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

May 31, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L070 - Mon 31 May 1976 / Lun 31 mai 1976

DEATH OF MAJOR B. H. GEARY

ESSEX PACKERS

NEW HOME WARRANTY PLAN

GRASSY NARROWS RESERVE

GRASSY NARROWS RESERVE

EMPLOYMENT ON INDIAN RESERVES

TRI-PARTY APPROACH ON INDIAN PROBLEMS

ELECTRIC KETTLES

IMPORTED GRAPE-VINES

LABOUR RATES OF ONTARIO HYDRO MOVING CONTRACTOR

ESSEX PACKERS

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

ESSEX PACKERS

LOANS TO MILK PRODUCERS

JOB CREATION

TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN EASTERN ONTARIO

RENT REVIEW PROGRAMME

METRIC PACKAGING

POLITICAL ADVERTISING

ONTARIO SOUVENIRS

ACCIDENT SPOT ON QEW

SCHOOL FACILITIES IN YORK

ABORTION STUDIES

HOSPITAL LAUNDRIES

RONDEAU PROVINCIAL PARK

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTIES PLAN ACT

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION (CONTINUED)

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of members of this House and other persons the book of condolence which has been placed in the rotunda of the library in memory of the late W. Ross Macdonald. The book will be available for signatures until 6 this evening.

DEATH OF MAJOR B. H. GEARY

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, once again this House must note with profound sadness and regret the death of another distinguished servant of our nation and province. Maj. Handley Geary died on Saturday at Niagara-on-the-Lake in the fullness of years and honour.

He served this House as our Sergeant-at-Arms for 24 years, until his retirement in 1972. He carried out these responsibilities with dignity and good humour and he was a friend to all of us who served in this House during these years.

Handley Geary came to public life in Ontario at a time when men normally think of retirement. He had already distinguished himself as a soldier and he wore our country’s highest military honour -- the Victoria Cross -- as evidence of his courage; what his citation called “most conspicuous bravery and determination in holding Hill 60, near Ypres in April, 1915.”

He was a fine gentleman, a brave soldier and a distinguished servant of Ontario.

Therefore, I move, on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Davis), seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis), that the House note with regret the passing of Maj. Benjamin Handley Geary, VC, and that we observe one minute of silence in his memory.

On resumption:

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ESSEX PACKERS

Hon. J. H. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I met with representatives of the DeJonge Group last Friday, May 28, to learn of their actions and intentions regarding the two plants owned by Essex Packers Ltd. in Hamilton.

On May 14, the loan to Essex Packers Ltd. from the Bank of Nova Scotia was retired and the plants were returned by the receiver to Essex Packers. Better Beef arranged to lease the plants from the trustee, Peat Marwick Ltd., and closed them temporarily to take inventory of plant and office equipment and supplies. The inventory was taken by representatives of Better Beef, Essex Packers, and staff of Sid Ray Services Ltd. of Hamilton, a firm engaged in inventory services, possession, etc.

The plants are now operating on a skeleton basis, employing 25 persons, with Better Beef paying all operating expenses.

The DeJonge Group has now determined that it does not wish to operate these plants itself bccause of their specialized nature, but are keeping the plants operating while it negotiates with prospective tenants or purchasers.

The DeJonges have invested $500,000 in the purchase of creditors’ claims, together with additional investments in operating costs at the plants for over two months, together with legal and accounting fees, etc. This investment is now stated to total approximately $1.2 million.

This investment can only be fully recovered if the plants are capitalized as fully operational concerns. I believe this remains the best guarantee that they will abide by their commitment to make the plants fully operational once more.

The matter of the claims for separation pay of the former employees of Essex Packers is being reviewed by the trustee in bankruptcy and the Ministry of Labour, having in mind relevant federal and provincial legislation.

I would like to point out that all the affairs of Essex Packers are being administered under the Bankruptcy Act, and are open to complete scrutiny under the supervision of the bankruptcy court and the trustee.

As a result of the information provided in the meeting on Friday and subsequently, I am of the opinion that the DeJonges are seriously attempting to comply with their commitment to provide continued employment in Essex Packers’ Hamilton plants and have considerable financial investment as their surety for doing so. I understand they are engaged in some quite difficult negotiations to bring this about.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that unnecessary harassment can only make this task more difficult and endanger opportunities for employment in the Hamilton plants.

NEW HOME WARRANTY PLAN

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, designed to provide major protection for purchasers against the added cost and inconvenience caused by poor workmanship in home construction.

High consumer demand for new housing has resulted in a situation where even houses which are poorly built are readily sold at high prices, although I want to emphasize that the number of complaints is small relative to the number of homes built.

The economics of modern construction place a premium on speed and the use of a number of subcontractors results in conflicting priorities. These are only two of the many circumstances under which mistakes can and do occur.

The risk of purchasing a poorly finished home is bad enough, but some purchasers have been left in a position where a builder went bankrupt, taking a substantial deposit with him. This is another serious problem that must be solved.

Thousands of skilled contractors and builders should not have to suffer a bad image as the result of the incompetence and negligence of the few exceptions. But as long as the public remains unprotected from these few, it will blame the industry as a whole.

A rapid resolution of home buyer complaints is clearly needed and representatives of consumer groups, the building industry, municipalities and the mortgage insuring industry are all agreed upon this point.

The Ontario New Homes Warranties Plan Act provides this solution. It establishes warranty protection with the following features: a warranty that a home is constructed in a workmanlike manner, free of major structural defects, free from defects in materials, fit for habitation, and constructed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code; protection against loss of a buyer’s deposit or advance payment made to a builder; a fund to pay compensation and damages arising from a breach of warranty; a provision that the benefits of the warranty will apply to subsequent owners.

It also appoints a non-profit corporaton responsible for administering the warranty and compensation plan and enforcing its requirements. Representatives of the building industry, the Ontario government, the Consumers’ Association of Canada and others, will sit on the board of directors of the corporation.

Currently, the unsatisfied home buyer must seek redress through the courts, a costly and time-consuming procedure. With this legislation, he or she will be able to call upon the services of the corporation for conciliation.

The corporation will register all builders who meet requisite standards and registration will be mandatory to operate in Ontario. This means that all new houses built for sale to the Ontario public, with the exception of cottages, rental units and shell housing, will be covered by the warranty plan.

Builders failing to meet the standards will be deregistered but will have the right to appeal to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal.

The warranty and insurance package will be paid by the builder at a fixed rate for each house. Registered builders will be responsible for repairing any defects in materials or workmanship during the first year after completion. Should the builder default in this responsibility, the corporation will undertake the work at its own expense. During the following four years, the corporation will repair major structural defects.

The intent of this Act is to maintain healthy competition throughout the building industry and to ensure that registration is neither costly nor time-consuming to the individual builder.

We have worked closely with HUDAC in the development of this consumer protection package for buyers of new homes and I would like to congratulate the organization for the spirit of co-operation and innovative thinking which it has exhibited.

Last Friday, the Premier (Mr. Davis) and I travelled to Brampton to launch the programme by presenting the first warranty certificate to the purchaser of a new home.

Considerable time has been devoted to studying the efforts of other jurisdictions to establish similar protection. We feel that the new Ontario legislation will provide more comprehensive home buyer protection than that available anywhere else in Canada.

GRASSY NARROWS RESERVE

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement concerning remarks contained in this morning’s Globe and Mail

article concerning the operation of a freezer on the Grassy Narrows Indian Reserve, located north of Kenora.

This

article quoted the chief of the Grassy Narrows band as stating that a malfunction of the freezer occurred about two weeks ago, that representatives of my ministry had been notified and, I quote: “No one has visited the reserve to do anything about it.”

This morning I instructed that an inspection be carried out on this freezer with the servicing representative of the company which holds a contract for its maintenance. I am advised that there is, today, approximately 5,000 pounds of fish rotting in this unit. I am also advised that the freezer was turned off manually and that this unit is in perfect working order.

The Grassy Narrows band has a telephone number to call at any time service is required for this freezer. On one occasion in the past they reported a malfunction, which was also the result of a manual interruption of electrical supply. At no time has this unit gone out of service as a result of malfunction. The service company which holds the maintenance contract for this unit and the freezer at the Whitedog Indian Reserve, has a 24-hour telephone emergency number and no report of a mechanical breakdown was received.

I should point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that at a meeting held on May 20 in Kenora with representatives of the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog Indian bands and representatives of the federal and provincial governments, the Indians reported that there was no fish in the freezer.

On Jan. 5, my ministry stocked the freezing unit with approximately 10,000 pounds of fish purchased by the Ontario government from the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Corp. in Winnipeg at a cost of $28,037.25. The same amount of fish was purchased for the Whitedog band.

I am also advised that had a mechanical breakdown occurred, fish stored in the freezer would be safe for up to 36 hours because of the way it is packed and that a service call would have taken place within this period of time, as was the case in the one instance that a problem was reported. At my request, my staff are arranging with the Indians to remove the fish from the freezer unit and bury it in a safe place.

Other statements contained in the newspaper concerned the availability of food supplies for this current year. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that funds are currently available for this continued programme. Two freezing units were acquired by the provincial government at a cost of about $120,000. In addition to this stocking programme, my ministry has spent almost $60,000 in salaries and equipment costs to encourage Indians in fishing, at their request.

[2:15]

Other programmes are in place on both these reserves, which have been reported previously in this House. As this is a second instance of apparently deliberate sabotage of this freezer at Grassy Narrows, and because of the importance of the availability of safe protein food for these Indian people, I will ask the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) to make a complete investigation on this matter and will report back to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Oral questions.

GRASSY NARROWS RESERVE

Mr. Lewis: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Natural Resources regarding his statement.

Since it’s so easy to correct the manual failure he describes, does it not strike the minister as a pretty frightening commentary on the complete breakdown of relationships between the Grassy Narrows band and the government of the Province of Ontario, that several thousand pounds of fish were allowed to rot in that freezer for many days, without either the ministry being notified, according to the minister’s statement, or having relationship sufficiently close and with sufficient confidence with the native peoples to be involved almost automatically?

Doesn’t the minister think he needs to find an alternative policy to those he has undertaken, rather than to engage in some kind of prosecution on Grassy Narrows and undermine what little credibility he has left?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I can’t accept the comments that there is a breakdown between the Grassy Narrows and the Whitedog Indian band in relation to this particular ministry. I would have to say to you, sir, that we have an excellent working relationship with that band, as we do with all our native peoples in the northern part of the province.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, wonderful.

