal.

Ms. Copps: You used to be one. You should know.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the highlight of your trip to Timmins was the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the minister resume his seat, please?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Natural Resources with an answer to the question from the member for Sudbury East. One.

Mr. Martel: Two.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Yes, there were two questions. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot give the undertaking of the province that we are prepared to go it alone if the federal government should back out. I had always been led to assume the federal government was aggressively promoting the company and the mining equipment manufacturing industry in Sudbury. I had always assumed the honourable Minister of State (Mines) for the federal government was behind us and was working for it.

I have not had any confirmation at all that the federal government has decided not to go ahead with this project; I had understood that it was with federal government support that the proposal was put forward to the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development committee of cabinet. I will be very surprised and disappointed if the federal government does not come through with a contribution; but if it does not, obviously the BILD committee, which meets to decide these matters, would have to review its position. So I cannot, on behalf of the BILD committee, give any such undertaking to the honourable member.

The member is quite right about National Steel. We have been examining it. There are some financial impediments to private-sector involvement, but we are working today on putting together some proposals, which we will discuss with the members from the Sudbury basin, with respect to that site. We are doing some geological work right now with respect to gold occurrences not only in the Sudbury basin but in the perimeter surrounding the regional municipality of Sudbury.

ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. Is the minister aware that Hughes Boat Works, located in Huron Park, which is owned by the Ontario Development Corp., was put into receivership? As the Minister of Industry and Trade, will he look into this matter to ascertain whether indeed it was the Ontario Development Corp. along with the Toronto-Dominion Bank that put it into receivership? If so, does he not think it would be better to see if special concessions could be granted to Hughes Boat Works, such as waiving the rent, in order to keep them in business rather than to put them into receivership and put about 92 employees out of work?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I suspect a number of the honourable member's assumptions are inaccurate, but I will certainly attempt to have an answer for him.

Mr. Riddell: If the minister finds there is nothing that can be done and that the company has gone into receivership or bankruptcy, whatever the case may be -- I have heard both stories -- would he see the employees are given preferential treatment and that they receive the $500 vacation pay they are entitled to along with the month's salary that is still owing them?

Hon. Mr. Walker: It would be appropriate for us to make sure we have all the details before answering.

EMPLOYMENT IN SUDBURY

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the labour problems in Sudbury, which affect the entire community.

Inco Metals has not made another offer since its last offer was overwhelmingly rejected by the union in Sudbury. The union has been extremely flexible in its demands and is most anxious to get back to the bargaining table. In view of this, would the Minister of Labour have a meeting with Inco officials and tell them to get back to the bargaining table and make a decent offer to the workers in Sudbury? The consensus in the community is that unless they start talking very shortly, it will be a protracted and agonizing strike.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I share the concerns of the member for Nickel Belt. We have been holding meetings separately all this week with representatives of the union and the company.

Perhaps I could read a telegram that went out earlier today. It says, "I wish to confirm that I am convening a meeting at 400 University Avenue on Friday, June 11, commencing at 11 a.m. The purpose of the meeting is to enable representatives of the parties to exchange information. I would hope this information exchange would lay the groundwork for a subsequent resumption of bargaining. I understand three senior officers of the company will be present and approximately six representatives of the union will be attending. I sincerely hope this initial step will be important in moving towards an early resolution of this dispute."

As I have said before, this is an extremely sensitive matter. I do not want to get anyone's hopes up just because we finally managed to get the parties together tomorrow. We are going to do everything we can to build on this meeting, but the subject matter is extremely serious.

Mr. Laughren: I asked my question concerning the labour problems in Sudbury very deliberately because my supplementary has to do with the problems of workers at Falconbridge.

Would the minister look into the ethics of this announced layoff of up to 1,000 workers and the extended shutdown in the midst of bargaining with the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union? Would he also look into the pattern that seems to occur in Sudbury about layoffs and shutdowns during years when bargaining occurs?

