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

July 2, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

TRIBUTES TO R. ALAN HAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

ASSISTED HOME OWNERSHIP

ASSISTANCE FOR NORTHERN UNIVERSITIES

WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT COUNSELLING

GRIEVANCE BOARD DECISIONS

HOUSING PRICES

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS APPOINTMENT

USE OF STRIKEBREAKERS

SITE FOR VOLKSWAGEN PLANT

ONTARIO BOARD OF CENSORS

SECOND HOME FOR MEMBERS

PETITION

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRE

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

MOTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMPANY LAW

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

CONSOLIDATED HEARINGS ACT

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL INTEREST AND DISCOUNT RATES ACT

LEEDS AND GRENVILLE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE ACT

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

TRIBUTES TO R. ALAN HAY

Mr. Smith: First -- on a point of privilege, I suppose, Mr. Speaker -- I want to rise and say a brief word of tribute to the late R. Alan Hay.

I think members opposite were all very familiar with Mr. Hay, who worked tirelessly for virtually his entire lifetime since the war for the good of the hospital system in Ontario. He has been a very outstanding servant of that system and indirectly, therefore, of the people of Ontario.

I want to say how sorry I am personally -- I knew him personally -- to hear of his sudden death while on a vacation with his wife in Quebec. I was very shocked by the news and simply want to pay tribute to him and to offer our condolences to his family.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the government House leader, I should like on behalf of the government to submit to Mrs. Hay our deepest regret at Alan's very sudden passing.

I have known Alan Hay for more than 30 years, and I can only agree wholeheartedly with the leader of the official opposition that he was indeed a tireless worker on behalf of the hospital system in this province and in this country.

His role in both the Ontario Hospital Association and the Canadian Hospital Association has led both associations to new achievements, which I believe could not have been met without Alan's dedication and commitment to the cause of excellence in hospital care for patients in this province and in this country. We deeply mourn his passing.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with other members of this Legislature in expressing our sympathies to the family. Alan Hay was a man who dedicated his lifetime to putting together one of the world's great hospital systems, which was not without its problems. He was a person frequently before committees here at Queen's Park. He gave to the members some new level of expertise and a slightly different perspective from that provided us by the ministry.

To people like Alan Hay, who devote their lives to making our institutions better places for the people of Ontario, we all owe a great debt of gratitude. We add the voice of the New Democratic Party to those who expressed sympathy this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Treasurer.

In view of the fact that, effective yesterday, the Treasury of Ontario has begun to profit from Premier Lougheed's second oil production cutback, to the tune of $13.4 million annually, is the Treasurer prepared to accept that perhaps that is enough profiteering at the expense of the Ontario taxpayer from a very unfortunate Ottawa-Alberta dispute?

Will the Treasurer agree to forgo any additional ad valorem profits that will accrue to the Treasury from the next cutback anticipated in the fall, should it occur? I ask him the question now, because we will not be here in session when the possible third oil production cutback might occur.

I hope the Treasurer will announce that perhaps he has taken sufficient extra money out of the pockets of Ontario taxpayers, thanks to Premier Lougheed's action, and, if there is another cutback by Premier Lougheed, he will not seek to profiteer further.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the assumption that somehow the dispute is the only cause of an increase in the oil price is an erroneous one. The member knows, as I do, the price of petroleum in Canada is considerably below the world price yet. I thought the Leader of the Opposition at times had suggested a world price was the appropriate one for Canadian oil.

The fact remains that we have had many hours of debate in this Legislature within the last two weeks on this very issue. It was thoroughly discussed. This province, in a world where inflation has become rampant, has decided that the discrete tax such as we used to levy no longer can apply effectively over even a period of one year. Therefore, we have changed our tax system, as have all the provinces but one in this country.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Smith: Given that the price of gasoline is going up for a number of reasons and that the cutback by Alberta is perhaps one major reason but not the only reason for this, what justification does the Treasurer feel exists, taking into account the hardship that is placed by Ontarians by these increases, for increasing the degree of hardship each time it occurs?

Given that he never anticipated these cutbacks by Premier Lougheed when he prepared his budget, given that these are purely windfall or extra profits for Ontario's Treasury based on Premier Lougheed's action, why cannot the Treasurer at the very least agree that further cutbacks by Premier Lougheed that lead to increases in the oil price will not be profiteered upon by the province of Ontario to the detriment of our own citizens?

Why can he not at least agree to forgo the ad valorem aspects of this on any price increase resulting from a further cutback by Alberta?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, the perception the Leader of the Opposition is trying to create is simply that somehow we pocket this money and have a great reserve of cash somewhere. I have been criticized very roundly by him and other members of his party at times for having a deficit. I have to point out that I still have a deficit.

This money will be used for at least two purposes: one, the extra cash will obviously lower borrowing across the province; two, in the absence of a federal assistance program to cushion the cost of home heating oil, which we do not tax, we have circulated roughly $62 million to $66 million this year alone back to people on low incomes to help cushion the shock as they adjust to the prices as they come close to world price.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When he was in Victoria recently, the Treasurer "reminded his colleagues of Ontario's deep concerns over growing inflation rates in the Canadian economy." Instead of weeping those crocodile tears out there, why is he not at least eliminating the ad valorem in Ontario which continues to contribute to the rate of inflation he is complaining about?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the greatest contributor to inflation is excessive government spending and, if any province in Canada has shown by example how to constrain the growth in government costs, Ontario has.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How does the Treasurer have the nerve to behave like such a hypocrite? A few years ago, his government was establishing a direct link between economic recession and the increase in petroleum prices. I have some of the quotations right here. A few years ago he was doing that. I think it was four ministers ago that the Minister of Energy froze the price of the inventory of petroleum in this province.

How does the Treasurer have the nerve to come back and bleed the consumers to this extent?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the energy critic for the Liberal Party knows full well that our tax does not apply to the feedstock for industrial use or for home heating. It applies only to those parts of the petroleum consumed on the highways of Ontario.

ASSISTED HOME OWNERSHIP

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Housing. The minister will recall that a week or two ago I asked if he would assist, by means of government programs, to bring home ownership within the means of ordinary working Ontarians. At that time, he expressed the view that government funds could not be used to assist home ownership.

However, I notice from the press that the minister is not totally opposed to the use of government funds to assist home ownership provided the recipient of those funds is himself. Under the circumstances, will the minister explain why there is one policy that he suggests for the people of Ontario and a very different policy for himself?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, regarding the issue that the leader of the Liberal party raises today -- and I guess to some degree he thinks he is getting a little shot at the Minister of Housing -- frankly, I made my position very clear on that yesterday. His House leader, sitting beside him, can describe the situation in as complete detail as I can.

I said very clearly that I looked for no compensation from this government or the Treasury of the province in the issue the member is talking about, but I did feel that as an out-of-town member living some 250 miles from this community I was entitled to the same living allowances as those of any other MPP.

[Applause]

Mr. Smith: I am pleased to see there are a few others anxious to get the same thing.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You're sanctimonious.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: Given the fact that home ownership in Toronto over the last couple of years has probably been the surest and most lucrative way of ensuring a capital gain that anybody has yet come up with, how does the minister have the nerve to make statements in the House, such as "people are going to have to be very realistic about life," "not everyone is going to be able to own a home in our society" and "people are going to have to give up their idea of a dream home"?

How does he have the nerve to stand before the citizens of Ontario and tell them they will have to forget about home ownership and then turn around and try to use government assistance for himself to assist with capital gains?

Some hon. members: Don't answer him.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am being advised by my colleagues, and maybe I should take their advice, but I only want to offer one comment to the member for Hamilton West in regard to the low tactics he wishes to pull in this House today.

Very clearly, I make no apology to him or any of the other 123 members in this Legislature, nor to the 8.5 million people in this province, that I, through my diligence and hard work, was able to make enough money to buy a home.

I said clearly to the press, radio, TV and to anyone else who wished to listen -- and I hope the honourable member has his ears open -- that I came to Queen's Park to serve the people of Ottawa South. Indeed, I came to Queen's Park and was selected to be a minister of this government. This is where I spend most of my time now.

I have a family. My daughter, my son and my wife are going to live under the conditions and circumstances that I had the opportunity of being brought up under when I was living under the roof of my father. I am not going to downgrade the conditions or standards given to my children.

The honourable member stands in this House, along with others, and talks about family unity, about bringing the family together and keeping it together. He collects his living allowance. Others in his party collect it. I am only saying that, from common sense and a logical position, if it is good for one member from outside the Metropolitan Toronto area -- and that happens to be the area I represent -- then I think I am entitled to that same living allowance. It should have nothing to do with whether I happen to own my home or rent it.

The fact is that I have a double expense living in this community, the same as the members of his party and the same as the members of the third party. This Legislature brought in that act to afford each member some relief against the double cost of living in representing the people of his or her riding in this province.

Mr. Smith: The issue is not whether the Minister of Housing should have funds to assist him with his expenses in representing his constituents here, but whether the money should be used to help him achieve a capital gain.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: That's a lie, that's a lie.

Mr. Lane: How low can you get?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breithaupt: That's exactly the point.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Go and read what was said. See what the issue is. Educate yourself.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: Given that the merits of home ownership which the honourable member's father apparently understood and which he understands are well understood by the average working person out there working hard for a living today in Ontario, and given that today the average person under no circumstances can afford to buy even the average-priced home in the Metropolitan Toronto area and in many other areas of Ontario, how can the minister lecture us about the importance of home ownership to family life and yet deny to the average working person in Ontario the possibility of home ownership by his continued refusal to use government funds to assist people with the acquisition of homes?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Send him home, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Even some of his own colleagues won't listen to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:20 p.m.

ASSISTANCE FOR NORTHERN UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Since the need for university and college programs in northern Ontario is clearly being met not by our own institutions but by the invasion, almost, of American institutions offering master of education and master of business administration programs in Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie, will the minister not acknowledge that there has to be some additional funding and assistance to these universities so they can provide the necessary courses for the residents of northern Ontario?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member is aware that there is a very generous northern allowance, which is provided to northern universities in addition to the formula, to ensure they are able to meet the requirements of the north, given the circumstances under which they operate.