Mr. Warner: They love you up there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And I’m sure, sir, in your position as Speaker of this Legislature today, you will agree with that particular statement, having complete knowledge of the excellent relationship and working field we have with the native peoples of this province.

Mr. Lewis: They speak warmly of you, Hon. Mr. Bernier.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have to say to you, sir, that there is a certain amount of onus and responsibility on the native people.

Mr. Lewis: Of course.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is excellent communication between Grassy Narrows and the outside world. The telephone communications are excellent, and all we do require is a telephone call. No report was received by the maintenance company, and they are on a 24-hour service. We are as concerned as anyone in this House to make sure that protein food, free of pollution, is available to those native people.

Mr. Roy: That’s why it took you four years to do something.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As I indicated to the House in my statement, this programme will continue; it’s fixed, it’s there. We’ve made that commitment to the native peoples and we will continue it and we will honour it.

Mr. Roy: That’s right, it took you four years to do something.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary, if I may: Since the reply of the minister certainly speaks to the confusion, can I ask him is he not aware that at the meeting of May 20, which he referred to in his statement, members of his ministry and other ministries, provincial and federal, indicated there was no lake anywhere in the vicinity where fish could be taken with mercury levels sufficiently low to be safe for native peoples’ consumption? Is he not aware that his colleague, Rene Brunelle, wrote a letter on April 8 saying effectively that the “Fish for Food” programme was over?

How can the minister talk to us about budgeted moneys for alternative protein when the programme has collapsed, when the fish aren’t available and when nothing is happening? The native peoples are still eating the fish and so are the guides; and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think it would be good, since my name is mentioned, that I would read --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I would remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that it’s the hon. Minister without Portfolio, or the hon. member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle) when he makes the type of reference be made.

Mr. Lewis: I’m sorry, I think both would apply.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: On Apr. 8, Mr. Speaker, I wrote to Chief Isaac Mandamin of the Whitedog Indian Reserve, and on the bottom of page three, item eight, in reference to alternate sources of protein, this is what I said:

“The provincial government does not feel it can provide, without charge, alternative food supplies to the Whitedog Reserve.”

Mr. Lewis: What does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Please listen; I listened to the member, listen to me.

Mr. Lewis: What does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Take it easy: It continues:

“As mentioned, the representative of Agriculture and Food can provide advice for the production of alternative protein sources on the reserve. Furthermore, the increasing development of employment opportunities for reserve residents will provide the necessary income for the purchase of appropriate food supplies.”

Now my understanding, Mr. Speaker -- and I can be corrected in this -- my understanding is about a year ago it was agreed that fish would be provided free of charge to those two Indian reserves. My understanding is that this is still being done; there’s no charge for the food.

What the native people are asking for is an alternative protein, for instance like red meat, which is very understandable; and all the meetings we’ve had so far concern the whole question of providing employment opportunities. I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that the native people would much prefer to work and earn money --

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- and buy the things they want themselves.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: So this is what I’m referring to. This was the alternative source of food and that is why representatives of Agriculture and Food and others have been dealing with the question of the Indians having their own cattle, assistance for gardens and other employment opportunities. Again, I’d like to correct the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: For six years you’ve talked about it.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: At no time have I or has anyone said that they would not continue to obtain fish free of charge.

Mr. McClellan: If the “Fish for Food” programme is working as well as the two ministers seem to suggest, perhaps they can explain to this House why it was necessary at the meeting on May 20 for Grassy Narrows band and Treaty 3 to ask that the “Fish for Food” programme be reinstated -- and it was asked twice -- and in response Mr. Herridge replied there are no lakes with fish that are suitable. There’s a clear conflict of information that I hope could be cleared up by the minister.

Mr. Warner: Let’s have the true goods this time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member.

There are two specific programmes; the programme to supply uncontaminated sources of protein such as fish in the freezers is one specific programme.

Mr. McClellan: It’s collapsed.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, it has not collapsed. It has definitely not collapsed. It’s an ongoing programme. The freezers are in place and they’re operating. There’s no question with that programme except the malfunction --

Mr. Lewis: They’re not eating the fish.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- except the malfunctioning of this particular programme.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The particular programme to which the hon. member refers --

Mr. Lewis: This is surreal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. minister reply specifically to the supplementary from the hon. member for Bellwoods and ignore the interjections?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: What I’m trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to clarify the two specific programmes. One is to supply an alternate source of protein, the other is a “Fish for Food” programme whereby the commercial fishermen would be allowed to go and reap their own catch within the bodies of water adjacent to their particular reserves.

Following the tests we did in 1975 the advice of the health authorities indicated to us that that fish provided to those two Indian bands should be below the 0.2 parts per million, because they are heavy consumers of a fish product, to protect them further. There was no fish available in those lakes that had a level below the 0.2 parts per million and this is why we filled the freezers with fish from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board in Winnipeg. They were purchased from lakes in Manitoba that were free of mercury pollution.

So there are two specific programmes.

EMPLOYMENT ON INDIAN RESERVES

Mr. Lewis: A question to the Chairman of Cabinet, if I may: Since the Indians, whatever he has to say about it, are not eating the fish in the freezers and since the “Fish for Food” programme doesn’t work and he wants to provide money to buy alternative protein sources, can the minister tell us in the House exactly what are these increasing employment opportunities which he spoke of in his letter? How many additional jobs are available on Whitedog and Grassy Narrows Reserves and in what areas? What has been achieved in the last six months, one year, two years, six years? Can he give it to us?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: First, I’d like to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition I think he knows as well as I do that on all those remote Indian reserves there are limited employment opportunities and we all agree that as a result of the mercury problem there are even less; there’s less guiding and so forth.

At the same time, this is an Indian reserve and a lot of the responsibility lies with the federal government. We acknowledge we also have a provincial responsibility.

Mr. Lewis: You closed down the commercial fishing. It was this government that did it.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We also have a responsibility in this government and we are living up to it; there have been several meetings to discuss various proposals. In funds alone we have made available -- this is not a large amount but it is a substantial amount and more could be made available if necessary -- $50,000 for local initiatives. We are also investigating forest operations with them, a saw mill; we are also looking into other types of operations in conjunction with other levels of government.

There is no easy answer. It is all right for the members to sit there; it is all very easy to say provide jobs.

Mr. Lewis: Right; there isn’t an easy answer.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It is not easy but it will be done.

We are also looking into tourist establishments, motels, service stations -- these are all things which are seriously being looked into with the federal government and with our own government.

Mr. Cassidy: Fifty miles off the highway.

TRI-PARTY APPROACH ON INDIAN PROBLEMS

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question I would like to put -- maybe we can come back to this tomorrow, but I would like to put the question to the House leader who is in charge of the Indian community secretariat.

Given the continuing and depressing fiasco around Grassy Narrows and Whitedog might he discuss with the Premier (Mr.

Davis) the following proposition: That a member of this Legislature be appointed from the government side -- or that members of each of the three political parties be appointed who transcend the normal partisan considerations, who have regard within the House -- and they be given a term of reference, extending over a six or eight-month period, to provide the focus and the channel to overcome many of the problems at Whitedog and Grassy Narrows which, for whatever reason, for the last six years have stymied all of us; and finally allow some politicians, with respect, to deal with the civil service and with the various levels of governments and get the situation resolved -- or there will be a disaster at Grassy Narrows and Whitedog?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, obviously, having been asked if I would discuss something with the Premier, I would be quite willing to discuss matters with the Premier.

I think, in fairness to those who have now responded to questions, it should be pointed out that the government does recognize some need to co-ordinate an overall approach to our native peoples. Indeed, this has resulted in the appointment of the Chairman of Cabinet (Mr. Brunelle) with some specific responsibilities for native people generally. I would be very pleased to make sure that he and the Premier have the benefit of the discussion and the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I have taken too much time; thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If not, the hon. member for Hamilton West.

ELECTRIC KETTLES

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The first question is of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In light of the statement released -- I guess it was last week -- by the Canadian Standards Association about kettles made by Eastern Tool and Mfg. Co., I believe, which exploded or caused electric shock, can he tell us what steps his ministry is prepared to take in assisting the CSA and informing anyone who might have purchased these kettles about the potential danger they face?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think I have said on many occasions that the question of product safety is one which quite properly belongs in the federal government’s hands. It has a Hazardous Products Act; it has supervision over the Canadian Standards Association. The particular problem the hon. member mentions has been brought to my attention but we have absolutely no jurisdiction to do something at a provincial level which should be done on a national level.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: If the federal department is not acting properly in this regard, do I take it that the minister’s own department will be making representation to it to act swiftly. Can the minister -- or will he -- make his ministry available to the CSA to assist it in informing residents of Ontario whose health might be endangered by this particular hazardous product?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we have no expertise within our ministry concerning hazardous products. I have not suggested that the federal government is not acting properly. I am sure it is aware of its responsibilities under the relevant Act. Certainly we are prepared to assist in any way possible. I will be meeting with Mr. Makasey within a few days and I will draw it to his attention.

IMPORTED GRAPE-VINES

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: In view of the statement made recently by the chairman of the Ontario Grape Producers’ Marketing Board, regarding the fact that in his opinion imported grapevine stock has in some instances had a 70 per cent infection rate which, he says, lessens the whole grape growing industry, what action has the minister’s department taken to ensure that Agriculture Canada does not give exemptions for infected grape stock to come into the grape growing area of this province in order to protect our industry from the virus?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am not fully familiar with the matter except to say that at our Vineland station we have some very capable people who keep a very close eye on all the grape varieties coming in and replacement grape crops in our programme are now in place. I am not aware of any high rate of virus such as the member is talking about but I will look into it and get back to him.

[2:30]

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, and so that we can make sure that we have an informed discussion, is the minister aware of the statement made by Mr. Moyer, who is the chairman of that particular board, who says, as quoted in “Farm and Country” I believe, that the exemptions granted by Agriculture Canada are irresponsible? He says one unnamed winery this year imported material with a 70 per cent infection rate. He goes on to say that if there is just one virus outbreak we will be looking for a wine or grape industry. Why should we knowingly be importing diseased stock? Would the minister please look into that and report to the House what his findings are?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, Ron Moyer is a very fine person. I know him very well personally and I wholeheartedly agree that if he has a problem we will look at it. If Agriculture Canada is doing something wrong, we will be the first to let them know.

Mr. Shore: Any friend of yours is a friend of mine.