Finally, would he look into the legitimacy of the shutdown of a mine called the Onaping mine by Falconbridge about a month ago? They did not lay off workers but rather transferred them to other operations within the company. That means, of course, they did not have to provide severance pay to those workers.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Perhaps it might be appropriate to give a brief background of the announcement today for the benefit of everybody in the House.

Falconbridge employs approximately 4,031 employees, 2,830 of whom are represented by the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union. The company had previously announced a 10-week summer shutdown commencing June 27, comprising five weeks' vacation for most employees and five weeks of layoff.

As of two o'clock this afternoon, the company announced the following additional layoffs: The temporary layoff has been extended to 13 weeks from 10 weeks and will now commence on June 27 and end on September 26. On September 27, it is expected that all employees will be returned to work. There will then be a phased layoff of up to 1,000 employees being placed on indefinite layoff between September 1982 and January 1983. These layoffs will affect both the Falconbridge mine and the Fraser mine as production is reduced.

3:40 p.m.

The total reduction in employment will affect 1,000 employees by January 1983. However, the staging of the layoffs is not known at this time. In addition, the number of employees actually laid off could be reduced depending on how many employees take advantage of a previously announced early retirement plan. There are now 500 employees who are eligible for early retirement.

In direct response to the member for Nickel Belt, I am aware of the Onaping mine closing and the circumstance which he has described. That is in the hands of our plant closure review and employment adjustment branch at the present time. It is looking into it.

I would also advise that the Falconbridge people did consult with our plant closure review and employment adjustment branch before it made this announcement today to make sure it was following the legislation of this province. The company has assured us -- and I pass this along only on the basis of a statement it has made without any editorial comment from myself -- that the strike at Inco is not expected to affect this decision.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed it, but did the minister indicate in the telegram that was sent that he will be involved in the meetings tomorrow? If he is not prepared to be involved in the meetings between Inco management and the union, will he do so? Did he indicate he would be meeting with them personally?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I believe the first sentence of the telegram read: "I wish to confirm that I am convening a meeting." I will be in attendance. I have personally been in touch with the principals. I have asked them to come and they have agreed.

GROUP HOMES FOR MENTAL PATIENTS

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing about group homes. Does the minister realize the establishment of group homes for former mental patients is a matter of critical urgency? I think the minister realizes the Minister of Health made statements like that in the past. Does the minister believe it is proper for each Metro municipality to be required to provide a fair share of such homes?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister will also realize Metro council in 1979 passed a policy that each municipality in Metropolitan Toronto should create as-of-right zoning for group homes. It reaffirmed the same decision in 1980. Both these decisions were made. As of this point, from what we can determine, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has not yet referred this group home bylaw to the Ontario Municipal Board.

When will the minister refer the group home bylaw to the Ontario Municipal Board? If he has not done so, why has he not done so and when is he intending to do so?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am very much aware of the actions taken by Metro council and indeed by some of the member municipalities that find some objections to the ruling made by their own Metro council.

Some of the municipalities have moved forward to try to provide groups homes and amend their official plans to correspond to that of Metro. One or two have not and I am well aware of that. What we have attempted to do, before we take it to the Ontario Municipal Board, is to try to find some way of rationalizing the situation between some of those associate municipalities, Metro and the provincial position. I am still in that position and indeed the ministry planning people have been discussing it at the various levels.

We do not believe we have arrived at the point where there cannot be some compromises to bring into being group homes in all of the adjoining municipalities in the Metro government area. Until I am certain that position is being completely frustrated, I reserve the right to continue with those negotiations. At the point that we believe -- on the advice of counsel for Metro and the adjacent or associate municipalities, and my people -- we are frustrated and cannot go any further in negotiating a reasonable settlement of the situation, I will decide whether we should send it to the Ontario Municipal Board.