I certainly have been strongly supportive of that continuing differential, because I recognize the difficulties which the northern universities have. There are some structural problems, I believe, within the northern universities, which may require some modification to make them more effective and more efficient. I am not sure this alone will retard the invasion, as the honourable member calls it, of American universities into Ontario.

As a matter of fact, it seems to me that even under Bill 4 that university would have qualified, because it is approved by the credentials group within the southern part of the United States in terms of that program. If the universities themselves want to provide that program, I think they are certainly at liberty to do so. Given the stimulation of seeing how rapidly others come in to do it, they may consider that to be the appropriate route.

Mr. Martel: In view of the fact that there are at least three universities now offering MBAs and MEds, does the minister think it is right that academic jobs are being lost at Algoma and that positions remain unfilled at Laurentian while unqualified Americans are coming to teach American courses in the north?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not sure at all that the honourable member is correct that there will be faculty jobs lost as a result of this. It is my understanding that an arrangement has been established between Algoma University College in Sault Ste. Marie, for example, and Nova, to provide through Algoma's own faculty the kind of course Nova offers and a degree that can be given by Algoma on behalf of Nova University.

Whether there is any faculty employment loss, I cannot tell the member at this point, but that is certainly something I shall look into. It seems to me that if the universities the need for this they should have the opportunity to move in that direction themselves without relying on the intrusion of some faculty members from out of the province.

Mr. Martel: Does the minister think it is good enough that students enrolling in these US courses, programs that are being offered in the north, have no assurance that they will have the proper library facilities and space; as in the case of Sudbury, where they are going to Cambrian College rather than the university and where the jobs are not being offered to faculty at Laurentian?

Does the minister not think the quality controls that are necessary for our own universities should be met by those coming from somewhere else?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I believe the universities that are offering the courses must take that into consideration. But I remind the honourable member that the universities themselves make the decisions about the ways in which they will spend their funds, and they have had a very significant increase in 1981 and 1982 which I believe will help them to solve some of the difficulties they have seen in the past.

WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT COUNSELLING

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea).

Can the provincial secretary indicate why the government is prepared to allow the well-known Times Change women's employment service to go down the tube for want of funding, in view of the service it is providing to the province through the assistance it gives to women who are seeking employment and who are currently on welfare?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information. I will ask the minister when he is here tomorrow to give the honourable member a response.

Mr. Martel: Since at least 40 per cent of the current employee counselling going on out of the 900 cases that are there are on special assistance provided by the province through family benefits and general welfare, could this not be an opportunity for the government to fund that program, because of its success rate in placing people, to ensure that it does not go down the tube and that people -- women in particular -- are not forced to stay on the welfare rolls?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I do not have the information the member is asking for, but I will speak to the minister responsible and find out what the answers are.

Mr. Martel: I have one final supplementary the provincial secretary might ask the minister to respond to when he is in his place.

Since the Ministry of Community and Social Services states categorically it wants to get people re-employed, retrained and so on, and since Times Change had a placement record of about 68 per cent in 1980, by its own analysis -- 68 per cent of whom are on provincial funding -- would it not be an opportunity -- and the provincial secretary might ask the minister, since the ministry has now twice turned down this agency -- to further reduce rather than see the trend go the other way, if this service goes out of existence in the very near future?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I take it there is no answer.

GRIEVANCE BOARD DECISIONS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board in regard to grievance procedures in the Ontario public service.

Is the minister aware of the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board's decision in regard to the gentlemen who were involved with the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, particularly in Ottawa? Is the minister aware in particular of the decision of the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board in regard to those two people who were found guilty of uttering? Is the minister satisfied with that particular decision, and does he have any review procedures of the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board under way at the moment?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the matter to which the honourable member refers. It has been the policy of this government, of course, not to interfere with the decisions that are made by one of our boards or commissions. There are occasions on which a ministry will decide to appeal a decision. In this case, I understand the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker) chose not to appeal it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Is the minister aware of the comments of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations before the public accounts committee of June 11, 1981, and his concern expressed at that time that he did not agree with some of these decisions of the grievance settlement board?

Is the minister further aware that an employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General was convicted of an offence and the grievance settlement board subsequently overturned it?

Is the minister aware that the grievance board is saying that it does not agree with judgements made in the legal law courts, and is he not concerned that in some of these instances common sense seems to have flown out of the window in regard to some of the findings of the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Concerned or not, I am sure there are occasions when employees are not satisfied with decisions, and I am sure there are occasions when the employer is not satisfied with decisions, but common sense would say that one does not interfere with them any more than one interferes with decisions made by the courts.

HOUSING PRICES

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing with reference to the multiple listing service sales in Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding districts covered by the Toronto Real Estate Board.

Does the minister subscribe to the views stated by the board president, Mrs. Sadie Moranis, in a release accompanying the June MLS figures, that we now have a buyers' market? Does he, therefore, think we have now turned the corner on house prices and affordability in the Metro Toronto area?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say in reply is that is the personal opinion of the president of the Toronto Real Estate Board. I have not had any discussions either with her or her board in the last month or six weeks. So I would imagine what she is trying to relate it to is her own experience in the marketplace today.

Mr. Philip: In speaking to her own experience then, does the minister not know that the average price of a MLS home, including condominium apartments and town houses, is now more than $100,000? Does he not appreciate that prices went up last month by 7.7 per cent, which is almost as high a percentage increase as in April, and by more than $7,000, which is the highest monthly increase in the first half of this year?

2:30 p.m.

Faced with those figures, will the minister not at long last introduce a speculation tax on those people who would wheel and deal in the housing market in Toronto, the in-and-out artists who are forcing up the prices of housing?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If I can go back over the last several weeks, during which we have been talking in this House about housing prices in the Metropolitan Toronto area, we have constantly referred to the averaging price. I have said time and again that to try to talk about averaging price really does not have much relationship to the individual home the member or I or someone else might wish to purchase.

If we look at some of the MLS sales reports -- not listings -- some of the very heavy action has been in the units that have been extremely high in sale value. I am talking about over the $150,000 position.

In answer to a question from the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), I said if we are looking at the area of speculation -- and I take it that is what the member for Etobicoke is now referring to -- there is the capital gains tax in this country that will catch that speculator if he or she does not remain a resident of that unit for a period of at least half a year plus a day. Otherwise, they are in a speculative position and subject to capital gains tax. I do not intend to suggest to my colleagues in cabinet that we should be looking at a speculation tax.

Frankly, I think we should be a little more considerate of what is going on in the marketplace. There have been some very small individuals who have been buying and selling their homes after they have owned them for a period of years, individuals of average income who have decided to sell their homes because they have a chance to either trade up or go into a wholly different style of living. I do not think we are going to get into the field of speculation tax to be a penalty against those individuals. If it is speculation, then the capital gains should look after it.

Mr. Philip: Perhaps the minister misunderstood my question. I was very specific in talking about sales and not listings.

Dealing with the minister's answer, does the minister not understand that for the first time fewer than half the homes sold on MLS were at $80,000? While he was incorrectly stating a few days ago, and then reiterating the same thing today, that people could obtain homes at a lower price if they simply looked for them, is he aware that in June only 46.4 per cent were under the level of $80,000?

Does he not understand that for people who want to buy a cheap home -- that is, up to $40,000 -- in this city and the surrounding areas, there were only 82 units to choose from in all of this area? What is the minister doing about affordability in housing in the light of those figures, which are sales figures and not just listing figures?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I do not recall having spoken today on the affordability question. The member has raised this particular point. We have reviewed the market situation. I have not looked at the recent MLS listing or sales program the member speaks about. I have done other things with my time today. Frankly, I do not see the situation altering or changing.

If the member wants to take the Toronto Star and read through the individual ads, he will find a number of units. I am not going to debate the number of them, although I can tell him we still have a number of units under the ownership of the Ontario Mortgage Corporation in various areas in the proximity of the Metro area that are still in the reasonable price range for those who wish to buy them.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

In the light of the recent announcement that the federal Liberal government will be providing $80 million in support to the province of Quebec for commuter services in Montreal and the recent announcement by Via Rail of the proposal to eliminate some 16 passenger rail lines, many of which are in the greater Toronto area and are currently used as support to commuter rail, and in view of the many varied and oft-repeated commitments of the federal Liberal government over the last decade to provide support for passenger rail and commuter services in Ontario, has the minister had any contact with or information from the federal Minister of Transport to indicate whether the Quebec-dominated federal Liberal government intends to honour any of its many and varied commitments and to provide support to the residents of Ontario for commuter rail service as it has to the residents of Quebec.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any contact from the federal minister nor from Via Rail with regard to any of these items.

The honourable member refers to an announcement by Via Rail of the discontinuance of 16 lines. I do not believe there has been such an announcement, although there certainly has been speculation in the newspapers of this pending announcement.

Mr. Martel: Benjamin raised it last week in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I happened to be watching the Ottawa question period the other evening when one of the New Democratic Party members from Saskatchewan asked Mr. Pèpin if this rumoured 16-route discontinuance was right. Mr. Pèpin did not deny it was being considered, and he gave a lot of figures as to how much of a deficit the federal government was encountering with Via Rail.

Of those 16 routes, I believe six are in Ontario. Some no doubt will be of key interest to northern Ontario members, because two of those six routes are in the north. Although I have had no announcement on them yet, I know those routes in the north have been of concern to us because of the lack of alternative transportation if that discontinuance does take place, since some of those communities are very difficult to get to in any other way.

With regard to the $80-million subsidy to Quebec, Mr. Pèpin made reference during that same question period, I believe in response to a supplementary by the Honourable Mr. Sinclair Stevens, to the fact that Ottawa had contributed $10 million to GO Transit. It is very interesting that he referred to the Montreal commuter service as GO Transit, and I want to assure all the members that I am not expanding GO Transit into Montreal.

In any case, he referred to the $10 million, which is the only federal contribution to GO Transit to date and which was made some 10 years ago. He suggested that offset an equivalent contribution of $80 million to Quebec, and I guess that --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Even using MacEachen's and Mr. Trudeau's economics and the way they have wrestled inflation to the ground, I do not believe $10 million of 1972 or 1973 dollars would make up $80 million today.

