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

December 14, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BY-ELECTIONS

ROLE OF PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN ATHLETICS

MUNICIPAL TAXATION EXEMPTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

ABORTION CLINIC

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

FAMILY LAW REFORMS

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

ABORTION CLINIC

INTERNATIONAL YOUTH YEAR

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

ABORTION CLINIC

WATER QUALITY

HYDRO RATES

NEIGHBOURHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

FOREST MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS

OPP DETACHMENT

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

PENSION FUNDS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS

STATUS OF BILL

THIRD READINGS

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS PROJECT ACT

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

BUDGET DEBATE

SUPPLY ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

PROROGATION SPEECH

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the business of the House, I have a very important communication from the pages. It says:

"We, the pages of the Fourth Session of the 32nd Parliament, would like to thank the members, the clerks, the Sergeant at Arms, the attendants and especially Miss Niezen and Mr. Speaker very much for your hospitality and your very much appreciated co-operation.

"Thank you. Season's greetings and all the best."

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BY-ELECTIONS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this occasion to extend my congratulations to those candidates who were elected to the Legislative Assembly of this province yesterday.

While I gather from press reports that there may be some further determination in a particular riding, on the assumption that those who were doing the counting yesterday were using the old math and the figures are correct, I extend my best wishes to those candidates, two of whom are actually returning to this House, the two members for the New Democratic Party. I regret only that I will not be here as Premier to give them once again the benefit of my advice, which advice, I guess, temporarily terminated their political careers.

It also goes to prove that none of us should say our political careers are ever finally over. It is snowing today, and I know of others who have made decisions in snowstorms, but that is not my intent.

Mr. Mancini: Where is your blue carnation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, I very rarely wear flowers. Where is your red one? I do not want to be partisan this morning, but I thought the member opposite might be wearing a black armband.

I extend my congratulations as well to the new member for Ottawa East, who won that riding in a very close election, according to our figures.

Mr. Kerrio: You know Casey Stengel. We will be back next year.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will be back next year too. I am not sure about the year after that. You and I may be in retirement together the year after that.

Mr. Kerrio: One will be voluntary; the other one may not be.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. At least mine will be voluntary; yours may not be.

I extend my congratulations as well to the new member for Prescott-Russell. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the member for York South (Mr. Rae) will pardon me and understand why I am particularly pleased with the results in Wentworth North. I have been involved as head of government in a number of by-elections, and during my tenure in office this is the first occasion when our candidate has been successful in a riding --

Mr. Peterson: Just as you are leaving.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, just as I am leaving. It is very symbolic. I know what the Leader of the Opposition would like to read into it, but I caution him not to become too optimistic or enthusiastic.

Mr. McCaffrey: Do not provoke him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not intend to provoke him this morning.

Not only am I very pleased but I also genuinely believe the person elected in Wentworth North will really make a contribution in the Legislative Assembly, irrespective of party affiliation. Mrs. Sloat has been a municipal leader in her community for some years. She is a very dedicated and able person. I am very delighted to welcome her in the Speaker's gallery this morning.

She wanted to get some idea of just how things are conducted. I am told that last night might have been an experience here in the House for her, but I only go by reports.

Mr. Foulds: You have never been here.

10:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I had my speaker on and I heard. I will make no further comment except to say I am perhaps glad she did not get her first exposure to the orderly conduct of this House last evening. I would like to welcome her to this House.

Mr. Haggerty: Now for the affirmative action.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Affirmative action; I hope the member for Erie understands the terminology affirmative action.

While I will be here to listen to the observations at the conclusion of the budget debate, in case I do not have an opportunity to --

Mr. Rae: Does that mean the Premier is not staying for question period?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I expect to be here for part of that as well.

I would like to extend to --

Mr. Foulds: You are not normally a recluse.

Mr. Rae: You make Howard Hughes look like a socialite.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to know I was missed. I have given honourable members great opportunity to operate without my presence and I do not find things have changed a bit, including last night.

I would like to extend to members on this side and to members on the other side of the House my very best wishes for the holiday season, an opportunity to rest, reflect and spend time with their families.

I would also wish to my successor, whoever that person will be, who will be in this seat when this House resumes some time after February 26, not only the very best for the holiday season but a very politically successful 1985. I know members opposite would share in the best wishes I am extending to the unknown person who will fill this seat.

Mr. Elston: They are all unknown.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, they are all unknown. I caution the member that I never make predictions about my own political fate or outcome, but I will be prompted to make a prediction at some point during the latter part of January that whoever succeeds will be Premier for at least eight or 12 years.

Mr. O'Neil: Has the Premier looked at them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, and so has the member and that is why he is assessing his political future. When I look over there --

Mr. O'Neil: It will not be long before we are over there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will not be provoked this morning.

While I am here at question period, I am sure the questions will be of the nature that I will not have the opportunity to say a word of thanks to all members of the House, both on this side and the other, for the degrees of courtesy that have been extended to the member for Brampton, not always, but on a number of occasions.

Once again I would thank the leaders of the opposition parties for the kind words they expressed some weeks ago. I assure them those words will not come back to haunt them, because come snowstorm, sleet, hail or rain, I shall not be taking a walk and changing my mind about my political future.

[Applause]

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether all that cheering over there was for the Premier's last remark or what.

However, let me join the Premier in extending congratulations to the newly elected candidates. I express my congratulations to the two new Conservatives, Mrs. Sloat and this funny guy sitting opposite me, whoever he is. I am glad to see him sitting in the House again.

I congratulate the two New Democrats, one conditionally, who won in a very tight race, and one unconditionally, who won in a much more definitive race; and of course the two candidates that were elected from the Liberal Party, Ben Grandmaître and Jean Poirier, who I feel very confident will make a fine contribution to this House.