If the member would listen, I said very clearly I will be taking the advice of the legal counsel of Metro, the adjoining municipalities that are involved in the dispute, and those negotiating on behalf of the ministry.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

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

Ministry administration program, $10,531,800; environmental assessment and planning program, $33,679,500; environmental control program, $285,853,600; waste management program, $15,997,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr32,

An Act to continue the Corporation of the township of Fauquier under the name of the Corporation of the township of Moonbeam.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved, notwithstanding standing order 64(d), Mr. Epp and Mr. Mancini exchange positions in order of precedence for private members' business to be debated.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Mr. J. A. Reed moved, seconded by Mr. Kerrio, first reading of Bill 141,

An Act respecting the Public Accountability of Ontario Hydro.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a means of clarifying the functions and duties of Ontario Hydro related to the production, generation, transmission, distribution, supply, sale, use and development of energy resources in Ontario.

The bill requires that the Minister of Energy, on behalf of the government of Ontario, issue a policy directive setting out the policy framework within which Ontario Hydro is to make operational and management decisions. The Power Corporation Act is amended to clarify that it is a responsibility of the board of Ontario Hydro to ensure that the business of Ontario Hydro is conducted within the limits established by the policy directive issued by the Minister of Energy.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NATIVE PEOPLES' RIGHTS

Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Mr. McGuigan, resolution 27:

That this House instruct a standing committee or select committee to initiate a review of the rights of the native peoples in Ontario as presently existing and to modernize and upgrade such rights to achieve justice and equity for the native people as full participants in our national community, including such matters as language and education rights, land claims, hunting and fishing regulations, compensation for pollution damage, the teaching of the historical place and cultural role of native people, and such other matters as pertain to the fulfilling of our provincial constitutional commitment in this regard.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I feel a special responsibility to bring forward this matter to your attention and to the attention of the House since I have the honour to represent the Six Nations Indian community -- the largest, or at least the most populous, Indian reserve in Canada.

Many of my constituents expressed their concern to me as their member, and to many others, when the constitutional agreement recognized and guaranteed existing native rights and made a commitment that the matter of evolving rights be considered by the first ministers with a minimum of delay. Their concern was that existing rights are poorly comprehended and that many feel the other residents of Canada, the white population, are completely unaware of their background, what their role in our nation has been and what they hope to achieve among their peoples and in their community in the future.

I know that many of us as elected members of the Legislature have been aware of the very deep and continuing dissatisfaction expressed by the Indian people in constitutional matters and in general in their dealings with all levels of government and even the white community at large.

I believe it is our responsibility to see that the commitment undertaken by the first ministers, including the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis), is not roughly set aside or ignored, but that we deal with the legitimate claims of the Indians in Ontario in as broad and as sensitive a way as we possibly can.

I am aware that the executive council of the chiefs of the Indian community in Ontario met with the Premier in May, just a few weeks ago. Not all of the Indian chiefs were able to attend but certainly this is a good beginning. The Indians obviously will appreciate having met with the Premier himself, and he is not unaware of his responsibility both as Premier and on a personal basis, having been one of the original signatories to the constitutional agreement.

Members may recall that the constitutional situation was pretty well on the rocks until at the final meeting of first ministers, a rather informal agreement, as in somebody's kitchen, was arrived at. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), Roy Romanow, Jean Chrétien and others were there, working on a rough structure upon which all the first ministers could agree and get the matter on the road.

It meant ignoring some of the real and continuing problems and among those was the whole matter of native rights in our nation and in our Constitution. That is something we must now address.

I hesitate to report that the Indians have lost a good deal of confidence in politicians at all levels. Some of them have said very clearly that they feel bereft of almost any sort of an appeal. When they went to Westminster at the time of the Constitution and attempted to appeal to the law lords and finally to Her Majesty, they were not doing this in any kind of grandstand play. Rather it was on the basis of their understanding of their role in this part of the world, not so much as Canadians but as allies of the crown.

This seems to be an almost unimaginable situation. But we must really be aware that the original treaties and grants were given to the Indian people in recognition of their strong support of and alliance with the British crown. They had nothing in them which allowed or even indicated any sort of change of allegiance or citizenship and which treated them in those early days as a separate nation.