LABOUR RATES OF ONTARIO HYDRO MOVING CONTRACTOR

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker, a brief one: Could the minister bring us up to date on the situation with the Hydro moving contract we discussed some time ago, wherein he admitted that a false statement had been made to Hydro and signed by the moving company -- Tippet-Richardson, I believe it was? Could he bring us up to date on what has happened there and whether any charges have been laid and how the matter has resolved itself?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I answered an earlier question several weeks ago in the House. I thought the member was here but, if not, I can send him a copy of my answer. Ontario Hydro was still holding back several tens of thousands of dollars on the last payment of the contract until it was resolved.

Mr. S. Smith: What happened?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: So far as I know, it still stands at that point but I will check again.

ESSEX PACKERS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services: I would like to know what the minister meant by protecting Better Beef from harassment? What form of harassment has occurred? Has he received, in his conversations with the DeJonge Group, any guarantee that the Employment Standards Act is not going to be circumvented and that anyone who ordinarily would deserve severance pay will not be deprived of it because of the layoff which was engineered in this particular occasion?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, really, what I meant by harassment, I was referring to remarks which have been made by the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). The state of the matter is that the DeJonge-Better Beef group is basically --

Mr. Singer: The member for Huron-Middlesex is a harasser -- my goodness.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The minister has them chirping over there.

Hon. J. R. Smith: The DeJonge brothers are actively carrying on negotiations --

Mr. Roy: Is that parliamentary?

Hon. J. B. Smith: -- apparently with a number of business concerns, business people, who are interested in taking over one or both of the Hamilton plants either by purchase or by lease. The more it is discussed in the Legislature -- that there’s something wrong with the assignment of the lease of the abattoir at Guelph correctional centre -- it certainly makes those interested in this very nervous. It was felt by the DeJonges that the more that is said about it, the value of these properties goes down.

By the word “harassment” I don’t mean any personal harassment but continual statements that there should be a judicial inquiry is causing concern to the principals of Better Beef; that would be a better way of putting it. Secondly, there is --

Mr. Shore: A supplementary question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A supplementary from the hon. member for London South.

Mr. S. Smith: He is still answering the first question.

Hon. J. R. Smith: I would like to answer both parts, Mr. Speaker, if I could, please. On Friday I spoke to the solicitor, Mr. Herman Turkstra of Hamilton and one of the DeJonge brothers about my concern and that of the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) that there could be some circumvention of the statutes regarding severance pay and to ensure that they were not trying to do anything of that nature.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Riddell: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that I was the one responsible for harassing the DeJonges. I would like to say that, surely, in the interests of and for the protection of my constituents I have every right to pursue the matter. Furthermore if the minister would get up and give us honest answers in this House we wouldn’t have to keep pursuing this.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J. R. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. No member of this House can accuse another member of being dishonest and I think you should withdraw it.

Mr. Riddell: I will change that from an honest to a complete answer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That’s acceptable.

Mr. Roy: Is the minister going to apologize?

ESSEX PACKERS

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Correctional Services if the government was aware of the intention of the DeJonge brothers to shed this portion of the operations when they shared in or at least approved the agreement? And if he wasn’t aware of it, is it not his obligation to insist that the DeJonge brothers maintain the operation of this plant and not lay off the people until they find somebody who will take it over from them?

Hon. J. R. Smith: They gave a commitment they would do everything possible to continue the operations of the old Essex firm in Hamilton. Basically, at the request of the receiver, they did this for two months and I think they explored the possibilities. With their business knowledge and financial resources they put a real effort into providing employment; there are approximately 90 to 100 employees of that operation. They have lost money on the venture and they are now of the opinion that it takes some operating expertise because of the specialized nature of a processing plant and there are a number of people interested in assuming these responsibilities.

Should this not occur during the next two to three weeks, Mr. DeJonge informs me, because of their commitment -- it’s over $1 million into the venture so far -- they will be obliged, because of the commitment to the bank, to start up production on their own.

Mr. MacDonald: Good.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Speaker, through you I’d like to ask the opposite side of this question. Has the minister assured himself there is not going to be the possibility of quick, non-earned profit that may take place in the transfer between DeJonge and some other parties in a very quick order?

Mr. Cassidy: But you’re in favour of that.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer that question.

LOANS TO MILK PRODUCERS

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister aware that some banks in the Province of Ontario are not aware of the deferment plan for the IMPIP programme?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if that’s the case I’d like to hear about the particular banks. We’ve talked to all the banks; if they have not informed the appropriate branches there is something wrong with them. But I’d certainly like to hear about it if there is not.

We’ve had discussions with them and I was of the understanding that they were all fully aware of the situation. If you’ve got a particular situation I’d like to hear about it so I can pursue it.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and the Premier (Mr. Davis), I would like to direct a question to the Chairman of Cabinet. I assume he is aware that his colleague, the Treasurer, projected in his budget that new jobs would increase this year by double the rate of last year. In view of the increase in unemployment by all statistics that we now have, and particularly last week’s report from Statistics Canada whereby job openings are 22 per cent below last year at this time and two-thirds of that shrinkage is in Ontario, may I ask him what plans the cabinet is proposing to implement some special job creation?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to bring this to the attention of the hon. Treasurer.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Do I assume then from the minister’s answer that no consideration has been given by the cabinet to special job creation? And would he therefore convey to the cabinet that this party at least wants some special action on this matter and we think we’re speaking for the people of Ontario in doing so?

TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS

Mr. Mancini: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Education. Is the Minister of Education aware of the fact that the Essex County Separate School Board and other separate school boards across this province are laying off experienced teachers and are now hiring inexperienced teachers? And what is this ministry going to do about this?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that certain school boards across this province have indicated that they will not be renewing probationary contracts with their teachers. This in the separate school area.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the Essex County Separate School Board and other separate school boards are using the green contract for the purpose of mass layoffs and not for the purpose of dismissing incompetent teachers. Would he look into that aspect of the situation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps wrong to draw that complete assumption at this time. There may be other factors involved. Probationary teachers’ contracts can be severed without giving reasons, as my friend knows, under the education Acts of this province; and that, in fact, is what we were going to look at when the facts were brought to our attention last Friday by the Ontario Teachers’ Federation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A final supplementary; the hon. member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister not agree that the probationary contract ending is normally meant to take into account those situations where the teacher proved unsuitable and is not meant as a way of getting around the fact that a firm contract has been signed with new teachers; and the green contract is less firm and, therefore, open to be cancelled? Isn’t that a distortion of the purpose of the green contract?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is a distortion of the contract; but it also remains that it is not necessary to give reasons to a person when the green contract is severed. You only have to state reasons to the teacher when you are severing a permanent contract, not a probationary contract.

Mr. S. Smith: But it is a distortion.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Samis: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, Mr. Speaker. In view of the continuing high unemployment in the Kingston-Brockville-Cornwall axis, and in view of the fact that in the past nine months three plants have been closed and last week closing of a fourth one was announced in Cornwall; can the minister tell the House what efforts his ministry is making to assist the municipalities in that area to attract industry, especially in view of the special problems in that area?

An hon. member: The answer is none.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, Mr. Speaker, on the plant closings, you will recall that on May 3 I made a statement to this House related to what we consider to be the real cause of the problem down there, and that is in the textile industry.

We have been consulting with the federal government on the question. While they are temporarily closed, I believe that if the market position was made favourable for them those plants would return to production in a short period of time. In addition to that, as far as working with municipalities is concerned we continue to consult with them in order to assist them, along with their development officers, to locate industries that would be properly located in their communities.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: May I point out that in the case of Cornwall three of the plants have nothing to do with textiles?

I would also like to ask the minister if he could bring us up to date on what is being done in Spencerville; if the consultants are at work, when that report is expected and if the government is making any other efforts to develop the Spencerville project?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, about two or three weeks ago I announced that the consultants had been appointed for the Spencerville project and that we anticipated by late summer we would have a complete report from them on the facts and figures as they relate to the Spencerville project and the possibilities of development.

RENT REVIEW PROGRAMME

Mr. Shore: I would like to direct a question to the almost converted socialist minister -- I guess Hamilton must have had a great effect on him -- the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Good Tory city.

Mr. Samis: You don’t know him very well.

Mr. Shore: Is the minister aware of a property owner in London who recently applied to the Ontario Supreme Court for an injunction and a prohibition against the rent review officer for not giving proper 30-day notice on rent reviews? If so, has he also been advised that other owners have been advised to follow the same principle and hold up any rent review?

In addition, in view of the fact that I have talked to the minister on several occasions, is he aware that the rent review officers are not taking into consideration at any time the investments and dollars that owners have in these properties when they are making rulings on rent review. Could the minister comment on those three questions, please?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there was a comment and two questions, I believe, in the hon. member’s question. First of all, I want to deny completely that I am almost socialized or even close to being socialized; I wake up screaming at the thought that it might ever happen.

I am aware of the fact that actions have been taken by some landlords concerning the failure of rent review officers to select a date for a hearing within 30 days. It wasn’t necessary under the Act to give 30 days’ notice, but it was necessary for rent review officers to select a date for a hearing within 30 days of the receipt of the application.

We have a number of cases pending on that, and until such time as we get a judgement from the courts I would prefer not to comment, except to say that we have instructed the rent review officers to make their selection of the hearing dates within 30 days of the receipt of application in the future. We don’t know what the results would be if the court were to find against us in that case.

As far as the second question is concerned, which is completely unrelated to the first one, the answer is no.

Mr. Shore: What was the answer? That the minister is not aware of it? Would he please undertake to do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’m not aware of the fact that the rent review officers are not permitting a return on investment simply because the Act doesn’t provide for it.

METRIC PACKAGING

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who confessed last week that he has growing disillusionment with the free-enterprise system. I don’t know whether that makes him a socialist or not.

My question to him is this: In view of the repeated evidence of cheating that is going on in the processing and food retailing business by reducing the quantity and increasing the price as they switch from traditional weights to the metric system, what, if anything, is the government doing about it? Specifically, will they pass a law that there will be penalties if there is cheating by reducing the amount and raising the price as they switch to the metric system?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: First of all, the accusation that there is cheating going on, I think is completely off the cuff and without any foundation whatsoever. What the hon. member is suggesting is that when the size is reduced in terms of quantity of the product, there should be a pro rata reduction in the price of that product, but quite obviously the cost of the product is made up of more than simply the raw material cost.

If I may use cereal as an example, if you buy the large economy size, which contains twice as much as the small size, you don’t get a reduction pro-rated in accordance with the size; it simply doesn’t happen. If you buy the small size, you pay more than one-half the amount you would pay for double that quantity in a package; that’s simply because there are packaging costs, promotion costs and a variety of other costs involved in the manufacture of that product, and not simply the raw material cost.