We have not had any discussions with them regarding these discontinuances. Certainly the Barrie, Stouffville and Havelock services would be missed if they were discontinued. Although I cannot refer to the Havelock service as a commuter service, it certainly will be missed if it is discontinued.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for my constituent the honourable Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Did I hear the minister correctly when he said he had not made contact with Ottawa, that he had not been to Ottawa in connection with the matters the honourable member raised and which she considers to be serious? Would that be a reason she considers Ontario is not getting its full share -- because the minister is not active enough to point out the needs to the federal government?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my member is here today; there have been a number of days he could not have asked a supplementary question. He is with us today and I am very glad my representative is working so hard in representing us from the great riding of Halton-Burlington. I do not know how the honourable member could misunderstand what I said. I have not been contacted by Mr. Jean-Luc Pèpin, the federal Minister of Transport, or by Via Rail with regard to these items. The first I heard --

Mr. Smith: The identical question was asked three days ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Would the honourable member just pipe down a little bit? I did not ask him for any --

Mr. Smith: This question was asked three days ago.

Mr. Speaker: Ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do not know what the honourable Pooh-Bah from Hamilton is talking about. In any case, I have to say the first I heard of this item was Monday night during televising of the question period. I have not been in touch with Mr. Pèpin since Monday night at 10 o'clock when I first heard about it. As I understand it, it was first raised in the newspapers Tuesday afternoon. I do not know what the unreliable Leader of the Opposition is talking about in the statement he has made.

Over the years I have had many meetings with federal ministers with regard to assistance in funding for Union Station and for GO Transit.

Interjections.

We have had many commitments. It has been in the throne speech and in election announcements. I have many files on this matter, but to this date, other than the $10 million I referred to, I have not seen any confirmation of any consideration at this stage.

During the short-lived term Mr. Donald Mazankowski was federal Minister of Transport, we did have a $30-million commitment to assist with Union Station and the Bathurst corridor. Within two weeks of Mr. Pèpin becoming Minister of Transport, I received a telex saying he was withdrawing Mr. Mazankowski's commitment.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I can get the minister's attention long enough: In view of the fact two of the runs mentioned are from Chapleau to Sudbury -- the Budd car, the fight for which was led last time by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) -- and the run from Capreol to Hornepayne, both being areas where people will not be serviced because in many of those areas there are no roads, is the province prepared to do a lot more to prevent this from occurring in the north than it was on the last trip around?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the Chapleau to Sudbury case. There is no mention in any information I have about that. The two lines in northern Ontario I have heard about are Capreol to Hornepayne and Winnipeg to Armstrong. There may be this additional one but I do not know.

From the rumours I hear I am not sure there will be an application for discontinuance that will create a CTC hearing. If there is, I assure him my ministry will be there representing the interests of the people of Ontario, as we have done at all other such hearings. On the other hand, one of the stories that has come out of Ottawa is that there will be a cabinet decree that these services will be discontinued and there will not be a CTC hearing. I hope that is not the case.

I do not know what the honourable member is referring to. There have been two discontinuances, I believe, that I have been involved with in northern Ontario. One is in the riding of the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). We vehemently fought that discontinuance because there was no doubt in our mind that was going to be a real hardship on the people of that part of Ontario because some of those communities had little or no other public access.

We did not strongly fight the discontinuance of the Budd car between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie because, truthfully, there was no way I could support the continuance of it. It was the most uneconomical situation that ever existed. It was carrying about 14 passengers a day, I believe, and of those 14 a day, more than 50 per cent were railroad-pass carriers. The bus service can offer a better service, a faster service, between Sudbury and the Sault, and was quite capable of carrying those people.

The operating of a diesel bus between Sudbury and the Sault gives at least double the seat-miles per gallon of fuel used by the Budd car, so under no circumstances could I support the continuance of that line.

We will look at each and every application and make our position known after we have fully researched the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There was one main question, there was one supplementary from Mr. Reed, Halton-Burlington, there was a supplementary from Mr. Martel, and Mr. Taylor also has a supplementary which I did not recognize.

Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, considering that there are recommendations for the future of rail in the province saying that Barrie and some of the other communities should have a commuter service, and considering that it has been rumoured that Barrie's line will be slashed -- and the minister has had correspondence from me, the mayors of the town of Innisfil and the city of Barrie, and other constituents in the area, asking him to preserve that commuter service between Barrie and Toronto -- will the minister request a hearing before they discontinue those services, rather than having a fiat come from the federal minister?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would make every representation that I can to continue the Barrie service or at least to have a CTC hearing where the information can be put forward. I understand there are some 500 people per day -- that may or may not be correct but that is the information that comes to mind -- who use the Barrie service. That is not necessarily 500 people from Barrie but 500 people from various points along the line who do use that service.

In addition to that, as the member knows, we run a large number of buses per day, GO Transit buses, to serve the Barrie corridor. We are most interested in seeing that corridor preserved and the rail service continue.

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS APPOINTMENT

Mr. Kerrio: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation, if he would listen. I would also like the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) to listen, and maybe the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We always listen to you.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed with your question.

Mr. Kerrio: They will realize in a moment why.

The minister must be aware, or is he aware, of the fact that the Royal Botanical Gardens in Hamilton is going overseas to hire, or has already hired, a new director? The Minister of Natural Resources, who represents that great Niagara Parks Commission -- of which I am very proud, since it is the resting place for all Tories who are out of a job or defeated -- should have pressed to see that one of the graduates from the Niagara Parks Commission School of Horticulture was given the job, as they are accepted across Canada and in fact all over the world.

I wonder how the minister would respond to that question. Why does the commission have to go that route rather than hire someone who is fully capable and who is trained right at Niagara in the horticulture school?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether in fact the final decision has been made in the hiring of a successor to that very outstanding director, Dr. Laking of the Royal Botanical Gardens.

I do know that while they were looking for a successor to Dr. Laking I expressed to their board of directors our very deep concern that every effort should be made to hire a well-qualified Canadian for the position and that preference should be given to a Canadian. Over the last few weeks I have been assured every effort has been made and is being made. The board has indicated to me a long list of scientific and horticultural journals in which it advertised the position and apparently no applications were made by people who had the proper qualifications.

I am not sure at this moment whether a final decision has been made. I will be glad to check once again. Certainly the Royal Botanical Gardens board knows full well we have a preference for the employment of a Canadian. It actually delayed the appointment for some months because it wanted to make absolutely sure there was not a Canadian or an immigrant with landed immigrant status who could fill the bill. I will check and see what the latest status of that employment is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask those members who are carrying on private conversations to do so outside the House and not disturb the question period.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister aware of the correspondence from the alumni of the Niagara Parks Commission School of Horticulture and their concern that the Royal Botanical Gardens did not advertise in Canadian journals and was doing the bulk of its advertising overseas? Included with the alumni's request for consideration of Canadians was a long list of names that showed the expertise of graduates of the School of Horticulture and the willingness of other jurisdictions to hire them. The real argument of the alumni was that the board of the gardens did not advertise in Canadian journals to make the job available to one of the graduates from Niagara.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We were given a list of the journals that had been used to advertise for this position. I do not have that list at hand but I would like to offer the list of advertisements that were made in Canadian journals. I will be glad to send it to the honourable member opposite; in fact I will be pleased to table the report right here.

USE OF STRIKEBREAKERS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the violence on the picket line at the ITT Cannon Electric factory in Whitby. It seems to point out once again, as at Consumers Distributing, that there is a great deal of difficulty with the police officers who are working the picket line itself and the use of strikebreakers.

Is the Ministry of Labour considering some change in legislation -- as was suggested in private members' bills previously and in the province of Quebec -- that would, first, outlaw strikebreakers as a function, and second, move to clarify the role of police officers who are working a picket line?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If I may reply to the second part of that question first, matters relating to police activities on picket lines should be directed to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). Peaceful and informational picketing is legal in this country and if the honourable member sees problems relating to that he should direct those questions to the Attorney General.

With regard to the first part of the question, we have discussed that on many occasions inside and outside this House. This government's view is that if there are professional strikebreakers involved in any activity in this province we are prepared to look at the matter.

However, if the member is talking about an employer's efforts, with the use of replacement employees, to keep a business going, so that when it eventually starts up at full pace again it is there and able to survive, while at the same time those who are on strike are using whatever means they can to survive by means of strike pay, part-time work or whatever, no, the government does not see that as an area where it intends to intervene.

Mr. Breaugh: Would the minister not agree, though, that the basic problem that brings about violence on a picket line is the use of strikebreakers? In this case, the strike at the Whitby plant, the allegations are very clear and they appear to be substantiated, because charges were laid that strikebreakers drove their cars through the picket lines at rather high rates of speed. Would the problem not be resolved clearly and neatly in the minister's jurisdiction by simply bringing into this House legislation that would forbid the use of strikebreakers?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to get into the position of saying that because charges were laid the accusations are valid or invalid, nor do I think the member intends me to make that judgemental decision. I do not think he intends to, either.

The government's position has been made fairly clear: a strike or a lockout is a matter of a sincerely held difference in belief, each side trying to survive during that belief so that when the strike or lockout is over the business can go on as a viable enterprise.

There are some enterprises where it is possible not to carry on business for a long period of time. We all know of one up in the area of my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). That is not always the case. The member knows very well that in order to remain viable each party has to make its own effort to carry on during a strike or lockout. The government does not see any need to intervene at this time, nor does it see any validity in the suggestion that it should do so.

Ms. Copps: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If I understood the minister correctly he said he would be prepared to entertain the possibility of some action with respect to professional strikebreakers. Would the minister be prepared to table in this House his definition of a professional strikebreaker, and would he bring in some legislation to stop professional strikebreaking?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have said on numerous occasions in the past that I have yet to see any evidence now or during my period in office of professional strikebreakers.

There have been occasions, as the honourable member knows, I am sure, where certain activities have been carried on and criminal charges have been laid for conspiracy to defeat the purposes of the Labour Relations Act. So there is already a tool that can be used where certain events may be taking place to interfere with organization, for example.