Many of these Indians, traditionalists, look on themselves as a separate nation and wish they could be so regarded. Frankly, I can see a procedure through which we might recognize that nationhood and work out an amicable and useful agreement with the Indian communities. Granting them complete independence over the control of their own affairs might well be one of the alternatives.

Most people feel that in this day and age we cannot really countenance a nation within a nation. We hope that both sides, white and Indian, will look to the specific grievances that have come down for so many years and try to accommodate, on a fair and equitable basis over a period of time, the kind of agreements, monetary and otherwise, which will allow the Indian nation -- if they choose to call themselves that -- a role to play in the expanding fabric of the Canadian nation.

I want to speak specifically about some of the matters that have been brought to my attention. We should be aware that in 1979, the latest year for which I have definite statistics, there were 310,000 registered Indians in Canada. This is a substantially larger number than there were at the time of Confederation and even at the time of the British conquest of this part of the world.

Then the part of Canada which is now Ontario was peopled by well-developed Indian communities who had established in their own right procedures for imposing peace on their own 4 community and a standard of living which was excellent as far as they were concerned -- and even as far as we are concerned, looking back on it.

In Ontario we now have 67,000 registered Indians, which includes an increase of about 25 per cent in that population since 1967, or about two and a half per cent per year. Therefore we must realize that people with Indian heritage are growing in number, and it appears the problems they are experiencing in our community are growing almost at the same rate.

I also want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a publication entitled The Ontario Indian, which is found in our own library. It is published by the Union of Ontario Indians and comes out regularly. Having had a chance to look at its articles, and read the ads and the opinion pieces in it, I find it extremely useful. It is characterized not only by being factually and statistically well-based but by having an interesting and very broad view of the problems. I want to quote one

section from an opinion piece in the The Ontario Indian for May 1982:

"We speak to the world of our poverty, yet we" -- that is, the Indians --"currently have $300 million in trust accounts while we generate another $300 million in band revenues (per year). We are subsidized to the tune of approximately $1 billion a year by the Department of Indian Affairs. All this is supplemented further by program moneys from Health and Welfare, Secretary of State" -- those, of course, are federal -- "and numerous provincial government sources, in addition to grants from various foundations."

The Indians are organized in a rather loosely knit group made up of about four to five basic sections: those Indians coming under what is referred to as Treaty 3, those from Treaty 9, the organization of Iroquois and associated Indians, the Union of Ontario Indians and, finally, independent bands. They have come together under an organization called the Executive Council of the Chiefs of Ontario Indians.

Those people are knowledgeable, and this organization will, I hope, forgive me and see that any misdirection that I might have in my words is corrected. There are a number of organizations, but probably the union itself which publishes the magazine to which I referred, and the organization known as the Chiefs of Ontario Indians, are the most effective and the ones to which we as members of the Legislature must turn in dealing with the organization at large.

To begin with, there is a general feeling among the Indians that we are already showing a certain reluctance to come to grips with the sorts of changes in the constitutional rights the Indians wish to enjoy which were guaranteed by the undertaking signed by the Premier. They also feel there is a reluctance regarding the undertaking that the changes would be reviewed with the Indians themselves.

4 p.m.

Land claims are a continuing and extremely troubling matter. Other jurisdictions have come to grips with this, realizing that in some instances it is possible to buy out the Indian rights to properties already developed or about to be developed. The state of Alaska is one clear indication of where that is possible.

One closer to home is in the province of Quebec where the government undertook a discussion and finally reached an agreement with those Indians having their hereditary living areas on the eastern shores of Hudson Bay and James Bay. This was made necessary by the elaborate hydro developments there. Substantial sums of money were taken from the public treasury and credited to the Indians. In other words, an agreement is possible.

In some instances it may not be possible. We are well aware of the continuing concerns in this matter that affect us here in Ontario. I quote briefly from a Toronto Star

article dated April 12, 1982, by Daniel Stoffman:

"The Deep Water people will ask the Supreme Court of Ontario tomorrow to decide that Daki-Menan belongs to them. That is an Ojibway name for 3,800 square miles of land around Lake Temagami, northeast of Sudbury. The land is rich in lumber and minerals and has some of the prettiest wilderness in Ontario.