Mr. MacDonald: Would the minister not fudge the issue? Take the example reported on the front page of the Globe last Thursday or Friday, where a two-litre package is 12 per cent less than a half-gallon -- in other words, that isn’t a significant change from an economy size to a small package -- and yet the price is only six per cent less. There is 12 per cent less product, but the price is only six per cent less. Will the government do something about making it mandatory that you can’t have that kind of obvious cheating on the public as they switch to the metric system?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had explained that to the hon. member, but I guess he’s called that fudging.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister ignored the facts.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It’s simply an economic fact that the cost of a product is more than simply the cost of the materials in that product. The member must be aware of the fact that when you buy a different size, you don’t get a pro-rated difference in the retail price. That certainly doesn’t seem like cheating to me. We did inquire into it and we found that the total reduction in cost was being passed on to the consumer.

Mr. Warner: You don’t care what they charge.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Huron-Middlesex seemed to have a question.

Mr. Riddell: My minister has left, sir.

POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to ask a question of the same minister in line with his frustration with private enterprise and the gap, sometimes, between advertising and performance. Would the minister, as the protector of the consumer, look at the advertising and promises made by certain political parties, including his own?

The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, in their fund-raising, make a promise, and I quote: “It also intends to reduce the provincial debt, to keep the province on a sound financial footing.” I wonder if the minister might compare that with the budget figures which came out a few months ago and which indicate that the provincial debt has gone from $1.5 billion in 1970-1971 to $5.9 billion in 1976-1977?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Can we have the question, please?

Mr. Roy: Yes. Will the minister, as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations or as the protector of the consumer, look at this as being false and misleading advertising as the debt has gone up and not down, as promised in this letter?

Mr. S. Smith: Another Vic Tanny’s.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it’s quite true that I have been disillusioned with some advertising claims but I want to make it quite clear that the one organization that I have every faith in to carry out its promises is the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

Mr. Roy: If I might ask the minister a supplementary, in view of his answer: Since this advertising has gone out that he intends to reduce the provincial debt, is he aware that the budget has come out showing that the increase in the provincial debt has gone from $5 billion to $5.9 billion? How does that compare with his advertising? Is the minister not prepared to protect the consumer and give a proper example by his party, if he intends to lecture private enterprise?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the budget papers to which the hon. member refers prove the truth of the advertising of this party.

Mr. Roy: Is it up or down? I tell you, we are in trouble with you as minister if you can’t even add.

Mr. Lewis: Albert, you should pick up the mace and advance on him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The contents of the previous question can be debated in the budget debate.

ONTARIO SOUVENIRS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Government Services. We’ve all received the hon. minister’s entry into the mail order business with her handsome giftware catalogue of Ontario souvenir items. I would like to ask, since the catalogue came with a covering letter addressed specially to cabinet ministers and executive assistants to ministers, as well as to other MPPs, is it the intention of the minister in issuing this catalogue to encourage ministries to provide gifts to visitors at public expense, or is this purely a private catalogue?

Is she encouraging gifts at public expense to the value of $110 for an Ontario pendant, or $77.50 for a pair of cufflinks, or $59.60 for a ring? At this time of restraint I certainly think that that should not be encouraged.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member has asked the question.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, as the member noted when she prefaced her remarks, that memo was addressed to cabinet ministers, their deputies and members. It’s for their personal and individual ordering.

Mr. Roy: Oh, maybe it’s for cabinet ministers only.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a very elitist mail order business the minister is running.

ACCIDENT SPOT ON QEW

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have further information in connection with a question asked in the House on May 20 by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), who I see is with us this morning.

Mr. S. Smith: It is afternoon, Jim.

Mr. Mancini: He is usually here.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As a matter of fact, the last time I replied to this question the hon. member was not here.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s the St. Catharines one you are thinking of.

Mr. Shore: He tries to be here when you are not here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would you please give a direct answer to the question that was asked?

Mr. Sweeney: He knew you were going to speak.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The Queen Elizabeth Way between Highway 405 and Mountain Rd., known locally as Sand Plant Hill, has a narrow median which is occupied by a railway bridge pier.

In order to reduce the possibility of cross-median accidents and of collisions with the bridge pier, 4,000 ft of steel beam guiderail will be installed this summer at a cost of some $80,000, with anticipated completion by September of this year.

Ministry engineers anticipate that the installation of the steel beam guiderail will alleviate the accident experience at this location. However, we will continue to monitor the situation after the installation of the guiderail.

SCHOOL FACILITIES IN YORK

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) asked me last week a question concerning education facilities in the German Mills community. As my friend knows, there’s a public school there called the German Mills Public School that was opened in 1974. It has several portables on site now and has an enrolment of around 600. The projections for that area indicate that next year there will be around 700 pupils -- that is, in September, 1976 -- in September, 1977, there will be 750 and in September, 1978, there will be 880 pupils. These are the projections of the York County Board of Education.

It is my understanding that that board is going to submit in September a proposal for a new school for that area to be built and opened by September, 1978, and that at that time that school will house the pupils who up until then will be housed in portables at the present German Mills Public School.

The other matter that would be of concern in the area is that the separate school board has a relocatable on-site called St. Michael’s Roman Catholic Separate School. It has a capacity of 273 pupils and is filled at the present time. That board has submitted a project of very high priority for 485 pupils. They are going to need that as soon as possible. It is one of several that the York County Roman Catholic Separate School Board had submitted and that were held up in the embargo placed on all 1976 projects at the beginning of this year.

That list is being studied at present, and if there is real need in that area, as I’m sure there will be from what I have learned, that project will probably move ahead very shortly.

ABORTION STUDIES

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education: Is the minister aware of the very strong objection registered by Robert Scott, a trustee of the Etobicoke Board of Education, to the inclusion of a compulsory study of abortion methods in the phys-ed programme for grades 9 and 10 of that school system?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the physical education programme that is being taught in grades 9 and 10 of the Etobicoke school system. As my friend knows, under the physical education guidelines, there is a high degree of latitude allowed for local boards to develop their own programmes. I would say the responsibility for approving those programmes rests ultimately with the local trustees, in this case the Etobicoke Board of Education.

I think in a number of speeches that I have made to physical education teachers I have emphasized time and time again that, while there are many topics that could be taught in the area of physical education, family life, training and so forth, the utmost discretion must be taken to be sure the programmes represent the feelings and the wishes of the parents in the community that those schools serve. In this particular case, if the parents in the community represented by trustee Scott feel that what is being done in Etobicoke is not right, the place for that to be taken is to the board.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary to the minister: At the present time a student is faced with either taking the course as is, or no phys-ed. Would his ministry approve that particular situation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I personally would not approve that situation. I don’t think someone who has a particular, real, serious concern about that type of programme being taught -- either the parent of the student or the student himself being taught that programme -- should be placed in jeopardy of not taking a complete physical education programme.

But the real remedy for that rests with the Etobicoke Board of Education, and I would hope they would show the concern to be able to work that kind of programme out. If we can’t work these programmes out on the local level with the local people who are charged with that responsibility, autonomy in this province means nothing.

HOSPITAL LAUNDRIES

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. Why are Ontario’s 11 hospital-owner laundries not exempt from, or reimbursed for property taxes, as are hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been gone into time and time again. I am trying to think of the name of the gentleman -- it was Ralph Cowan -- who has been in touch with me and with my predecessor in this ministry on numerous occasions. We have investigated this and on every occasion have concluded that with the structure of ownership in the particular laundries concerned, there is no qualification for exemption under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

[3:00]

RONDEAU PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr. Spence: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Has the minister received the report of the advisory committee that was set up by him two years ago in regard to the operation of Rondeau Provincial Park?

Mr. Shore: Too early, isn’t it?

Mr. Spence: Has the minister accepted or adopted this advisory committee’s report? Will he make available those portions of or all of the advisory committee’s report that have been adopted or have not been adopted?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to respond to the hon. member. As he points out, there was a 16-member committee, very ably chaired by Garnet Newkirk -- I believe that was his name, and I think that I will take this opportunity to commend him on an excellent report. About 104 recommendations were presented to my ministry.

Mr. Boy: Have you accepted them all?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: To date we’ve accepted 89 of those. Nine have been referred for future study.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: A total of six have not been accepted. I’ll say to the hon. member that copies of the advisory committee reports are available. If he’ll just tell me the numbers I’ll be pleased to get it for him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Edighoffer from the standing miscellaneous estimates committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977:

Office of the Provincial Auditor Administration of the Audit

Act and statutory audits.... $1,593,000

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Eaton be substituted for Mr. Gregory on the select committee considering the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Peterson: Not acceptable, he will ruin it.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t you care about that committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Introduction of bills.

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTIES PLAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to provide certain Protections for Purchasers of New Homes.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) isn’t in favour of that.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 19, 86 and 91 standing on the notice paper.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 16th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION (CONTINUED)

On vote 2803:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is it the wish of the committee to take the vote in its entirety or item by item?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think we were into this vote.

Mr. Samis: We were on the first item. I think I have just two final questions on that item, while my Liberal colleague can ask any questions he’d like.

Could I ask the minister if he has reconsidered at all the position he took last year regarding requiring publicly-financed institutions to purchase books from local suppliers as has been instituted in the Province of Quebec quite successfully I understand? Has he given any further consideration to that method of assisting Canadian publishers?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry, I missed the first part of the question. Would the hon. member repeat it?

Mr. Samis: Yes. Could I ask the minister if he has given any further consideration to his position as enunciated last year, which was opposed to the idea of Bill 69 in the Province of Quebec whereby publicly-funded institutions are obliged to give priority to purchasing books from domestic wholesalers and publishers? Has he given any further consideration to that priority?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think I have to be very frank and say we certainly haven’t developed any particular policy response to that at the moment.

Mr. Samis: In view of the statistics brought out by the Independent Publishers Association -- which are a bit dated admittedly but apparently are the most recent -- that in school libraries only 12 per cent of the books are Canadian in origin; in public libraries the figure is eight per cent; in university libraries it’s five per cent; and knowing the minister’s concern for this, is he making any efforts with his colleagues in the Ministries of Colleges and Universities and Education, and in public libraries, to try to see that there is greater attention given to Canadian books; and if so, what?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that’s a very good point to underline. Certainly, if the hon. member wants to discuss it in the Wintario section, we have special criteria there by which we make money available for libraries to increase their stocks of Canadian publications and Canadian books. Certainly we did have some special response as far as the libraries were concerned in that regard. Naturally library boards, being autonomous groups, are making certain determinations themselves with respect to their acquisitions but you’d have every encouragement from us, in a financial way -- particularly in the Wintario programme -- to assist libraries to increase their Canadian editions.