But I have no evidence. If the member has evidence of professional, hired strikebreakers, people hired for that purpose on a professional basis, I would like to have it. If that is happening I would like to know about it so the government can consider it.

SITE FOR VOLKSWAGEN PLANT

Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. I am given to understand that Volkswagen, after making a detailed analysis, has decided to locate a major parts manufacturing operation in the city of Barrie, where there already is an existing business and a work force capable of carrying out the functions. However, I am also given to understand that the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has sent officials to Germany to intercede with Volkswagen in order to deny it the opportunity of coming to our community, which is acceptable to Volkswagen here and which provides an economic climate where it can survive.

What has the minister done, or what will he do, to intercede on behalf of the residents of Ontario to make sure the federal minister does not try to locate that plant in the Windsor area rather than the Barrie area, where the decision-makers have decided it should be?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we have met several times with the officials from Volkswagen and we are convinced that the site preferred by Volkswagen is the Barrie site. It has been up to Barrie, as the member knows. It has inspected certain properties there, and I believe Volkswagen prefers the Barrie location for its new Canadian enterprise, which I think involves about 500 new jobs.

We are concerned at this time, because we understand the federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce is encouraging Volkswagen to look at other locations that Volkswagen itself believes are less economic. This kind of pressure is now bringing the entire investment in Canada into some question by Volkswagen. Volkswagen very much needs an early resolution of this matter, including its request for a duty remission agreement.

3 p.m.

It is our concern that if the federal government does not conclude a deal under the duty remission program with Volkswagen in the next week or two, and if it does not agree to allow it to locate in the location selected by Volkswagen, the entire investment may be lost to Canada and Volkswagen will select the United States -- this after a lot of work between our ministry and Volkswagen and between the federal government and Volkswagen.

To this end I sent a communication to the federal minister a week ago, I believe, urging him to speed up a decision on the duty remission program and to allow Volkswagen to locate in its choice of sites, which, again I repeat, I believe is Barrie and perhaps Cambridge.

Mr. G. W. Taylor: Has the Minister of Industry and Tourism had any reply from that minister regarding his correspondence requesting an early decision on the duty remission?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I have not. In fact I met with officials of Volkswagen last Tuesday, who came in to see me because they are very anxious about this decision and feel that if a decision is not forthcoming in the next week or so the entire investment will be endangered. I would say to the honourable member that he and any members of the House ought to join us in bringing pressure to bear on our federal counterparts to make a decision on duty remission and allow Volkswagen to make this much-needed investment in Ontario.

Mr. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister is aware that Volkswagen does have a facility in Sterling, Michigan, which is probably 25 miles away from the city of Windsor, and also that Windsor does have a surplus of very skilled manpower that is now collecting unemployment insurance, with some of them even collecting welfare.

Does the minister not think it would be proper to suggest to a company that it go to an area that has high unemployment and the skills that are necessary, rather than directing it to another area in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite appropriate for governments to ask companies that are seeking to invest in this province to look at areas that are badly in need of new investment, and Windsor is one of those areas. The federal government and this government have recognized the need of Windsor for this kind of investment. I know for a fact Volkswagen did that. I know for a fact it very carefully analysed its Windsor opportunities as well as some others.

I think it is quite another matter for governments almost to require firms to make either an uneconomic investment in this province or no investment whatsoever, and one never knows exactly when that point is reached.

Clearly, Volkswagen is most concerned because it is coming into Canada after about a year and a half of study and is coming into what the member well knows to be a very competitive market. The competition is severe. It is very much price sensitive. Volkswagen ultimately must be allowed to make its own decision based upon the economic determinations it has made.

I simply urge -- whether this would militate in favour of Barrie or Cambridge or Windsor or another province -- (

a) that Volkswagen be permitted to make an economically viable and sensible decision, and (

b) that the federal government reach a decision on the duty remission program before Volkswagen decides, because of time pressures, it has to go to another jurisdiction entirely, and that is very much what is on the table right now.

ONTARIO BOARD OF CENSORS

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding the censorship board.

The minister last week said he would be abolishing the civil servant members' positions on the board. On closer examination it turns out that Mary Brown and her assistant, who are both civil servants, are not going to have their positions abolished, and that, further, another civil servant who was on the board at the time of the committee hearings regarding The Tin Drum and said nothing critical of the board has been put on contract and his contract is being renewed. The three people being dismissed are, by some bizarre coincidence, the very same three people who were critical of the policies of the board at the time hearings were held here at the Legislature.

Would the minister agree that his whole new policy is largely a camouflage for punishing the three people who had the temerity to speak the truth in front of the legislative committee concerning the actions of the censor board? Will he do, at the very least, what he does with most other people whose jobs are eliminated by so-called changes in government policy, and find other jobs for these people within the civil service rather than simply setting them loose as he is now proposing to do?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I might correct one or two matters. It is my understanding that Mrs. Brown, the chairman, and the vice-chairman of the board are both public servants and do not fall in the category of being civil servants per se.

Secondly, the person who is being continued, although at one time having been a civil servant, is no longer a civil servant, and is on a contract basis.

A third thing I would have to say is that there is no vendetta whatsoever. I have no vendetta interest in my mind. I think it is fair to say --

An hon. member: Retribution.

Mr. Smith: Same difference.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Well, certainly, the one who made the decision was myself, and I did not have any form of vendetta in mind.

The principle that I was trying to set up here was to not have a person sit in this particular job five days a week, seven hours a day, 50-odd weeks a year.

Mr. Smith: Except Mary Brown.

Hon. Mr. Walker: No, because she does not sit on the actual hearings as a regular person, as would a member of the theatres branch.

Ultimately, I want to see a board so large that people can be brought in, be it from Toronto or other parts of Ontario, for a couple of days a month to sit in terms of their function as censors and classifiers. Then at some point in time, after they have had their two days a month, or two days every couple of months, they could return to the community, and reaffirm their community principles and then come back a couple of months later and sit as a board.

There is certainly no relationship at all to an attempt to move anyone out. Indeed, the whole concept is well supported. The honourable member's very newspaper, the Hamilton Spectator, advocated at the time that it is the wrong place for civil servants to actually serve.

Indeed, there were some views expressed by the former member for St. George, who advocated a much broader board, much greater at this stage, as did members of the New Democratic Party at the time.

I think there is general support for a much broader board, and that is what we are trying to achieve.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary: Given that the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) had stated at the time that those very members who were there as civil servants did represent a broad cross-section of the community, and given that the minister found it possible to put one civil servant on contract, the one who did not object to the way things were going on, why does he not take steps to correct the obvious impression which any rational person would take, which is that he is punishing the three who spoke out, when Mary Brown and her assistant are still there in their dandy little jobs?

Why does he not at the very least offer these people the right of going on contract? Why does he not at the very least offer them jobs as part-time individuals on the board, as other members of the board will be? Why does he not find other positions for these people in the civil service the way he does for many of his friends whom he has to move from one situation to another?

Why does he not take steps to make sure he deals fairly with these people and not give the impression, which frankly I take from his actions, that he is attempting to muzzle them because they spoke the truth, just as the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) attempted to do with people in his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Walker: There is not one scintilla of truth in the comments the honourable member is attempting to allege to me. I would have to say these three specific jobs have been declared redundant, and they will fall into the normal terms of those who serve in the Ontario public service and there will be a process -- indeed, I would not be averse to them --

Mr. Smith: Sure there will, and Santa Claus will come down the chimney too.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think if the member would just hold it a moment and listen to the answer and then offer his comments he will feel much more --

Mr. Smith: I don't believe you.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, if that is the attitude the Leader of the Opposition indignantly wishes to take -- and, in fact, I think he is without any dignity of his own -- and if he chooses to make those kind of comments, I do not really choose to offer comments in return to him.

3:10 p.m.

SECOND HOME FOR MEMBERS

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I firmly believe it is a legitimate point of privilege. I have always considered it was my privilege to represent the people of Ontario in this Legislature in an attempt to provide good government at the least possible expenditure of public money. I figure my privileges have been abused. If I am to continue this mission as a member of a government which is prepared to sanction the expenditure of public money for members who wish to buy a second home in this city, I am deeply disturbed.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege, but thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Riddell: It will happen over my dead body, I will tell you that. Anybody who thinks he is going to buy a second home at public expense had better think otherwise.

Mr. Di Santo: I am not involved in that argument, although I would plead the case for the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney).

PETITION

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRE

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition for the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), hoping that he also does me the courtesy of answering my letter. This petition is from residents complaining to the minister, and reads as follows: "We the undersigned are opposed to the new hours and Saturday opening of the driver examination centre at 262 Falstaff Avenue. We hereby request that the hours and days remain as prior to June 1, 1981."

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I have a point of order. This is about the fifth time I have risen to ask the House leader about the questions on the Order Paper, specifically my question about public opinion polis, question 92. He said on repeated occasion he would answer it around the middle of June. That question has been on since May and it makes a complete hypocrisy of all his comments about a freedom of information bill. When am I going to get an answer and when are the other questions going to be answered?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will be happy to look into that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I too, as do many other members, have a written question on the Order Paper and it says here an answer will be given approximately by June 15. My question concerns the Solicitor General tabling the total costs of the OPP investigation into the activities of CUPE members and others, namely me, during the recent hospital strike. During the estimates, the minister assured me he would provide those costs. This written question has been on the Order Paper since May 8. The indication has been given clearly that an answer would be provided by June 15. When may we expect an answer?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we tabled the interim answer around June 15, when we all believed there was some hope of us adjourning around June 19. That hope vanished a while ago and it now appears the House will be sitting here for a while. Our endeavour is to get all the answers in before the House adjourns.

The answer to the member's question will be ready tomorrow and we will have it to table for him tomorrow. There seems to be some feeling that this House is going to adjourn at any moment for the summer recess. Unless there has been some change of heart on the list of legislation here, that does not seem possible. So we will have the answers ready for the member.

MOTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Mr. Norton, resolution 7:

That a select committee on this House be appointed to inquire into and review the recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario and make recommendations as appropriate; and that the committee have power to retain such staff as it deems necessary, subject to the budgetary approval of the Board of Internal Economy; and that the committee have the power to send for persons, papers and things and to examine witnesses under oath; and the assembly doth command and compel attendance before the said committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations, for which the Honourable the Speaker may issue his warrant; and that the committee be composed of 12 members, to be named on motion before the House adjourns for the summer.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Mr. Norton, resolution 8:

That a select committee on the Ombudsman be appointed to review and consider from time to time the reports of the Ombudsman as they become available and as the committee deems necessary, pursuant to

section 16(1) of the Ombudsman Act, 1975; to formulate from time to time general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his functions under the Ombudsman Act; to report thereon to the Legislature and to make such recommendations as the committee deems appropriate.

Further, the committee may, with the agreement of the Legislature, be permitted to sit concurrently with the Legislature from time to time; and that the select committee have authority to sit during recesses and the interval between sessions and have full power to employ such staff as it deems necessary and to hold meetings and hearings in such places as the committee may deem advisable, subject to budget approval from the Board of Internal Economy, and to call for persons, papers and things and to examine witnesses under oath, and the assembly doth command and compel the attendance before the said committee of such persons and the production of such papers and such things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations for which the Honourable the Speaker may issue his warrant; the said select committee to consist of 12 members, to be named on motion before the House adjourns for the summer.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMPANY LAW

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Mr. Norton, resolution 9:

That a select committee of the Legislature be appointed to continue the inquiry and review of the law affecting the corporations in this province as reported on by the select committee of this House appointed on June 22, 1965, and reappointed on July 8, 1966, on July 23, 1968, on December 17, 1971, on May 25, 1976, and July 12, 1977; and to, in particular, inquire into and review the law relating to the business of insurance companies in the province including, but not restricted to:

(

a) the incorporation, licensing, regulation and supervision of insurers as joint stock companies, mutual corporations, fraternal societies, mutual benefit societies, exchanges, syndicates of underwriters and rating bureaus carrying on all classes of insurance business in this province, mergers, amalgamations and reinsurance of liabilities, reporting to shareholders, policyholders and members, their solvency, liquidity and financial requirements, the purposes, scope and functions of their returns, reports, statistical gathering, and the basis for their rates and premiums;

(

b) automobile insurance contracts and, in particular, the provision of accident benefits, fire insurance, life insurance, accident and sickness and marine insurance contracts and generally insurance contracts in this province;

(

c) the licensing, regulation and supervision of insurance agents, brokers and adjusters; and

(

d) the marketing of insurance in this province; and that the select committee have authority to sit during recesses and the interval between sessions and have full power and authority to employ counsel and such other personnel as may be deemed advisable and to hold meetings and hearings in such places as the committee may deem advisable and to call for persons, papers and things and to examine witnesses under oath, and the assembly doth command and compel attendance before the said committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations, for which the Honourable the Speaker may issue his warrant; the said select committee to consist of 12 members, to be named on motion before the House adjourns for the summer.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sweeney: That thing has been going on for 16 years.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think there is an element of truth in that statement. Then one of the member's colleagues says, "It is going very well."

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform the House that I will have motions tomorrow setting up the membership on those committees and also authorizing certain standing committees to sit during the recess.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved third reading of Bill 67,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED HEARINGS ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved third reading of Bill 89,

An Act to provide for the Consolidation of Hearings under certain Acts of the Legislature.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on third reading of this bill. This party --

Hon. Mr. Norton: We have heard it all before.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on second reading this party voted, with some reservations, in favour of Bill 89. Since then we have had the opportunity in committee and in this House to move certain amendments and hear certain representations relating to this bill.

We are convinced -- a matter about which we were somewhat unaware at second reading -- that there had been no consultation with many of the parties concerned, such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment and other organizations, which are constantly dealing with these matters. They were permitted only token input at the committee rather than a full hearing. All of us know they were very restricted both in time to prepare and in the time for making submissions.

The minister would not accept an amendment from us that there should be directions to the board that its decision must satisfy each of the acts as if they were being dealt with separately. He would not agree to the removal of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act from the

schedule -- a very separate and distinct piece of legislation. He refused to go along with the principle of providing funding for citizens' organizations, and he would not even guarantee through amendments we submitted that there would be public hearings under the Consolidated Hearings Act to the same degree as if separate hearings were to be held.

In view of all these facts, and our inability to make changes that are clearly desirable, we are going to vote against this bill on third reading.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the debate the honourable member has continued to misunderstand some of the principles that are embodied in the bill, particularly as it applies to the matter of standards under the various acts that have to be met under the consolidated hearings process. It has been explained to him time and time again that the standard of each individual act does apply in this. He is either incapable of believing or refuses to believe that is the case. I suggest he seek some legal advice on the matter and he will probably find we are correct.

With respect to the restriction on the time available for public hearings on this matter, he and his caucus, and certainly the members opposite, have to bear some of the responsibility. I am sure we would have had more time for that procedure had the time during the course of this session of the Legislature been more effectively used by members of the opposition in order to expedite the business of this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Can't we speak to the bill?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Kerrio: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: Because the minister has closed the debate.

Mr. Kerrio: He made some comments that were grossly unfair.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved third reading of Bill 90,

An Act to establish the Ontario Waste Management Corporation.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved third reading of Bill 95,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon Mr. Elgie moved third reading of Bill 129,

An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. G. W. Taylor, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this bill has two purposes: one is to add a judge to the Court of Appeal to increase the number of judges to 14, which is primarily done to assist the heavy work load that is primarily now in the Court of Appeal and thus reduce the number of cases that are backlogged; two is to allow future increases in the High Court of Justice in Ontario, generally known as the Supreme Court of Ontario, to allow those appointments to increase the size of that bench by regulation in future rather than bringing to this Legislature a piece of legislation each time a new judge is added to that bench.

Both of these will speed up any increase in the size of the benches, allowing the backlogs from the added work load that has been increasing over the years to be reduced and cleared up.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the two points the parliamentary assistant has made, I agree with the first one in that the addition of a judge to the Court of Appeal is clearly needed because of the work load of that court.

The second point, though -- the removal of the formal approval by this Legislature each time we increase the number of judges in the High Court -- I personally find rather unfortunate.

From the information provided in the compendium to the bill, we note the total number for the High Court, including the Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice of that trial division, has increased from 23 members in 1962 to 42 members in 1977. Now we are going to be asked to have this matter dealt with simply by regulation.

Over those years, there have been six other occasions upon which we have increased the court, usually by two, sometimes by three or four members on each occasion. I think it is a good idea, when we are increasing the number of our Supreme Court judges, that this Legislature make that decision openly and by the usual rules of the House, subject to debate.

In the compendium page that appeared, it made this comment: "Permitting the number of judges of the High Court to be fixed by regulation would eliminate the need for frequent legislative amendments."

Seven or eight changes over 20 years is hardly frequent legislative amendments. I think it is wrong that we do this by regulation and I have a feeling the lawyers in the House would probably agree with me. We should have this legislation brought before us for the few moments it takes every few years so that we are clearly in control as a Legislature over the appointment of judges to the High Court.

I do not quarrel with the first point, the addition of the judge to the Court of Appeal and, frankly, I do not in any way quarrel with the addition of other trial judges if the work load is there. Obviously, that is something this Legislature must clearly attend to as part of its obligation. While the salaries of the judges may be paid by our federal Parliament, the provision of judges and all the necessary reporters and attendants in courtrooms and whatever, is part of the administration of justice that is clearly the obligation of the province.

I find the second matter of having these future appointments made by regulation a most unfortunate one. It is an abrogation of the responsibilities of the Legislature and I very much regret that

section of the bill is before us in that way.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who is unable to be here this afternoon, and myself have both had the opportunity to look at this. He is obviously more familiar with the operation of the court system and the justice system than I am, but he informs me he supports both sections of this bill and I do myself.

It is obvious there is support for the first section. He says the second

section makes sense as well. That is a matter of administration that should rest with the government of this province, whatever its stripe may be, to determine. We in this House would perhaps like to have more authority over who those judges should be so that they are not, as so often is the case, political appointments. As to the numbers, my colleague and I both feel it is not unreasonable to have that authority resting with the government. Therefore, we are prepared to support this bill in total.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I had not had the opportunity prior to this afternoon to look at Bill 105 and I just want to take a brief moment to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague the member for Kitchener. I find it yet another indication of a very bad and wrong direction for this assembly to be taking.

In the matter of the appointment of these judges we would be abdicating our responsibility, infrequently as that appears to have been exercised in recent years on the basis of the survey of the member for Kitchener. I think it is an extremely bad idea to allow this to occur now by regulation, allowing just that much more of our traditional responsibilities in this assembly to be vested in the executive branch of government.

I think this bill is at one with Bill 113 which is being debated these days in this chamber, in that we are seeing a significant accretion of authority formerly held by the Legislature in the executive branch of government. I listened intently to the parliamentary secretary and I did not hear what I felt was at all a compelling case for why this should be done by regulation.

I do not know if the member for Kitchener is accurate in saying we have had six legislative actions in the last 20 years. I doubt very much if they were extended debates. I do not know why or how they could be. It seems to me experience would in no way necessitate this change to provide for further appointments by regulation.

As a private member in this assembly I think it is another indication of a wrong step. I have not heard the arguments as to why we should do it, other than it might facilitate someone else's timetable. I think it is a continuing and bad direction for this Legislature to be taking.

Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the words of the members opposite. To the comments of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) --

Mr. Breaugh: That note you just got is your marching papers, eh, George? They let you stand up once in a while but they don't turn you loose. What are you supposed to say?

Mr. G. W. Taylor: -- I am pleased he put those forward on behalf of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), whom I have spoken to and who does accede to these recommendations. I know there are two different philosophies as to whether this should be done by way of regulation or whether it should be done by way of legislation in here.

I might have made one incorrect statement earlier. The Court of Appeal will be going to 16 judges, not 15, There were increases in 1962, 1965, 1967, twice in 1970, twice in 1976, and 1977. We have had regular increases in the numbers; but I remind the members the Attorney General only creates the office, the appointments are made by the federal government.