"Some 600 Indians. . . share the land with about 1,500 non-natives. The Indians say all the land belongs to them because their ancestors never signed a treaty giving it up. Legal experts say the Indians appear to have a strong case and may win. The results, says a Temagami lawyer, would be unthinkable.

"Because provincial laws, under the British North America and Indian Acts don't apply to Indian land, the Temagami region would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the Ontario government. . . . The status of local institutions such as municipal governments and school boards, as well as the provincial highways and hydro lines, would be uncertain, he said, noting that the Temagami case could also set a precedent for other unsettled land claims in Ontario."

There are other instances much like that. I am not sure any amount of money could buy out the claims of the Indians for the hereditary lands for which they have never signed over title either inherently or on any piece of paper. There has never been any agreement with any other group that they are anything but owners of the land which they lived on and occupied from time immemorial. So eventually we have to come to grips with these matters.

Members may recall that the government at one time undertook to plan a major recreational area in the Temagami region that I refer to. They were going to call it "Maple Mountain." There was a lot of excitement about it. The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bermer) and his platoons of public relations officers -- he has the biggest public relations staff of any ministry of government -- were cranking out stuff by the boatload about Maple Mountain.

The Indians said, "Just a minute. That is our land." Their claim was not scoffed at. The government drew back immediately. There has been a hold or warning on the titles to those properties ever since. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), being a highly skilled lawyer himself -- and we are going to send him back to his law office as soon as possible -- is well aware these claims are very significant indeed.

It really is silly to let the thing just go on without at least attempting to work out some sort of agreement with the Indian people that is fair and just on each side. If there is not such an agreement, then we should recognize they are Indian lands and govern ourselves accordingly. Then if we want to build a recreation area there on behalf of the community at large, it could only be done with the concurrence and full participation of the Indian owners.

I have mentioned the Constitution and land claims. Hunting and fishing rights are a matter that really must concern all of us. The right to hunt and fish was inherent in the Indian people in this part of the world and never removed.

The only way the courts can impose these rules and regulations on the Indians is by assuming that somehow they are Canadians like the rest of us. The Indians say they are not. Many of them want to be called Canadians, and so many of them have been extremely valorous and courageous warriors in two world wars, and on other occasions, that many feel they are Canadians. The old idea of a separate nation does not appeal to them, but they do say they have the right to hunt and fish without the regulations of the minister being imposed on them, particularly on their own lands. That is something they are not prepared to bow down to and knuckle under to.

There are pollution problems in many Indian ands for which no reparation has been paid. Nothing has been done other than in a couple of instances where cold storage lockers were bought so the Indians could get their fish in nonpolluted water, take it back to their own community and keep it cold, so they can eat the fish some other time. That is a terrible solution. It might save them from getting mercury poisoning or something like that, and of course that is essential, but in the long run we have to have a better solution.

Indian education itself should be, and is, under the responsibility of the Indian bands in most instances. Being a teacher, I would be honoured to teach in the Pauline Johnson secondary school in the city of Brantford. It was named after the Indian poetess. She is one of our national luminaries and one of whom we are very proud.

But many Indian kids, having graduated from grade eight in schools on the reserve, came into this school and suffered all the special problems of being dumped into a white community, even though I do feel this particular white community has a good deal of respect for the role the Indians have played in the past in the development of Brant county and the city of Brantford.

I taught many of the young Indian people, who were outstanding students. They certainly had excellent athletic abilities, and their personalities were such that they could adjust to the shock of coming out of a relatively small community and going into a nearby city. But there is a special pressure on them.