Mr. Samis: Since the minister has mentioned the Wintario project, could I ask if he has given serious consideration to the possibility of entrusting the Arts Council with administering a certain fixed percentage or sum of the total Wintario funds for cultural projects? For example, in my remarks I suggested a figure of $5 million as a ballpark figure. Has he given any consideration to that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Actually, when we get to that vote I’d be quite happy to share with the hon. member the fact that we’ve been doing an awful lot of thinking in connection with how we might change or add to or expand the criteria as far as Wintario is concerned. There’s no doubt there’s been a number of approaches with respect to how we might best assist various agencies with respect to fulfilling their purposes.

I should point out to the hon. member at this stage that when we analyse and give consideration to Wintario applications there’s a very close working relationship now with the Arts Council and we are making the distinction with respect to the sources of money. I have no plans at the moment actually to make a block transfer of funds to them. I rather think we should keep the whole operation within the ministry and we will consult with them, as we are doing on an ongoing basis, with respect to those areas to which they feel there could be some financial help directed.

I think we’ll accomplish the same purpose. It’s just a matter of procedure.

Mr. Samis: I’ll come back to that question when we get onto Wintario. Could I ask, regarding the Arts Council -- first of all, I’d like to reiterate our view that the Arts Council has done an outstanding job in discharging its responsibilities and we wholeheartedly support the principle of having people within the community affected administering the funds rather than having them administered through the ministry and other people. Could I ask if the minister could explain why the regional development offices in Thunder Bay and Niagara Falls were closed? How many are there left in existence and how many were there as of a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Of course, the Arts Council doesn’t maintain regional offices as such. It has had some type of field operation known as correspondents and I’m wondering if the hon. member is making some reference to that, rather using the term regional offices?

Mr. Samis: Unfortunately, I haven’t got my OAC report with me. In the OAC report it was specifically mentioned that those two regional offices had been closed. I’m sorry I haven’t got the actual title of those offices.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think those particular offices were simply opened on an experimental basis and the Arts Council took a decision to have its field operation conducted in another way rather than through fixed offices by the employment of what they call correspondents.

Mr. Samis: I noticed in that description it said that they would rely on the regional correspondents and the justification given was “they provide greater insight into the individual character and priorities of specific communities.” I wonder if the minister could explain how officers do a better job than having offices right in the region itself, among the people?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think it gives some flexibility. I think the emphasis is on the individual, who is available to be consulted or to consult, rather than having necessarily a fixed address with an office and all that’s involved with this. I think, too, there are some obvious savings in not having to maintain an office as such, and we have our field personnel or the correspondents available throughout the province and they are not fixed to any particular address. I think the Arts Council has exercised a great deal of wisdom in moving to this type of approach.

Keep in mind that the Ministry of Culture and Recreation has its field operations and there is, indeed, a fixed address throughout the various regions of the province where there can be contact made, and the people at those locations would know how, in fact, to get in touch with the regional correspondents as well.

Mr. Samis: Could I ask the minister, have you had any personal dialogue with your counterpart east of the Ottawa River -- personal, not through your officials?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No.

Mr. Samis: Do you intend to?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, I am always anxious to speak to my colleagues.

Mr. Samis: Soon?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Sure, any time.

Mr. Samis: Would you consider an operation that he employs and is rather fond of? The idea would be that within the overall provincial council they have designated in the Province of Quebec nine regional sub-councils and 20 per cent of the total budget for their Arts Council is divided among those councils to be distributed according to their view of the regional needs, problems and priorities. Would you see value in that system of regional councils within the overall structure being applied to this province? Or have you given this consideration?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would have to seek the advice of the Arts Council itself. I have had no evidence placed before me that the Arts Council, operating in its present form, with regional correspondents and a tremendous amount of input going both ways -- that is, from the council out to the province and from the province in to the Arts Council -- has, in fact, had too many difficulties in reacting to a legitimate need throughout the province.

In the name of equity, from the standpoint of the distribution of resources and the availability of resources, I certainly am not aware that anyone feels that there is any particular concern there.

In Ontario today there is a number of local councils unrelated to the Arts Council as such; that is, community arts councils that have been forming on their own, bringing together various groups and co-ordinating the activities, and I am sure they are finding a way to relate to the Arts Council as well.

At the moment -- and I haven’t closed my mind to this -- I don’t see formalizing that type of regional approach that you have just described. I would rather see things continue to develop from the local communities and the local level than to deal directly with the Province of Ontario Council for the Arts. I would have to have some further evidence that there are some regional differences or disparities or inequities that aren’t being responded to now that could be better handled that way if, in fact, it was to be handled that way.

Mr. Samis: Can I ask the minister if he could check into another matter? I don’t expect the answer now, but could he find out why a periodical from Sherbrooke, Que., received a $2,000 grant? The name of the periodical is “Ellipse.”

Also could you bring us up to date on the status of the three pilot projects that were initiated I believe by the Arts Council in publishing, dealing with the supply of Canadian books in Canadian book stores, the use of Canadian books in the school system and the Canadian book information centre? Have you received those three reports from the pilot projects, or what is the status of those projects?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I have not received those reports as yet.

Mr. Samis: When are they due?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Of course, in this environment in which I work I think it is more important that things be done well, and if the choice is “Do you want it Wednesday or do you want it done well?” I always answer: “I want it done well.”

Mr. Samis: I would ask when?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I don’t have any particular deadline and I will be glad to share the results once I have them.

Mr. Sands: There is no deadline? Could I ask one final question --

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think there may well be a deadline -- I am getting a communication that may suggest it. In fact, on second thought, those particular reports are due at the end of June.

[3:15]

Mr. Samis: Thank you. One final question: Could you explain to us on the third item, why it is that the Ontario Science Centre is still under your aegis --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. If we are going to take these item by item, shall item 1 carry?

Mr. Samis: I thought the agreement was, Mr. Chairman, we would do them all at once.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: We are taking them collectively?

Mr. Samis: That’s the way we have been doing it so far, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All right.

Mr. Samis: Final question: Why is the Science Centre still under your aegis and Ontario Place still under the Ministry of Industry and Tourism? There would seem to be a certain inconsistency, since they are both similar type attractions. Are they all going to eventually be under you or are you going to opt this one over to your confrere?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It would be presumptuous of me to indicate I have any great plans of empire building, but certainly at the moment this is as far as the assignment of responsibility has gone with respect to the Science Centre.

I am quite open to admit there are activities at Ontario Place, particularly the programmes at the Forum, which are obviously of a cultural nature and, indeed, provide a tremendous opportunity for many people to have access to those particular programmes -- but at the moment, in its wisdom, the government has felt it best to leave that responsibility with the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall vote 2803 carry?

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I haven’t related to this particular vote as yet. The hon. member for Cornwall was just summing up and concluding his remarks and questions relating to this vote.

I would like to address myself to two particular areas in this vote. As long as we are handling the three items on one vote, I would open by suggesting that I have some concern in turning over grants to the Ontario Arts Council, which in turn are sent down to other art groups. It puts the Legislature in a position that it’s very difficult to really trace the funding right through to the point where we can convince ourselves that the grants were put to the use for which they were initially intended.

I have some concern, not having the report in front of me. If it were something similar to the Heritage Foundation report, it would disturb me to find reserve funds in some of these grants as they are passed down, and great sums of money tied up in such a way that it would be better used through the general funding of the province.

So by way of a question, I would ask the minister in regard to these particular grants going down through the ministry to the Arts Council and, subsequently to, say Theatre Ontario, do we in fact have reports all the way down the line so that we can subsequently determine whether all these funds are used in the way they were intended?

Mr. Minister, if you would respond later, I would go through everything I have, because with the restraints in time I think we are going to have a difficult time dealing with all these votes.

We would ask then, is it possible to legislate protection of their market, guarantee a return from the Canadian box office in the way of a levy and get the co-ordination of the Ontario government in the art aspect of the film-making industry?

As I said before, because of the restraints on time I would like to ask a couple of other pertinent questions in regard to this vote. One of them relates to arts development. I’d like to know how it differs from the grants for culture support and multiculturalism and who receives these grants of approximately $400,000.

Mr. Samis: That’s not in this vote.

Mr. Kerrio: I think it is; isn’t it in the Arts Council?

Mrs. Campbell: It is indeed in this vote.

Mr. Samis: Next vote.

Mr. Kerrio: In item 1?

Mrs. Campbell: Cultural development.

Mr. Kerrio: All right?

Mr. Samis: Okay.

Mr. Kerrio: Last year there was no such category, Mr. Minister, and no such grants. I’d also like to know why the grants for cultural exchange have increased some $100,000 over last year. Those are the matters that I’d like to relate to, if you will respond to them. As I said before, I don’t think we can go through this point by point or we won’t finish this debate in the allotted time.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to the hon. member for Niagara Falls, perhaps starting where he left off.

The last time we were into these estimates we were sharing, without going through the whole list, a series of capital grants provided in this particular area. There was everything from $140,000 for the Blue Mountain concert shell in Collingwood to $6,000 for the Global Village Theatre in Toronto and the Orillia Opera House, just to pick out a number of these commitments and other proposals that were made there. These grants, as you can see, are in the arts area. When we get to multicultural support, you will see how the criteria there are obviously geared for different purposes.

The hon. member has made some reference to the whole film industry, which we were chatting about last time. The question is very much before us at the moment as we attempt to find our role as a provincial jurisdiction in the overall development of the Canadian film industry. We have a number of meetings which I’ve already reported in my response to the hon. member for Cornwall. I simply want to assure the hon. member that I’m looking forward to meeting with the Secretary of State, because we feel that any policy that is developed should be a national one.

I recognize, quite quickly, that we have some responsibility, obviously by virtue of the Theatres Act; and, as he will recall, an amendment to the Theatres Act was brought in last session to provide for the possibility of quota if it was considered that was to be the route

. Therefore, that possibility is there.

It is perhaps overly simplistic on the part of the hon. member to suggest that there is a fairly obvious or straightforward answer to this situation. It’s sufficient to say that for the first time, under the auspices of this ministry, we have convened meetings of all the parts of a film industry.

It would also be fair to say that there isn’t a general consensus when you get to the area of solutions, but I’m very hopeful that as we keep working and thinking about it, with the purpose of making sure that in fact we are working towards the establishment of a viable film industry, then ultimately we will be able to come to some satisfactory arrangements. I’m looking forward to trying on some ideas with the Secretary of State. We completed some meetings with his officials within the last two weeks.