The Attorney General, being responsible for the administration of justice in Ontario, has to make sure the requirements of that heavy case load can be met quickly -- sometimes more quickly than the buildup of the cases takes place. Although it says "frequent legislative amendments," that is a qualitative one as to the definition of frequent legislative amendments as stated in the compendium the member for Kitchener read from.

I think that, because of the increase in the case load of this court -- indeed, a second bill that will be coming up later on today will try to increase the size of another court so as to possibly decrease the work load in this court -- there are more and more litigious matters coming before the courts and, rather than trying to bring in legislation on our crowded legislative calendar, this is an easy way to relieve those loads.

Members have the very frequent opportunity in the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General to discuss the number of judges, their work load, the court cases and calendars. So there is another opportunity to discuss this very same subject as to the work load. Overall, the appointment by way of regulation, the opening up of those positions is a very expeditious way of carrying out that function.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

Mr. G. W. Taylor, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 106,

an Act to amend the County Courts Act.

Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the County Courts Act is increasing the jurisdiction of the county court. The monetary jurisdiction of the court is being increased to $7,500, and in partnership actions a limit of $50,000 is being placed on the capital of the partnership in that type of action. In actions based on the legacy under a will, a limit of $7,500 is placed on the value of a legacy and a limit of $50,000 is placed on the total value of the estate.

These increases in the monetary jurisdiction of the county court are to take care of increases in inflation, to recognize the economic significance of actions and to allow them to be in a lower court rather than a higher court where sometimes the lawyers, as we know, charge more than the average fees they charge in the lower courts. It will assist many citizens in obtaining legal services at a lower cost, and in a court closer to their jurisdiction and a court that sits more frequently during the year, rather than waiting for the Supreme Court assizes.

Increasing the monetary jurisdiction of the county and district courts will permit more cases to be disposed of by county courts and will allow for faster service of the litigants.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly in favour of the amendments that have been brought forward to the County Courts Act. It is necessary as an unfortunate result of inflation, I suppose, and other matters to increase these jurisdictions because of the areas that are under litigation within the county court system and because of the value of partnership shares and those of estates. As a result, we have seen the jurisdictions now effectively double since 1970.

This is something that must be done, as the parliamentary assistant has said, not only to have quicker justice but with the hope that we might have some cheaper justice as well, since the county court tariffs for dealing with matters are somewhat less than those for Supreme Court actions.

We are in favour of these amendments, and we will vote for the bill.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that once again the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and I find ourselves in total agreement on this bill, as is proposed before the House. As has been stated, it is really not a change in policy; it is a recognition of the effects of inflation.

3:40 p.m.

When we have a government that is doing so little about resolving inflation, the only alternative is to recognize it in something like this and permit the policy that has been in operation before to continue. We support this bill.

Mr. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I think the other members and I have summed up the bill adequately.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

MUNICIPAL INTEREST AND DISCOUNT RATES ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 121,

An Act to provide Alternative Methods of Fixing Penalty Charges, Interest Rates and Discount Rates on Payments to Municipalities.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation offers municipalities and local boards an alternative means of determining interest charges on overdue tax levies and of determining discounts on payments received in advance.

Currently, municipalities may charge up to 1.25 per cent per month, or 15 per cent per annum, on outstanding taxes. The rate is far below the present Bank of Canada rate of 19 per cent plus and even further below current market rates. The wider the gap between the penalty charge and market rates, the more attractive it becomes for a delinquent taxpayer to absorb the 15 per cent penalty and use would-be tax dollars for other obligations.

This matter is of urgent concern to municipalities that must pay high rates for short-term loans to cover temporary revenue shortfalls caused by arrears. As a result, a growing number of municipalities are petitioning this government to bring the penalty rate more in line with prevailing market rates.

The new formula proposed in this bill will bring all penalty charges for municipally related levies under one all-encompassing provision. The formula directly links the maximum rate chargeable to the prime rate of a designated chartered bank plus 1.5 per cent. It will be available to all local government authorities, including school boards, area municipalities and upper tiers, as a method for calculating interest on overdue payment of taxes or debt installments or for setting discounts on advance payments.

The proposed legislation offers an alternative to current fixed-rate legislation. It is consistent in its application to the local government

section of Ontario and satisfies the major concerns of local government as expressed to the province.

Mr. Conway: All the phone calls.

Mr. Rotenberg: This bill has been reviewed in detail by a committee of the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, which approved the bill in its form and content in all details. I ask for approval of this bill on second reading.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we intend to support the bill and have been in support of its concept since its introduction on June 17.

I think the interjection from at least one of my colleagues was well-founded in that we have received a number of calls from mayors and reeves. I have not received any personally, since they would know better in my area, but we have received a number indicating they have been informed by ministry officials that the Liberal Party has been holding up this piece of legislation.

Frankly, I do not think it is such a marvellous piece of legislation anyway but, since a number of people do think it is so marvellous, I believe it has been unfair and improper for anyone in the ministry, whether the minister, his assistants or his other employees, to indicate to anyone in the province that members of the Liberal Party or anybody else were holding up the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, you may recall I brought this matter to your attention on a point of order. By the rules of our House, misrepresenting the position of members in public is equivalent to slander. It is a very serious matter indeed and one that undoubtedly infringed on the privileges of the members here. The usual response of you and your colleague Mr. Speaker Turner to points of privilege, that they are not points of privilege, I thought was incorrect at that time.

We are debating this bill, however, and the minister's assistant has indicated that it would be bringing all these charges under one easily understood rule associated with the prime rate; yet in the explanatory notes it indicates the municipalities have a choice of either using the existing legislation or else going with the new procedure based on the prime rate in accordance with this bill.

It is possible I may misunderstand it. I personally do not think it is that important. I suppose there are people who are not paying their taxes because the rate for overdue taxes is somewhat less than the prime rate. It is hard to imagine there are all these close shavers in the business community doing this to the detriment of the municipalities, but we are in the business of passing laws to cover all these ridiculous eventualities and Bill 121 falls in that area.

We have not obstructed the bill in any way. My colleagues are supporting it, some more enthusiastically than I am. I feel that, by leaving all those alternatives there, we are getting something more to confuse both the taxpayers and those people who have the power to extract tax payments. However, I do resent any indication from anybody in the government or anywhere else that members of this House have either been interfering with the passage of the bill or have opposed it, because the contrary is true.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say our party is supportive of this legislation as well. I have some reservations about the method by which it is done, and I certainly have some reservations about the length of time it has taken to get this bill before us.

I can recall municipalities for many years asking for this kind of bill, for changes in legislation in regard to the interest they may charge and the discount they may give, although the interest they charge is their main concern because they work to a very large extent on borrowed money.

I can recall their asking for this kind of legislation for many years, and it seems rather strange that it has taken this length of time to bring it before us. They have tried to blame the Liberals for holding it up. Although I suppose they are guilty in this respect on many things, to the best of my knowledge on this one they are not guilty. It is bad taste on the part of the government to endeavour to attribute that to them.

Perhaps when the parliamentary assistant gets up to answer this, he may want to comment on why they have not brought in amendments to these various other acts so we will not have two systems in force. It makes a lot of sense to have 1.5 per cent above the prime rate. It means they are going to be charging about the going rate of interest to any good creditor. I think that is perfectly reasonable.

But the municipalities still may be able to use these other acts. I point out to the parliamentary assistant that if the interest rate goes down substantially -- certainly all of us in this House hope that will be the case; some of us in this corner of the House, if we were the government, would ensure that was the case -- and before too long there may be an interest rate below 15 per cent, then when they have passed that under their other permissive legislation, that 15 per cent could remain even though the interest rate would have gone down to 12 per cent or even to 10 per cent.

For practical purposes, apart from the fact of making it much tidier, I wonder why the parliamentary assistant, or more appropriately the minister, has not brought in legislation to delete those other sections and make this the only

section that is used. There is no doubt, although we have very able clerks and treasurers throughout this province, that some of them in the smaller municipalities perhaps will get a bit confused, having two acts to look at and not really knowing which one may apply in this case.

3:50 p.m.

The legislation, I suggest, is reasonable in the sense that they have to take a look at it each year and review it in light of the interest rates, which they do not have to do under the Municipal Act or under the other acts that permit the level of interest to be set.

We support this bill, but we think there are additions that should have been brought in at the same time to make the whole thing a bit simpler and a bit more realistic in the application of interest rates by municipalities.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address Bill 121,

An Act to provide Alternative Methods of Fixing Penalty Charges, Interest Rates and Discount Rates on Payments to Municipalities.

My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold will recall the days before regional government in the Niagara Peninsula when many municipalities had what they called a discount rate. If a home owner paid his taxes on January 1, he received a discount rate. But today, to my knowledge, that does not take place in any municipality within the region.

At one time, the municipalities in the area of Fort Erie used to give a discount rate. If a person paid his taxes before January 30, he received about a two per cent discount. They used to get a discount in the county of Welland. It worked very well. I remember one municipality, the municipality of Chippawa, received substantial rebates because the residents paid their taxes in January. One or two industries there used to pay and they received a good break on their taxes.

That used to be an encouragement to municipalities to collect their taxes early. Then we went into regional government. One of the strong reservations I have about this bill is that many of the taxpayers do not get their bills until some time in September; so it is nine months before they know the mill rate that is going to be struck by the region or by a municipality.

At one time there was a rule that the mill rate had to be struck by March 30 or April 15. Every municipality used to meet that deadline. Now, of course, schools cannot come forward with their educational costs, because they do not know the amount of the provincial grant.

I suggest that we may be getting delinquent taxpayers. There are many people with 19.5 per cent interest rates who are finding it difficult to pay not only their taxes but also other personal debts such as buying a home. It seems that everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon instead of showing some courtesy or giving some thought and consideration to the fact that these are difficult times even without another rate increase in the interest rates on municipal taxes for those delinquent taxpayers.

There are some who do take advantage, but there are not many in the system who take advantage because they can work that one or three or two per cent interest for their personal gain. I suggest we should consider that these are normally the persons who do it every year.