I think that is something we must be aware of; not that we as a province have a responsibility for their education until they come to our schools, but I personally believe that when they do come to our schools our curriculum ought to emphasize the role of the Indian people in the development of Canada, and the fact many people are not even aware of, that we would not be a nation if the Indians had not been our allies during the American invasion of 1812. They actually saved the country. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

There are many such things that ought to be a part of the knowledge of every kid, every student, every young person and the rest of us in this country. The developmental potential -- I see Mr. Speaker is very concerned about the time. I read that I have three minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, good. You are right. I was not --

Mr. Nixon: The Speaker was jumping up and down, so I thought there was some message inherent in all that activity.

The developmental potential of the Indian lands is something the rest of the community ought to be aware of, and with which we might help them. I almost tried to get up on a supplementary to the question that was put to the Minister of Natural Resources about the closedown of the nickel mines in Sudbury, or the permanent laying off of 1,000 workers. One of the reports I have indicates that 15 per cent of our metal resources still underground, of those that are of the highest quality and easily workable, lie on Indian lands.

In many instances, I believe they are not developed simply because of the problems of title to the property. We could assist them in that development. It might bring in the kinds of revenues the indians down in Oklahoma have had over the years, as that black gold was pumped out of their reserve and financed a way of life for them that put them on a level with the sheikhs of Araby rather than the cornplanters in the rest of Oklahoma. I do not mean complanters in the Indian sense, but in the sense that they actually are farmers.

The whole area of development and tourism, in crafts, in farming, and I have already mentioned the development of minerals, is there for us to contemplate.

4:10 p.m.

I call for a committee. I have some reluctance to do that because we have lots of committees and there may be some alternative. I do not believe it should be done by the minister making a recommendation to the cabinet, followed by an announcement to the House. I believe the members of the House should constitute themselves as a committee and undertake to go to the Indian communities and meet with the Indian leaders and the people themselves, right in their own council houses around their council tables.

The government tends to invite them to Toronto. It wines and dines them at the Sutton Place Hotel and asks a few members over to take

part in whatever the festivities are. They may sit down for a long discussion. I do not think it would be improper to call it a powwow in which the views of the Indians are put to the executive of the government and the rest of us sit there.

I would like to go into the Indian communities and see what they have to say. It is our responsibility to organize this Legislature in such a way that we can deal with the Indians on their own turf, hear what they have to say and participate with them in bringing them into the fabric of Canadian nationhood in a fair and equitable way.

The Deputy Speaker: I point out to the member that I gave him a few more minutes of time due to my jumping up and down and distracting him.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution brought before the House by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I recognize the heritage of the Indian people in the area he represents, with the great leader Joseph Brant, that led to the establishment of the Six Nations community in his area.

I recognize the tremendous heritage and contribution of the Indian peoples to the development of this province. I believe it is necessary for this province, through both the Legislature and the government, to make a straightforward policy statement on Indian rights that is not open to the kind of confusion we have experienced about Indian rights since the proclamation of 1763.

I am a little concerned, however, about some parts of the resolution, which I will explain in a moment. It is our view the Indian peoples are unlike other ethnic and racial groups in this province and country in that their relationship with the crown and the governments of Canada and the provinces, including Ontario, is defined by treaties signed by their ancestors. This makes them a racial and ethnic group quite different from any other racial or ethnic minority in this country.

Those treaty agreements were political agreements negotiated and signed by representatives of sovereign peoples and I think we have to recognize that. The comments made by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk with regard to the difficulties surrounding the idea of a nation within a nation thus caused me some concern.

His suggestion that if this committee is established, one of the ways we as a committee might look at dealing with the land claims and the ongoing claims of the Indian peoples of this province is in regard to things like monetary settlements, such as the Baie James experience in Quebec, also leads to serious concerns.

Obviously, the decisions on what kinds of methods should be used for reaching agreements should be left to negotiation directly between the Indian peoples and the governments involved. I think we all support that. If a decision is made, and accepted by the Indian peoples for monetary compensation, so be it. However, the experience at Baie James does not bode well for the future in terms of compensation as a method of resolving claims for lands or rights that have been lost.

Also, the portion of the resolution which says that we should be looking at ways "to modernize and update such rights to achieve justice and equity" sounds fine in itself, but I am a little concerned about what the words "modernize" and "update" might mean.