Reference was made to the transfer to the Arts Council. I would point out that, of course, it’s a matter of principle to us that the judgements made with respect to those grants are left with the Arts Council. I have no reason to believe its members are allowing any great reserves. The only reserve I know about is the Ontario Heritage Foundation to which we make grants. That's capital grants and, as you know, that becomes necessary through a cash flow arrangement as to when the money would be required following a commitment.

The Arts Council, if we’re going to speak upon that point particularly, has been established in order that there would be an outright transfer from government to the council and that a council at arm’s length from the political wing would assess applications and would make the judgement calls with respect to those applications. I’m quite satisfied that, as part of that process, there is a very careful scrutiny of the financial situation of the applicant, be it an individual or an organization.

I’d be very surprised if any client dealing with the Arts Council had any particularly large reserve. I’m sure that would influence the Arts Council in the ultimate determination as to the benefit it could have.

I would point out, too -- to get to the third question, if I might go back to it for a moment -- these grants for regional arts development do amount to some $403,500. A consolidated programme of grants for regional arts development, of course, is planned and we have a breakdown as to how we will see this money operate. Rather, it will become available on a regional basis for the crafts council, arts development, the Canadian Drum Corps, Theatre Ontario and Visual Arts Ontario as part of the ongoing programme in this regard.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions to the minister. Firstly, under the heading of cultural development, does this ministry have any policy intentions with respect to the Symons report entitled “To Know Ourselves”? I know most of that report is directed toward educational institutions but there is also a number of sections in it which would certainly -- seemingly, anyway -- apply to this ministry in terms of cultural development.

Secondly, the minister referred just a minute ago to the Arts Council having a certain autonomy in terms of its decisions. I’m sure he’s aware of the fact that for quite a number of performing artists in this province the Arts Council can be a matter of life or death as far as their careers are concerned. I understand this must always be taken with a grain of salt but there is a sense among a number of performing artists in this province that the Arts Council has, shall I say, its favourites or there are some people who get more consideration than others.

Whether or not that is true -- I guess that is what I’m trying to say -- what provision is there for such artists to appeal or to come through another route? Or are they in a sense helpless in this situation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The hon. member has spoken to me about this in connection with a particular matter which, following our discussion, I have referred back to the Arts Council because I think the points the hon. member made at that time should be reviewed. I don’t want to appear overly defensive.

I have a great deal of respect for the Arts Council. I don’t mind sharing a very open affection for many of the people who work pretty hard to fulfill the mandate which the Legislature gave that council. I suppose in any organization made up of human beings there may be preferences with respect to areas of interest and I use that not in relation to the Arts Council but referring to the development of any organization. I would feel that anyone who feels they have not been successful with the Arts Council should feel they could re-apply to appeal to that council if there is some new evidence.

I suppose, in any organization where there can be either a yes or a no answer, those who get the no answer are not usually particularly delighted. Indeed, my experience has been that some who get a yes answer in less than the quantitative way they had hoped for don’t feel very well done by either. I’d have to rely on what I consider to be the good judgement of the Arts Council as it is advised. Certainly, any evidence which is brought to my attention, as the hon. member did, I refer to the chairman of that council.

[3:30]

On the question with respect to the Symons report, may I briefly go into two things? Mr. Symons, the author of the report, is a member of the Arts Council and I’m sure will be bringing to the attention of the council those sections of the report that will deal particularly with the area of cultural development. The report is about six or seven weeks old. There are two or three sections of the report which have, in fact, been drawn to my attention as worthy to be considered in the development of any policy.

The hon. member will recall the other day, when we were last at these estimates, I mentioned the fact that Paul Shaffer, formerly of York University, was doing some research for us and, certainly in my most recent discussions with him and others, there is no question that the contents of the Symons report have influenced them and have been brought to their attention as well.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of discretion. Is this the proper place to bring in a question on TV-Ontario or does it come under some other vote? I don’t see it anywhere.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Vote 2805.

Mr. Sweeney: Thank you.

Mrs. Campbell: I have two questions: One, I note the assistance to book publishing and, of course, I endorse that but I do wonder why there is a difference of opinion when it comes to periodical subsidies or subsidies for periodicals promoting the Canadian arts.

Second, could I know from the minister, on the grants for open sector education, is this sum available to Ryerson alone, or to whom is it available and what is the situation with reference to Ryerson? That seems to have been fudged under for quite some time now.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am very excited about what is going on as far as the Ryerson development is concerned. I have been meeting with them; in fact, I’ve had frequent meetings with them. I am tremendously impressed with the public response to their campaigns and to the special concerts.

Certainly, I think we have a very good relationship. The fact that you perhaps don’t see the ministry too prominently involved in that respect is a good thing in a way for that type of facility. We are continuing our support as was our commitment and, of course, it’s always been predicated on the fact that there would be a fair involvement on the part of the public who are benefiting both from the course development and the general broadcasting.

As for the other grants, we are still continuing our assistance to the Committee on Post-secondary Education as far as Brantford is concerned. Indeed, I’m delighted that the hon. member has raised some questions about this. I see the possibility of some pretty exciting developments in this field because of its emphasis on not going the institutional route and, perhaps, providing services to people where they are. Certainly, just to go back to the Ryerson programme, it’s amazing the number of people who are taking advantage of those particular courses.

I do know of the interest of the hon. member in the periodical field, and in particular the meeting that the hon. member had with our officials in connection with a particular periodical. I would hope that we would all benefit from that exchange. In the breakdown of support, we have been more directed to helping people with their manuscripts and, also, in the underwriting of certain borrowing charges as far as the Ontario Development Corp. is concerned in the book publishing area generally.

As the hon. member would know from that particular meeting, it isn’t that we’ve been ignoring the other, but it doesn’t quite fit into the same pattern and approach as we, in fact, have used in the other area of responsibility.

Mrs. Campbell: Just one quick point, Mr. Chairman. I’m glad that the minister feels that we might all benefit. I must say that in that case they went out of business.

Hon. Mr. Welch: In that case, all that glitters wasn’t gold.

Mrs. Campbell: That wasn’t glitter. It was another one. Glitter is a different thing.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Oh, I’m sorry.

Vote 2803 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Vote 2804 is next; multicultural support and citizenship programme.

Mr. Grande: I would like to begin my remarks perhaps by --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I just wanted to say to the hon. member for St. George, there was one particular figure I didn’t share with her. Last year the Ontario Arts Council support was about $300,000 to some 57 periodicals. I’m sorry, I didn’t give her that figure. Thank you.

On vote 2804:

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my remarks by perhaps going a little back in time to 1972, when the Province of Ontario held its now famous or infamous Heritage Congress, in June, 1972. I would like to talk a little bit about the broad feeling the people of diverse cultural groups in Ontario had that that particular conference was nothing else but a grand gesture of tokenism by the government.

Virtually no one thought that anything constructive was going to evolve from that event. No one believed for one minute that the Conservative government was going to even mildly listen to the needs of the ethnic groups as expressed and articulated for the so-called resource people.

The scepticism was total among the resource people themselves. Today, four years later, we know the real purpose of the Heritage Ontario congress and the formation of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism, which was set up, in the words of its first chairman, Mr. Checkeris: “This council is charged with the responsibility of advising the government, through the Hon. Margaret Birch, concerning policies and programmes with direct implication for Ontario’s cultural communities.” I realize that this particular discussion should perhaps be held under the Hon.

Margaret Birch, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Nonetheless, this particular conference, Heritage Ontario developed in the minds of the many different cultural groups in Ontario a tremendous number of expectations; expectations that this government finally, after many years, was going to move in a positive way, in a positive direction, to look after and to look seriously at the needs of the different cultural groups in Ontario.

As I was saying, there was a tremendous amount of scepticism there at that particular conference. We know, though, that the Heritage Ontario congress and the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism represent well planned action by this government, very much in the vein of the Premier’s trip to Italy, in order to gain votes from the different cultural groups. I don’t apologize for saying that, because really the feeling is there. That’s the reason why Heritage Ontario took place, that’s the reason why the Premier decided to go to Italy and to take that trip.

I really believe that there has never been any kind of other motivation behind those particular well-planned acts.

I want to quote from a bilingual monthly magazine called Mosaico -- and by the way, before I do, let me tell you that the people who publish this magazine are certainly no friends of the New Democratic Party. They are friends of the other two parties in this House.

This was said after the general election of 1975 in response to an

article which appeared in the Globe and Mail. Let me read the whole article, because I think that this particular

article captures the tone and the feeling in the different cultural communities across Ontario. It’s titled “Davis Trip a Lesson” and I quote:

“Soon after Premier Davis’s trip to Italy last year, commenting on the CBC’s John Zaritsky’s filming of the event, Blaik Kirby of the Globe and Mail in Toronto wrote: ‘Clearly the CBC’s John Zaritsky formed an opinion of Premier Davis’s Italian junket. It was to win votes from the Italians at home and for no other purpose.’ He went on to comment: ‘Perhaps worst of all, it is a reflection on the naiveté and credibility of Italian Canadians and that the trip seems very likely to accomplish its vote-getting purpose.’

“Well, Mr. Kirby, eat your words -- you and anybody else who thinks like you. Not one of Davis’s candidates was elected by the Italian-Canadian electorate -- not here in Toronto, and not in other areas where Italian Canadians are numerous.

“We have said it before and would say it again: Generalizations like Kirby’s about any group by the news media are most despicable. But lest the lesson be lost, let the Ontario election results be a warning to all politicians and political leaders alike, that over one million people of this country whose origin is Italian will not be taken for granted any longer. If you court our support, then be prepared to acknowledge our existence by recognizing and meeting our needs, because trips to Italy, appearances at Italian functions prior to elections, token gestures of any kind alone, will not gain you any support.”

The reason I quoted that particular

article at length is because I really do think it captures the attitude that this government has toward the different cultural groups in this province. The government, as far as I am concerned -- and let me tell you at this particular time that I am speaking on behalf of myself at this point in time -- is not interested in moving beyond the rhetoric and the gala events. It is not interested and concerned in developing good community-based programmes to encourage the immigrant to integrate within the larger society. It feels no responsibility whatsoever toward the eventual integration of the immigrant.

It doesn’t understand the process of integration because its policy is one of assimilation. Its policy is to destroy as fast as possible the cultural differences that make up Canada, and the Province of Ontario in particular. It is not necessary to destroy these unique qualities of cultural groups in order to encourage the members of a group to become good, solid, hard-working Canadians and hence make their contributions in their own terms to our country.