There are some bylaws a municipality can use to step on the toes of the ones who want to abuse the system, but I think this is going to cause a great hardship to a number of persons who are finding it difficult, particularly if they are in a depressed area and unemployment is high. It is going to keep those people going to meet their municipal taxes, the way they have been increasing over the years, without jumping on the bandwagon and saying 19.5 per cent this year.

There is no guarantee the interest rate is going to be reduced. We know the interest rates have been manufactured on the American side. Because they are far too high, we should not follow the principle of jumping on the bandwagon and saying our interest rates should be at par with those in the United States. I suggest we do not have to do this. I think we have to have affordable interest rates.

I have some rather strong reservations here. I think the municipality has the right to go ahead and put the property up for sale for tax arrears. I am sure it can get a return on its money that way.

Nineteen and a half per cent has gone beyond all reason as an approach to resolving a problem. An interest rate like that is going to put many property owners in a deplorable state. They will not be able to pay that, and within two or three years they are going to lose their homes this way, as it is with the high interest rates on purchasing a new home. I do not think we have to move with such a drastic step towards 19.5 per cent. If they had wanted to, they could have moved it to 16 per cent from 15 per cent.

As it is now, much of the fault lies with the present tax structure in many municipalities. They do not qualify under the formula to get the grants to municipalities. They do not get the educational grants at the time they are striking their mill rates and sending out their tax bills. Municipalities have to wait nine months to send out the final notice; in some of them now it is not sent out until December. Almost every second month we get a notice from the local tax collector in the area that another instalment is due.

We have lost our ability to look at the concerns of the majority of local taxpayers. If the rate is 1.5 per cent a month, it can be damaging to those persons who have to meet that obligation. At one time the taxpayer did not pay any interest until the final instalment was due December 31. Now they are collecting every month and it is really stretching it.

Perhaps the minister will consider my comments that we do not have to jump on the bandwagon every time the interest rates jump up.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond to some of the points made.

Referring to whatever telephone calls were made, I think the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) answered that the other day when it was brought up in the House.

Right now, there is a difference of at least five or six or seven points between what businesses will pay to their bank and the 15 per cent municipalities can charge for taxes. There is a large gap. Municipalities have been really crying to us to do something because a lot of people were not paying their taxes. They said they were being used as bankers at a much lower rate. It is for the benefit of the municipalities that we are bringing this forward.

In response to the member for Erie, there is really no way a municipality can charge a different rate of interest to different taxpayers based on their record. It has to be the same rate for everyone.

To those who have some reservations about this, this is permissive legislation. We are saying to municipalities: "You are elected governors of your municipality. You can charge whatever rate you wish. You can stay at 15. You can stay below 15." These are simply the maximums the municipalities can charge, and within that range the municipalities have their own discretion. They have local autonomy, and it is up to them to do as they choose. A lot of members have asked for local autonomy for municipalities.

The member for Welland-Thorold raised a valid point: why did we not change all the acts. It is because we would have had to change the Municipal Act, all the regional acts, the County of Oxford Act and certain education acts. It would have meant having a number of bills before the Legislature rather than just one. In the time frame we have this session, with all the time we have taken on certain other bills, there did not seem to be enough time for that.

More important, the municipal affairs

section of the ministry is looking at a trend where a particular topic such as discount rates or interest rates should all be in one location rather than scattered throughout many bills. However, there is nothing firm on this yet. I hope over the course of time and a review of all the bills we will be able to have the same topic once instead of in a number of bills.

We will not get down to 15 per cent for quite a period of time. As we consider these bills in a more comprehensive review, we could consider repealing those sections in the other acts. For the present, to fulfil the urgent request of municipalities this seemed the easiest and simplest way to get it done during this session of the Legislature before the summer recess.

4 p.m.

Just one more point: The member for Erie was asking about discounts. Discounts are still permissive to councils. In the light of the present climate, they may not choose to do it; but again that is their choice, it has nothing to do with government legislation.

Having said all that, I do thank the opposition. I understand they have certain reservations, but I thank them for their indicated support of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

LEEDS AND GRENVILLE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 124,

An Act respecting the Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education and Teachers Dispute.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I will very briefly remind the members of the Legislature that the bill was introduced on June 18 at the request of the Education Relations Commission in its role as a responsible group developed to supervise the labour-management relationships and negotiations between teachers and boards.

Since in my almost three years as Minister of Education I have not had the opportunity, thank God, of introducing legislation to end a dispute between teachers and boards of education, I did peruse the debates of the Legislature relating to those unfortunate seven circumstances that arose shortly after Bill 100 was promulgated.

I found, to my interest, that at one point, I think it was in March or April of 1976, in the penultimate piece of legislation that was introduced, the then Minister of Education made a statement that I think characterizes the government's response to initiatives or pressures in the area of teacher-board negotiations that become prolonged disputes, and that is that we would deal with each one on the basis of its own merit, its own characteristics and its own uniqueness.

That is precisely what has happened. No such dispute has been terminated by legislation since 1976. All the disputes have been settled through negotiation, and it is certainly the hope and intent of both the Education Relations Commission and the minister that this one will be settled by negotiation as well before such action has to be taken as proclamation of the bill.

A very important portion of the introduction of this bill was the declaration that it would not be proclaimed until the Education Relations Commission had held what it perceived to be an appropriate examination of the potential jeopardy to the educational program for the young people, and had so notified the Minister of Education by advisement. At that time, and at that time only, would the bill be proclaimed.

It appears again to be a unique situation. It is a unique bill; it is not like another. It does include a method of settlement that has been used at least once before but is somewhat unusual in this kind of bargaining and this kind of settlement.

I hope the honourable members opposite, mindful of their concern for the educational program for the young people involved and mindful of their concern for the future educational stability and security of those young people, will move to support this bill.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I certainly accept the premise that the situation in Leeds and Grenville is unique -- unique, certainly, since Bill 100 was introduced. It is indeed the first time that we could be faced -- and I use the word "could" -- with the possibility of a breakdown in teacher-board negotiations extending over two school years.

For that reason, we have to take a look at the possibility of unique measures. I accept that. I also accept the premise put forward by the minister that the bill continues to provide the opportunity -- I would have to underline that word -- for the two sides to continue to negotiate during the two summer months of July and August.

I would also go on record once again that my position as education critic for our party and the position of our party is that we do not believe that the strike route or lockout route is the best way for teachers and trustees to resolve their differences. We do not believe that it is in the best interests of children. We do, however, have a piece of legislation in this province that permits it. Whether we like it or not, it is there.

As the minister pointed out, we also have had a period of three years, I believe it is now, where no back-to-work legislation has been introduced into this Legislature.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Four years.

Mr. Sweeney: Four years, the minister reminds me. That would seem to indicate that the government has taken the position that if we have right-to-strike legislation, then we are going to let it go on. We have seen recently just in the past year the very long strike in Bruce county and the longest strike in the history of the province in the city of Sudbury. It would appear that the government had taken a particular stance.

However, with all that out of the way, let me point out that in my judgement this is not a very good bill. It has a number of things in it that concern me greatly. First, I believe the initiation for the bill, as the minister pointed out to us when she introduced it for first reading and as she repeated today, which was a letter to the minister from the Education Relations Commission, is one that should give us cause to be concerned. Bill 100 clearly defines, at least in my judgement, the role of the Education Relations Commission with respect to giving advice to the minister which is -- I am reading

section 61(1)(h) -- "to advise the Lieutenant Governor in Council when in the opinion of the commission the continuance of a strike, lockout or closing of a school or schools will place in jeopardy the successful completion of courses of study for students."

My

interpretation of that is that when the commission has made a decision that the educational progress of students is in jeopardy, then it is the commission's responsibility to come to the minister through the Lieutenant Governor in Council and say, "We believe jeopardy now exists." The government has the option -- the minister is the spokesman for the government in this case -- to agree with the commission and to take some action or to disagree with the commission and probably not take any action or simply choose to wait a little while longer. All these options are there.

But there is nothing in the legislation -- if it is there, I cannot find it, and I would ask the minister to draw it to my attention if it is -- that provides the commission with the option in the contents of this letter. The letter, which was written on June 11 when the students had been out of school for 25 school days, clearly says that in the judgement of the commission there is no jeopardy. It also goes on to imply, although it does not specifically say it, at the top of page two, that by the end of the school year, which would then mean 36 days that the students would have been out of school, there still would not be jeopardy at that time.

The commission justifies that position by saying, "Students affected by the strike will receive their final marks." It goes on to say, "Universities and community colleges in Ontario will, apparently, accept such students under those conditions." The commission is saying that, despite the fact the students will have been out of school for the equivalent of seven weeks of school, in its judgement there is not jeopardy and by the end of the seven weeks or 36 days there will not be jeopardy.

4:10 p.m.

In a few minutes I want to come back and speak briefly about the concept of jeopardy because I think at this point we have made an absolute farce of it. It has no credibility or meaning any more. Nevertheless, let us stick to the legalities.

The commission says, "While in our opinion there is an absence of compelling evidence that jeopardy exists," which in my judgement is a very unusual statement that there is no jeopardy now and there is not going to be any in roughly two more weeks after this letter was written, "therefore, in light of the above, the commission recommends that you consider the enactment of legislation before the adjournment of the Legislature to terminate the secondary school strike in Leeds and Grenville" -- and this is truly the critical part -- "and that the proclamation of legislation by the Lieutenant Governor in Council be deferred."

First of all, I think the commission is acting improperly in advising the minister to take any legislative action when it clearly says there is no jeopardy. Quite frankly, I happen to disagree with its analysis, but that is not the point I am trying to make at this time. It says there is no jeopardy. The act says that unless there is jeopardy --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it doesn't.

Mr. Sweeney: Let the minister comment on my remarks in a few minutes. My reading of the act is that then it does not have the responsibility to report to the minister. But for it to go one step further and say, "Introduce legislation but we are advising you to have the proclamation of that legislation deferred," is in my mind a serious abuse of this Legislature.

I also suggest it is a serious abuse on the part of the commission. Put in the bluntest possible terms, I do not believe it has any business whatsoever to so advise, at least not in a way that the minister would use its written message as the reason for bringing in this legislation.