If that means we recognize that many of the treaties originally signed were signed without the full understanding of the people involved, and that some of those treaties were negotiated and written in legalese that a person educated and schooled in the law might have difficulty understanding, much less people who were dealing through interpreters, that is fine. Then we should be looking at what the people at the time understood was meant by the treaties they were signing, and we should therefore recognize those rights.

If, however, it means to modernize and update them in some other sense that might, in fact, lead to the limitation of Indian rights, then I cannot support that proposal.

I hope that all politicians of all parties, whom the member indicated many Indian people have a great deal of distrust for, will be prepared to guarantee that any discussion of Indian rights will not lead to a limitation of those rights without the full and direct consent of the Indian peoples themselves. I believe we must recognize that Indians in this province and throughout Canada must have the opportunity and the resources to develop their own forms of self-government and control their own lives, the lives of their communities and the development of those communities.

I would like to know exactly what is meant by the phrase in the resolution, "full participants in our national community." I am sure the member who introduced the resolution does not intend this to mean integration, but some people might interpret it that way. A few years ago, the federal Liberal government introduced a white paper that dealt with integration, and we know that the Indian peoples across this country reacted to it to such an extent that the government withdrew this white paper and took no action on it.

We cannot in any way advocate an integration that would in some way limit the rights that were extended or recognized at the time of the negotiation of the treaties. It is our responsibility to determine what those treaties mean, what hey meant to the Indian peoples, what they meant to the people who signed them and what they meant to the crown, and then to enforce those rights.

The resolution also recognizes, in a way, the "provincial. . . commitment" to Indian rights. I have grave concerns about that quote. In my view there is not an adequate commitment in any way from this provincial government to the recognition of Indian rights. One only has to look at the letter written by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) of this province to the Minister of Justice in Ottawa, Jean Chrétien, at the time of the negotiations on the Constitution. That letter raised a lot of questions about the recognition of Indian rights and indicated to me that the Ontario provincial government does not have a real commitment to the recognition of those rights.

One also has to look at the history of the enforcement of treaty rights by governments and bureaucrats at both the federal and provincial levels since those treaties were signed. Obviously, that enforcement leaves a lot to be desired when one considers that there have been problems with many issues, such as land claims, hunting and fishing rights and harvesting rights, throughout the history of Indian reserves after they have been established.

I also doubt that governments, whether they be at the federal or the provincial level, really have demonstrated a commitment to Indian rights when we have seen the despicable backing off from the original commitment to constitutional recognition of Indian rights that took place during the negotiations on the Constitution.

There was the insertion of a word, "existing," that nobody understands, and then a commitment to a federal-provincial committee to negotiate and determine what Indian rights are and what they mean, a committee which in some way will involve Indian peoples but it does not say who will be involved, how they will be involved and what actual participation will mean to those peoples.

All governments involved in those negotiations backed off, and that does not indicate a commitment to me. Neither does the experience of the Deep Water people in Temagami, the Bear Island band and the court battle they are experiencing, to which the previous speaker referred, indicate a real commitment, in my view, to settle Indian land claims. Nor does the difficulty in achieving reserve status, for a number of Indian communities in the Treaty 9 area that are on what the province views as rown land, indicate a real commitment in my view.

4:20 p.m.

I mentioned hunting, fishing, trapping and harvesting rights. Obviously, there is a need to rationalize and put an end to the inconsistency in the enforcement of those rights by the Ministry of Natural Resources and our judicial system. We have to determine what is meant by unoccupied land, treaty area and what the various treaties mean. In my view, the Moraviantown incident does not indicate a recognition that this government has to live up to those rights.

We have to get involved in negotiations with Indian band governments on self-regulation in order to deal with the need for conservation. The stalling by the private and public sectors over the resolution of the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog bands' problems does not indicate a commitment to the resolution of these problems.

We have an argument from the provincial government in terms of wild rice. They do not want to extend the five-year moratorium in order to nurture that industry and ensure that the Indian bands of the area benefit from wild rice harvesting.