To return for one short moment to the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism, I would suggest to the minister that the council ought to be directly under the responsibility of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. The reason I mention that is because, in taking a look at the minutes beginning in November, 1975, and right up to March, all they are dealing with in their deliberations has to do with the Minister of Culture and Recreation. There is very little else going on.

As a matter of fact, even that particular council, which supposedly was set up to advise the government on policy, in effect sends letters to the different government ministries and says, “Please tell us what we should be discussing in the next month.” To me, that is not a council working to develop policies for the government. It is a council working for the benefit of government.

[3:45]

I mentioned earlier that the government does not understand the process of integration, and I say that in all sincerity, I really think you don’t understand it. All you are interested in saying to the immigrants, “You’ve come to Canada. As fast as possible forget about everything that you are and become Canadians. Learn our ways, learn our traditions, learn our values and then you will be accepted as Canadians.

However, as soon as these particular organizations or particular groups spring up to take care of a felt need in the community, the government does not provide any funds to them whatsoever. The minister knows that quite well because in September last year a group of us approached him with this particular kind of problem because about 20 community organizations were going to close as of March 31 because they had no funds.

I realize it is just not your responsibility; I realize that. I realize the federal responsibility in this matter but when the federal government does not come through what are you going to do? Are you simply going to say, “Forget it; we will give you a certain amount”; it lasts for a month or two months but that is okay.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Tell the House what we did after that meeting.

Mr. Grande: What did you do? You will have the opportunity to tell the House. I am sure you will.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Why don’t you tell them? Don’t just leave it there.

Mr. Grande: My concern in this particular area with these programmes is that what the coalition of immigrant and migrant services back in September, 1975, was saying to the minister was, “If you really think these particular services we are providing are necessary to integrate the newest immigrants or the immigrants we have in Metro Toronto and in the Province of Ontario, we suggest to you that what we require, what we need, is some kind of permanent funding.”

I also realize that some discussions were going on between your ministry and the federal government regarding this permanent funding. As a matter of fact the coalition suggested a 50-30-20 break -- 50 per cent from the federal; 30 per cent from the provincial; and 20 per cent from the municipal government or Metro. What has happened to that permanent funding scheme?

You said why didn’t I mention what you had done for them. You said, “Sure, we will do our best to find funds so that they can keep open for another two months. Is that what you said? Or am I misquoting you?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Are they still open?

Mr. Grande: I don’t know that, seriously. I am being --

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think they are.

Mr. Grande: If I may continue -- you will have your chance to respond; I am sure you will. I am concerned about these people who are very active people within the communities. They are very energetic and willing to do something to help the different communities, the different cultural groups, integrate with Canadian society. By the way, I use that word integration; I do not use assimilation which you tend to use all the time.

In order to do that what happens is that they are penalized all the time because they have to work very hard in order to make sure that they’re going to have funds in order to keep open for the next month. And I suggest to the minister that when these people have to be put through that kind of useless wastage of energy, then they cannot be providing the best possible service.

Again, at the same time it seems to me that you have a kind of a fear about funding those particular agencies. Perhaps later on again I hope that you will really tell us what is it that you intend to do in this particular area. With that, given the constraints of time, I stop.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Needless to say I want to respond to this.

I respect the interest, the sensitivity of the member for Oakwood in this area and I appreciate having the benefit of his comments. May I say quietly that I disagree with him almost violently with respect to some of the things that he has tried to suggest are our motivation.

I couldn’t exaggerate the feeling I have at the moment with respect to taking exception with the fact that he can’t possibly have read a speech of mine on the subject of multiculturalism and stand in this House to say that I used the word “assimilation.” You won’t find it anywhere in a speech that I’ve made. I do not believe in assimilation; I believe in integration.

My commitment to this concept is, perhaps, well known in the communities where it is of some importance, and I can only say that perhaps once we can correct some of this misinformation we’ll find ourselves working very closely together to accomplish some of the things which are obviously very close to the hon. member and about which he feels very keenly.

An examination of these estimates will produce the fact that last year the House voted about $386,000 to the citizenship field. This year, because of representations made by the new ministry, that’s $1 million. I ask you to find any other programme that’s been increased by 250 per cent. That shows something of the commitment we have to some of the very important matters to which the hon. member has made reference.

We have a division now -- and we were not as quick to get all these positions filled. We have the executive director now in place coming to us from the Human Rights Commission. We have very dedicated directors in the field of citizenship and multicultural development and a staff who have worked over the years in these fields in a very unselfish and very effective way. My first post in the government was with respect to this, so I perhaps can be excused if I have some feeling with respect to my response in this area.

I want to respect the fact there are other questions to be raised in this and other votes, but when you go through the whole reception service programme; when you go through the language training development programme; when you think in terms of the grants we’ve provided for organizations and awarded to voluntary agencies and organizations for the purpose of promoting immigrant adjustment and integration -- I could recite grants totalling some quarter of a million dollars; to the Chinese Community Centre of Ontario and the Ethnic Referral Centre and the Black Education Project and the Italian Community Education Project and the Jewish Aid Society and on the list would go -- that shows we have put some of the resources of the taxpayers of this province where our commitment is.

When we think of community projects like in Cambridge and in Belleville and in Toronto and in North Bay and in Sarnia and in Niagara Falls with respect to other worthwhile endeavours and what’s going into ethno-cultural development, intercultural development, community development and grants for intercultural activities which totalled another $50,000, I’m a little hard-pressed to understand how anyone could make some of the statements that have been made here. However I think our record in this regard is quite well known.

I couldn’t agree with the hon. member more when he says no government can avoid multiculturalism. The government didn’t create it; it’s a reality of today. You can’t understand Ontario or Canada without understanding multiculturalism or cultural pluralism; it’s a fact of life. Governments don’t create it and they don’t dictate people’s attitudes with respect to it; they have to respond to it at all levels of government. It’s a cultural heritage which makes this particular jurisdiction very special.

As the hon. member has correctly said, I would resent anyone in any party, at any level of government, who thinks he can give token service to this field or in some cheap way deliver a bloc of people in any partisan or political way. You treat them as individuals who have sought opportunities here, or whose parents or grandparents did; they are entitled to equal access to government services and understanding that to which they are entitled, that was the basis of the whole programme when the Department of Provincial Secretary and Citizenship was developed some years ago.

I don’t see this as a great area for partisan differences. I invite the hon. member, as I did the day when we met with members of his caucus, to discuss those special programmes. I invite him to share with me the areas where he feels there may be some direction needed. We have added resources. I’m asking the House to vote these additional resources in order that we might respond.

There are a number of points that have been made, and I want to respect the time limitations that are here, but the accountability of the advisory council is of some interest to me. When I was the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, there wasn’t a Ministry of Culture and Recreation at that time. The whole model we followed, in so far as the establishment of advisory councils was concerned, was to have them available to the whole government.

I think it would be unfortunate if we saw the question of multiculturalism as only the responsibility of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. We have some special responsibilities in the citizenship and multicultural development area because of some special programmes but, as Heritage Ontario has reminded us, it should be a total government response; whatever disadvantage anyone suffers in this jurisdiction, it should be eliminated in the name of equality of access to opportunity. It should be just as important to me, as the Minister of Culture and Recreation, as it would be to the Minister of Community and Social Services or indeed to any ministry.

The idea was to have an advisory council that could be sensitive and able to advise the entire government. This is why the reporting relationship was that with policy minister rather than with any particular ministry in the same way that we had our senior citizens, our handicapped people and multiculturalism as special concerns which the government should be addressing in its total approach. I’m saying that, for different reasons, we have a great commitment to continue this.

This is not an easily understood area. I was at the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre today, speaking to some North York teacher administrators during a wonderful series of meetings going on in that educational system. I realize that it takes a great deal of time. You can’t legislate. You can’t be overly heavy in government directives with respect to it. You’ve got to live it; you’ve got to believe in it, you’ve got to feel it, you’ve got to realize the reality which multiculturalism really is.

And you’ve got to appreciate that it’s more than just folk dancing or folk festivals; it’s the wider, broader lifestyle which is ours. It’s that and more. And where would we be today if we didn’t acknowledge it?

[4:00]

I take it very seriously. I appreciate the counsel and I appreciate the advice. I disagree with the assessment of our motives. I almost violently disagree with some of the value judgements that you have imposed on us with respect to what we are doing, but I do share with you a concern for these particular services.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough West has a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the House leader, because of some things in these estimates which are important and to which some little time should be turned, I am going to ask the Liberal Party through the House leader -- and unhappily because of events today people aren’t as generally around -- I am going to ask that one hour be taken from the timetable later to be turned exclusively over to Wintario, since that was the intention. We are already intruding into and eroding that hour now anyway. Personally, I would like to give up the hour which was designed for the Premier’s (Mr.

Davis) estimates, because I have never seen much sense in that. I am hoping that that is where the trade-off will occur. I suspect the Liberal Party would agree.

I would like to speak on this vote for a few minutes, and some other people would like to get into it. I don’t want to intrude on the hour for Wintario, which I understand a lot of members want to get in on and which all of us, if we spoke, would erode. So I am putting that to you, Mr. Chairman, as a point of order that I suspect the opposition parties would concur in and that I hope the government would concur in, since, if we do away with the Premier’s estimates, it is only the leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition who lose the joy of taking that fellow apart.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I imagine some spokesman from the Liberal Party will want to respond to that. I understand that what would happen then is, we would carry on until 5 o’clock and complete all the votes except Wintario, we would have one hour for Wintario on Thursday afternoon from 3 to 4, and then we would start the Ministry of Education and that additional hour would then be taken off the time allocation for the Premier’s estimates.

Mr. Lewis: I would like it like that but the whips may decide on something else.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, our party would agree to that, with the exception that we would like it left to the House leader to decide where the other hour is taken from, in order that a decision can be made by the three House leaders.

Mr. Lewis: That’s fine.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the committee agree? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) has volunteered to give up an hour.

Mr. Lewis: The Provincial Secretary for Social Development would doubtless be happy not to bring her estimates to the House at all. It is under negotiation.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I appreciate what the hon. member has said and I will discuss it with my colleagues, the other two House leaders, as to where we find the hour. The idea is that we will finish everything up at 5 o’clock except Wintario and then we will have one hour on Thursday on Wintario.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we concur with the thinking that would allow us to go through until 5 o’clock to carry the votes up to that particular vote on Wintario, which is vote --

Mr. Lewis: Vote 2807.