I make two points. First, I do not believe we are acting properly under Bill 100 as I understand it -- and that is open to disagreement, of course. Second, I believe the commission is acting improperly with respect to the advice it is giving the minister. In taking that advice in that form, I think the minister is supporting and contributing to an abuse of this Legislature.

The minister knows I do not necessarily agree with the legislation but it is there. If we are going to be consistent with what it says and with what the minister herself just a few minutes ago indicated was her preferred line of action, then surely the proper way is to deal with this as we have done twice before in this Legislature, once with respect to a teacher-school board dispute and once with respect to the Toronto Transit Commission dispute. In the judgement of the government of the day this Legislature was recalled, a bill was introduced and in both cases the bill was passed. That is the proper way to deal with this issue.

After having missed school for 36 days, how can we say there is no jeopardy but we need a bill of this nature at this time because some time in September at the first of the next school year there may be jeopardy? Nobody knows whether or not there is going to be jeopardy. Surely the commission does not say in the letter that there will be jeopardy but that there might be, and, therefore, the minister had better have this handy little tool on hand in case she has to use it.

This is where I have to repeat myself and say I think this is a clear-cut abuse of the Legislature. It is not the way this place is supposed to operate. We are not supposed to hand anybody a little club to hold over people's heads; that is not our job. Quite frankly, I would say to the minister, I don't believe it is her job either.

Coming back to the whole question of jeopardy, the other point I would make is that if there is one time in the entire school year where the least jeopardy could possibly exist, it is at the beginning of the school year. If there have to be strikes in this province and if we are not going to be able to do anything about that in the near future, surely the one possible time it would be best to have them would be at the beginning of the school year.

There is no doubt about it that for many people a strike at any time is an inconvenience. There is no doubt about it that a strike in September will be an inconvenience. But I will say, given my limited experience in the educational field, that the one time when one genuinely could not say that one had jeopardy would be in the month of September because one would have nine months of the year left in order to assist the students to make up for what they missed.

When one looks at a number of the strikes that have gone on in the province, most notably the one we had in Sudbury recently when the students missed the equivalent of 11 weeks of school -- 57 days I think it was -- and there was no possibility under the sun of them catching up with what they missed.

I don't know whether the minister got the letter, as I did, or an equivalent letter, from a couple of the students in Sudbury when there was no attempt made whatsoever to try to help them towards the end of the year. A young man wrote to me and said he had just received his graduation certificate from his school. He said, "Mr. Sweeney, in my judgement, this certificate is not worth the paper it is printed on. It is a farce that I could have missed so much."

This boy was in a semester program and had missed something like about 70 per cent of his semester time in terms of classroom time, but he was given a graduation certificate with no make-up work whatsoever. I do not blame that young man. He is a young man of 17 years of age who said that as far as he was concerned, that graduation certificate was not worth the paper it was printed on, yet we say there was no jeopardy.

The minister will probably remember when we had the Bruce strike in this province and I brought to her attention the number of students who appeared before the school board and said, "We are being used as pawns." Again, it was a 17-year-old boy who made that comment which received a fair bit of publicity across the province. For this and many other reasons, I have to say that in my judgement the whole question of jeopardy in this province has become a farce. It has no meaning any more. Even the students are now beginning to realize that the quality of their education comes second.

We say we are genuinely concerned about the quality of their education and what it means when they get an education in this province, but that has become a farce.

I am concerned about a couple of sections of this bill because I don't understand why the minister has put them in. I would appreciate the minister explaining them to me. I would go on record right now as saying that if I cannot get a satisfactory explanation, I have already prepared amendments which will speak to these areas.

The first one is

section 3 of the bill which speaks to referring all the matters to a selector. As members probably realize, referring matters in a dispute to a final offer selector is a quite legitimate way of dealing with a dispute. As a matter of fact, members of this party on a number of occasions have said that under certain conditions it is quite a legitimate procedure to use.

4:20 p.m.

I have to question it in this bill for two reasons. First, if we genuinely say we want to give them July and August to work this out themselves, I cannot understand why we do not give them the opportunity to choose whether they want an arbitrator or whether they want a final offer selector. Quite frankly, I think that should be left up to them. Second, I had an opportunity to meet with a number of the teachers from the Leeds area and they pointed out to me -- I have a copy of their statement here -- there are still 26 items in dispute.

Then they go on to say that there are several other clauses -- I do not know how many -- that have been tentatively agreed to, but have not yet been finalized or signed for. In addition to the 26 items on which there is no agreement at all, there are quite a number of others on which there has been at least verbal agreement.

I would only make the point -- and I am sure the minister is well aware of it -- that final offer selection works best when there are relatively few items left, maybe three, four or five. It probably will not be effective when there are 26 items left. Once again, I would appreciate the minister speaking to that and indicating why, specifically, she is requiring there be a selector rather than giving them a choice between an arbitrator and a selector.

The second point I would draw to the minister's attention is the requirement that this settlement be for three years.

Section 4 of the bill refers to the settlement ending in August 1983. On one side, I can understand that partly. These two parties have now been negotiating since January 1980. That is 18 months. I am quite sure both they and their community have probably had it. There might be a possible defence in saying, "Let that community rest for a while. Let's not throw them right back into that same process again in January 1982." That is what would be required of them if this were a two-year settlement rather than a three-year one. I can understand that.

I would also draw to the minister's attention that no matter how carefully she resolves these things, there is always a sense of bitterness and a sense of having been taken advantage of, particularly if we end up staying with the selector. I am wondering -- as a matter of fact, I feel very strongly about it -- whether it is clearly wise under these circumstances not to give the two sides an opportunity to reopen their negotiations in January 1982. I would suggest to the minister there is a fairly healthy balance on both sides of that equation. I think we have to take a very serious look at that.

I am prepared to introduce an amendment, if for no other reason than to get some good discussion on it, because I think that may not be a wise decision.

I indicated just a minute ago the long period of time these negotiations have been going on. The minister was kind enough to provide me with some supplementary material. I notice, as I just mentioned, that negotiations began in January 1980, 18 months ago. The minister is well aware of the fact. We have talked about it in her estimates committees on a number of occasions. I believe that one of the serious faults in Bill 100 is the lack of any enforced time limits.

I can remember very clearly when this bill was introduced in 1974 -- I was not in the House, but I was associated with the school board and, therefore, followed it very closely -- it was the general perception of almost everybody that the various time lines outlined in Bill 100 were reasonable ones. If followed, there should be very few times when negotiations would break down. All the various stages -- the teachers would make their presentation, the board would make its counter-presentation, they would negotiate for a while, bring in a fact-finder and then, if necessary, bring in a mediator or arbitrator -- were very reasonable.

It was certainly assumed that the period from January to August would be sufficient if those time lines were followed. Yet the minister knows that every single time we have had a serious breakdown in this province in negotiations that have ended in a strike we have been talking of negotiation periods that have gone on for 16 months, 18 months and in one case as long as 20 months.

That is a serious problem in this bill, and it is also one of the issues that was brought up in the Matthews commission. Something is going to have to be done to firm up and enforce those time lines. Here we certainly have one more example of the fact that a strike or a lockout becomes almost inevitable. One can literally bank on its happening, when negotiations last that long. The amount of bitterness, frustration and anger that is generated between the two sides leaves little other possibility.

I would be interested in having the minister provide us at some time with statistics on the number of negotiations that have, in fact, gone on for that long a period of time and have been settled without a strike. I am not aware of any. Maybe the minister can indicate some. We have got to deal with that situation.

I would also say that we had hoped that the introduction of a mediator of the quality of Richard Jackson would resolve the problem. He is quite a competent man. But once again we are coming up against an area of the whole legislation which is flawed, namely, this practice of continuing to bring in people on a one-shot basis who have relatively little background with which to truly understand the teachers' position or truly understand the board's position.

I hope that very soon we are going to be able to take up the suggestion made by many, including some members of my party, that we have a semi-permanent panel of mediators or arbitrators, people who have genuinely come to understand the issues, who will be coming back time and time again, as opposed to people who are brought in either from the bench or from the university on these kinds of one-shot deals. I think that is hurting us.

It has become very evident, despite the fact, which I have indicated, that there are 26 items left in dispute, that the single most pressing item is class size. I have a sense, and I got that sense from those with whom I have talked in the Leeds-Grenville area, that if that one could be resolved the others would probably fall into place reasonably quickly.

It is for that reason -- and other members of my party have brought this to the minister's attention -- that I was somewhat dismayed that the minister should go on public record and make the statement that it really does not matter whether a good teacher has 15 pupils in her class or 50 pupils in her class, that the significant quality is a good teacher.

The minister will have the opportunity again later today to expand on what she intended by that statement.

But surely she appreciates that as the Minister of the Education, as the chief spokesman for the government in educational matters, when she makes a public utterance in that way on a very sensitive issue such as this -- and I appreciate fully that it was in response to a question; as a matter of fact I do not think I have to remind the minister that somebody in this caucus got into trouble answering an education question as well, though that is neither here nor there at this point -- it is foolhardy and inappropriate, in my judgement at least, for the minister to make that kind of response, particularly -- and the minister knows this -- when the court is still out on the whole question of class size in terms of valid, well-researched evidence.

4:30 p.m.

Let me take it one step further. I think the minister knows there is not a single teacher in Ontario who will agree with her that class size does not make a difference. I have never found one. If the minister knows one, please let me know his or her name. I doubt there are many parents or students in the province who will agree with her. Again, I have never met one. Perhaps some day we will prove it. I doubt it, but maybe some day we will.

At this time when it has not been proven, when it is an extremely sensitive issue, when we have the only existing strike in the province turning on that one issue, it was most inappropriate for the minister to have made that comment. I would be pleased to hear her further expansion of what she really said, why she said it and what she meant by saying it.

The other point I would make is that in Leeds-Grenville, as I understand it, they already have one of the highest pupil-teacher ratios in the province. I mention that specifically because the minister knows as well as I do that pupil-teacher ratio does not have a direct bearing on class size, but it certainly has an indirect one.

The point the Leeds people have brought to my attention, and I suspect they have also brought it to the minister's attention, is that for many other scho