In our view, this government must respond to and deal with the problems of Indian rights, not just in hunting, fishing and land claims, but also in terms of taxation exemptions and social, educational and health problems. We believe a committee of this Legislature would be very timely, considering future discussions with regard to the Constitution on those rights. For that reason, I will support this resolution.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss these matters with the members of the House. I have been the Minister of Natural Resources for one year and therefore have no real experience in the background of the issues and the frustrations that are being experienced by the native people of our province and the members of this House. However, having been involved for approximately a year, I have some ideas to offer.

First, I would like to say that the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources are now in progress. The member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) has given notice that a couple of issues referred to by the honourable member who has moved this resolution will be discussed and more detail will be forthcoming with respect to the current status of a number of these issues. I look forward to that opportunity. I hope those members of the Legislature who are so inclined will come to those estimates and engage in this kind of discussion.

Mr. Laughren: Tonight is a good night to come.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Tonight would be an excellent night because my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) will be giving a scathing indictment --

Mr. Laughren: Fully justified.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Fully justified -- of the ministry and the minister.

Based on his experience, the member has skilfully and accurately put his finger on one of the issues confronting us that is very difficult to sort through from my point of view.

As I understand it, the native people have indicated they feel they are a nation within a nation with a right to self-determination, to hunt and fish as they have in the past, to harvest wild rice and to control their own destiny with their own form of government, policing and standards. That is what I understand they believe, through documents they have issued.

The honourable member said those rights in some specific forms may not be understood by members of this Legislature or the public in general. He referred to the necessity of accommodating the needs of the Indian people with respect to certain specific activities within a context all of us would understand. I think that is the nub of it.

I will say, and I will refer back to it because it is the most important point I will make, that it is my feeling and it has been directly stated to me that the Indian people do not feel that at this time there should be any discussion or definition of their aboriginal rights or treaty rights by this Legislature or by any other government. They want those discussions and those

definitions to take place within the context of the constitutional discussion. I say that to give the member one example and I will quote some other examples later.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I am sorry, but just hear me out. I wanted a discussion and a definition of the aboriginal and treaty rights to fish, to be involved in, or a part of, the memorandum of understanding where we discuss amendment to the Ontario regulations, under the Fisheries of Canada and the Game and Fish Act of Ontario. I thought it was imperative to have that kind of understanding between the governments and the native peoples before we could even accommodate the changes in the regulations and in the laws of the province.

I was told they were not prepared to have that discussion, that such discussion should take place at the constitutional conference, that they themselves would put forward the definition they wished to have of their existing rights, and in that form the issue could be debated by various government representatives. I will refer to a letter that was sent to the Premier, which I think supports that

interpretation. It was sent by the chiefs of Ontario.

The honourable member quite rightly has raised a number of very important issues. The most important, on which I agree with him, is that there are a number of economic and social problems in the Indian community we have an obligation to address. We have an obligation to address them through direct action and through negotiation with the individual bands, their chiefs and the various organizations that are a part of the structure of our native peoples' organizations in the province. That is what we are attempting to do in a number of forms, which I will review with the member.

First of all, with respect to the Temagami area, the Bear Island claim, the member is probably aware that the court case is about to commence, that preliminary motions are pending before the Supreme Court of Ontario. He is probably also aware that about six weeks ago we appointed the former Bishop of Moosonee, the Right Reverend James Watton, and the former Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, the Honourable René Brunelle, as negotiators for the province. Together with Mr. Justice Hartt of the Indian Commission of Ontario, they have been up to the Bear Island community and have commenced negotiations on the claim within certain guidelines the province has given them.

It is my feeling that these gentlemen understand the government processes, and Bishop Watton, in particular. understands the social and economic problems of the Indian communities from his work as Bishop of Moosonee on both sides of James Bay and Hudson Bay. I do believe there is a serious effort under way that I hope will lead to some settlement.

The issue with respect to fishing rights is not really with respect to their own