Mr. Kerrio: Vote 2807, yes; thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I would address myself to a particular aspect of multiculturalism that I think would bear some investigation in regard to a re-assessment of this particular aspect. If it is part of the mandate of the Ministry of Education to acquaint children with the historical roots of the community and the culture of their origins, I am wondering in this ministry, where we have some $16 million expended, whether those moneys could not be reconsidered and redirected in the areas of multiculturalism in the particular Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

What I am suggesting is that the moneys that are expended under this mandate -- some $11 million at the secondary level and $5 million at the elementary level -- be utilized to provide reception and orientation classes for all children who need them. I am wondering whether, in fact, those moneys couldn’t be reconsidered and brought into the Ministry of Culture and Recreation where they would better identify with the multiculturalism aspect of that part of education.

I’ll touch on all three of these particular votes because we’ve handled them in the past as one vote. On item 2, community development for native peoples, I think I would ask all my questions if I may because I think that would expedite getting the votes done with.

I’m somewhat concerned that we’re spending some $574,000 on salaries and wages to government employees in the area of community development for native people. I wonder if we couldn’t somehow bring into focus, with the needs of the people, some expenditure or allotment to developing native peoples in some of these particular aspects of community development and help them in that regard?

On item 3, I wonder if you could translate for me the $233,900 for translation services? I would like to know who this translation is done for. Is it in any way involved with the translation of government advertising, the origin of which we don’t find listed? Is this translation of material from other ministries? Is it a case of the ministry paying for translations when other ministries should be involved? In view of the time restraints, I restrict myself to those particular pertinent questions in this vote and I defer to your answers.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, to move through the questions from the last step, we provide this service. It is an essential service across government and other ministries using this service are charged for it. There is a charge-back arrangement for the translation of government documents and to provide us with a facility to respond to correspondence which comes to us in other languages. There is a charge-back arrangement and the funds are provided here -- in other words, we have it for ourselves as a ministry and we provide this service for other ministries as well.

It used to be part of the establishment of Government Services, I think, as part of its central services. We saw the closer relationship with ourselves because of our work in multicultural development, but a condition of its transfer was that we would continue the charge-back arrangement.

I think the hon. member quite correctly raises questions with respect to native development and the employment of native people as part of that employment group. I understand that we have three officers and three clerical staff at the moment who are native people.

I don’t disagree at all -- I think they would obviously have that much more appreciation in the area of responsibility and I think the point is well made. I think we do everything we can to encourage the development of that type of leadership among the native peoples themselves for that particular work.

The first question, if memory serves me correctly, had something to do with the transfer of moneys from the Ministry of Education. I think when the Education estimates come before this committee -- and they follow us -- there would be some point in discussing once again this question of the introduction of young people from other cultural backgrounds to the educational system and the transition arrangements that are there. I think that would be best left as part of the educational responsibility.

I was talking about that this morning actually with the North York administrators. There are some interesting things going on in educational jurisdictions to provide for the transition of students from different cultural backgrounds and with some language problems in order that they can benefit from the established courses. We would maintain some interest in that, in the general area of integration, but would see the specific problems there as being more adequately looked after by the education people than by our own.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to the question of the Indian community secretariat as the Minister of Culture and Recreation knows. I’m glad to be speaking to him because I like him and I have regard for him. I feel that it’s good, therefore, on a subject as important as this to be speaking to a minister who will understand the necessary partisanship but try to discount it and perhaps see some merit in the positions that are being put as well.

I start with two very brief ironies: First, the irony that this estimate should be up at this very moment in time, my colleague from Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and I having returned from an extensive trip with other New Democrats and members of the media through some of the reserves in northwestern Ontario -- Sandy Lake, Whitefish, Whitedog and Grassy Narrows, to be specific.

I also note with irony that there is a certain -- how shall I phrase it? -- a certain symbolism implicit in the fact that the Indian community secretariat is buried in a vote of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation and has been shifted from ministry to ministry over the last decade, showing, I guess, justifiably or unjustifiably, the way in which we tend to view this rather important little secretariat.

I am reluctant to be combative about the positions I want to take. I know that the minister must and will defend the action of his government, but there are some things I want to say to him and they were added to, in my mind, by the statement that was made before the orders of the day by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier).

If Mr. Bernier persists in the decision that was made today to ask the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) to launch what will be an OPP investigation into the Grassy Narrows reserve, I think that a greater single mark of failure of government policy cannot be imagined than proceeding with that kind of investigation. I truly believe that it will destroy what little may be left in the relationships between government and the communities of Grassy Narrows and Whitedog.

I want to ask the minister to speak to his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources in the best sense and ask him please to reconsider, because it would be a kind of nightmare finale to a sequence of events over six years for which such governmental behaviour would, I submit to you, be absolutely inexcusable.

I understand the sense that if there is a criminal act or

an act of sabotage it must be investigated and ferreted out, but in an instance of this kind there are greater issues at stake and I simply want to try to put it to you. I want to say first that I have doubts about what the Minister of Natural Resources said today -- not that he is lying; I just have doubts as to the quality and concept of the statement.

I have heard much from the Ministry of Natural Resources which upon careful scrutiny has turned out to be inadvertently false -- like saying that Matachewan was the best-ever asbestos operation in Ontario. I remind you that that was said within two months of closing it down as the worst and I want to remind members of everything from Elliot Lake to God knows what, the Ministry of Natural Resources has not been the single most reliable ministry in the world.

The Minister of Natural Resources says that the switches were simply turned off at Grassy Narrows. Well, maybe they were. I don’t know whether they were. I guess if he says it they must well have been. But that also strikes me, just incidentally, as a peculiar aspect of all of this, because I would have thought that the switches are inside the locked building and you would have to get at them. It just doesn’t strike me as logical, knowing the way the reserves work and how everything is under lock and key, to think of it in those terms.

[4:15]

But, let me concede to the Minister of Culture and Recreation for a moment. Suppose there was a deliberate acts of switching off the freezer, rather than an accidental act or rather than something going wrong with the machine? What does it show? It shows that the Indians were engaging in a particular act of social protest or social outrage. Or it could show that the freezer was so alien, and the fish were not being eaten, that they didn’t care anyway.

Or it could show that there is such total breakdown in the relationships between the Indian community at Grassy Narrows on the one hand and the provincial and federal authorities on the other, that nobody thought to communicate to each other the problem that emerged on that reserve. So when we walked into it on the weekend, we walked into 5,000 lb of rotting fish in a freezer.

What happened? Did no one go into the freezer in the whole reserve in that period of time? Was it so little used that it was never discovered? Or did people who are perfectly presentable and decent human beings, like the Bill Fobisters, and the Matthew Beavers and the Stephen Fobisters and the Joe Quoquats and all of the leadership of Grassy Narrows, did they go in and see the rotting fish and just walk out and tell nobody about it? Is the entire reserve complicit in

an act of sabotage? Or does it say to the minister that the relationships between Grassy Narrows and the government are so bad that nobody thought of telling anybody exactly what was going on?

May I say, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, does the minister know that the day before we were there the member of his secretariat who is responsible for the supervision of all of the northwestern part of the province was in Grassy Narrows sorting out a number of band council resolution problems -- the chaos left after Jeff Perkins departed?

And isn’t it almost unimaginable that such an excellent man as Gary Bashera -- and he is, I concede that -- such an excellent fellow as Gary Bashera spends so many hours on the reserve and comes back, and the things that were in that famous memo were true, that in fact fish has been discarded or buried or whatever, and kind of isn’t himself involved in the confidence because there is so much lack of confidence?

Doesn’t this episode speak to the incredible breakdown in human relationships which all of this represents? That’s why I don’t think the OPP should go in. That’s why I think the OPP will destroy what little is left. I just don’t think that makes any sense at all. It’s like saying to the Indian communities at Grassy Narrows, this is a final act of retribution. It’s vindictive. It’s like saying, we’ve been wrong for six years and you’re going to pay for our errors of judgement and our lack of responsiveness. The government extracts from the community the retribution which the government seeks as compensation for its own unenviable guilt, and that’s just no way to behave.

When the Minister of Natural Resources stood in the House today and talked about sabotage, I want to say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, what ran through my mind. Sabotage has many

definitions. I suppose you could use the word sabotage to describe turning off a switch in a freezer, with several thousands of pounds of fish thereafter rotting. Could you not also use the word sabotage to describe a sequence of events which destroyed the life of an entire community in 1970, allows it to fall into total social disintegration over the intervening six years and six years after still can’t respond to it?

Is that not cultural sabotage? Is that not more important in the scheme of things than turning off a switch in a freezer as

an act of social protest or an accident or, indeed, an error in description on the part of the Ministry of Natural Resources?

What is it about our response about what we’ve done to Whitedog and Grassy Narrows that would allow a respectable minister of the Crown at this point in time to stand up and say, we will seek retribution from the Indians by launching an OPP investigation, rather than saying to himself, as surely he must have for a moment have thought, that the freezer is a symbol of cultural despair? That’s what it is. Whether it functions or it doesn’t function, I want to tell you I couldn’t care less.

The Indians aren’t eating the fish in the freezer. They haven’t got alternative “Fish for Food” programmes working. They can’t get alternative protein. The whole thing is just a miasma of confusion. The problem is not who turned off the freezer, or why the fish were rotting, or all of the incidents that related to that in particular terms, the problem is that the whole situation on Grassy Narrows and Whitedog reserves has gone to hell for six years and no one is able to retrieve a semblance of order.

When I visited, I was really surprised, Mr. Minister, at the way things were still going at Grassy Narrows and Whitedog. I was surprised because I had thought that the freezer programme was working; I want to tell you that.

On April 29 in this House, the acting Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson), in response to a question from the Liberal leader implied to the Legislature very strongly, she said -- I have it in front of me: “They have been supplied with alternative fish sources and other protein foods in order to help them to overcome the possibility of eating fish from those rivers.” That was three weeks after Rene Brunelle, the Chairman of Cabinet, had written to the reserves to indicate that the alternative protein supply situation was already in trouble.

I was astounded to walk into those reserves and find that nobody was eating the fish from the freezer and the alternative “Fish for Food” programme had collapsed. At no time in this Legislature were we told about it. At no time.

Do you recall with what enthusiasm Allan Grossman rose in his place to talk about the introduction of the freezers? Nobody said anything to this Legislature about the whole programme collapsing. No one. How do you treat a situation like that? Why don’t you take the Legislature into your confidence? And what I guess I’m asking the Minister of Culture and Recreation is -- and I’m not asking it very effectively -- can’t the cabinet, can