We watched and worked in those by-elections with a great deal of interest. It is no secret that a number of pundits have said the Liberal Party was in pretty bad shape. I would remind those naysayers that the Liberal Party had 43 per cent of the vote cast, substantially ahead of both the other parties.

But for a little luck -- a couple of situations were extremely close. I expect in both of those cases the candidates will be running again. You will get to know them intimately if you are still in your chair, Mr. Speaker, which you may not be. You will get to know them intimately in that situation.

I congratulate the new members and I congratulate the candidates as well. I have some understanding of the sacrifice. I have some understanding both of the joys of victory and of the agony of defeat in politics. To those who were defeated in all cases, I extend my good wishes as well. I found that fatigue leaves the body after a campaign far more quickly if one wins than if one loses. I am sure the five members will make a great contribution to this House.

We will be discussing what the future has in store for us a little later today in our windup speeches. I will save my good Christmas wishes and best regards for all the members until that occasion. I just want to take this occasion to congratulate the members who are here, the members who were elected. I feel very proud of the effort put forward by the members of my party, the candidates who ran for us. They were distinguished people in all cases and they did themselves extremely proud. I am very happy about that.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, members are happy on all sides. If the Leader of the Opposition is happy, I can say I am happier than he is today. I am delighted with the result.

I want to offer to Mrs. Sloat, who is here today, my sincere congratulations on behalf of all of us here. We wish her well in her career here, however long or short it may turn out to be. That is the nature of the job. Welcome to this rambunctious and happy place. May Mrs. Sloat and her family have a merry Christmas.

I will not make any partisan comments, except to say we are obviously very pleased with the results. Our votes went up everywhere and we won two seats. Organization is the name of this business, together with strength on the ground and commitment. We have on all those fronts done well and we are very pleased with the results.

They may lead to some change in the seating plan in this House, Mr. Speaker. I will be talking to you about that in a moment. As our numbers expand, we feel we should be expanding a little more in your direction and getting closer and closer to your chair.

Mr. Kerrio: To the right.

Mr. Rae: No, just closer to the centre of things. I understand there is some argument on the other side as well about who is closer to the centre of things. We will leave that as a wish.

As for the Premier, he makes Howard Hughes look like a socialite. We are delighted to have him back here today. I expected him to come in with a long beard and a linen suit. I had no idea. He looks exactly the same. We are delighted he is here. I am just sorry he was not here for what was a very interesting session; shall I put it that way.

It was a session which was described by the Premier's colleagues yesterday as so busy they did not have time to fit in family law reform or environmental protection. That is the kind of session it has been. We will have more to say about that as we wind up for the budget.

I want to join with the Speaker and the leader of the Conservative Party, for the present time, and the leader of the Liberal Party, in wishing everybody a very merry Christmas, a very happy Hanukkah and season's greetings to everyone. May we have a good and happy holiday and come back happier in January.

I hope the Conservative Party has a very happy convention that is fairly democratic. I am referring to the family affair, the little private occasion the Conservatives are going to hold next month, about which we are not allowed to know anything. I am going to be there in some capacity assisting our good friends in the media to analyse and understand the complexities of the tribal ritual that will be taking place, the dance of the dinosaurs that takes place once every 10 or 12 years.

We look forward to the result. We look forward to whatever 1985 may bring. We think it is going to bring much happiness and even greater good cheer than we have found in December 1984. I am a lot happier in December 1984 than I was in December 1983, and that is a good sign.

10:20 a.m.

ROLE OF PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The Leader of the Opposition accused me in the House yesterday of trying to intimidate and censor the Provincial Auditor because I asked the auditor in committee about the use of the term "whitewash."

I quote the auditor at the standing committee on public accounts on December 13: "I believe the question really concerns one alleged statement, the use of the term `whitewash.' Certainly it was not my intention to say that the Hydro review had been a whitewash and I did not believe that I had said that."

The Leader of the Opposition also stated in the House, referring to the auditor, that "if everything he says is to be subject to dissection by certain members of the committee, he would be less than honest if he were to say that the actions of the Tories would not make him more cautious about public statements."

That is not true. The auditor did not make any specific reference to anyone on the public accounts committee. In Instant Hansard, at page A-1140-3, this is what the auditor said: "I did not look upon the matter that was raised today as intimidating myself or my office in any way. I looked upon it as an honest attempt to get a clarification as to what I said or what I meant."

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want you to identify your point of privilege and not to read from the record or quote other members.

Mr. Kolyn: I am coming to it now.

The auditor continued: "However, I would be less than honest if I did not say that it has caused me to reflect upon how I should proceed in the future with regard to television, newspaper or radio interviews."

Please note that the auditor was referring to the media and not to the members.

The auditor then said: "I would certainly be concerned if everything I said would be subject to dissection and perhaps misinterpretation or quotes out of context or what have you and that resulted in me having to come before the public accounts committee.... However, I do not think that we are going to be discouraged by one incident. This office is relatively new at the game of co-operation and dealings with the media. We certainly" --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must advise the honourable member that is not a point of privilege. However, it was rather interesting.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: With respect to the remarks raised by my honourable friend --

Mr. Speaker: On a point of information.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is a point of privilege. It was very clearly stated by the auditor that the Tory majority curtailed his investigation to some extent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN ATHLETICS

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, this morning I am pleased to make public the second volume of the report of the Task Force on Equal Opportunity in Athletics. It studies sports at all levels of Ontario's educational institutions and completes the work of the task force.

The task force was established by the government in April 1982 to recommend measures to achieve and maintain equality of opportunity for the sexes in athletics in Ontario. That was a tall order. John Sopinka, QC, the chairman, a prominent lawyer who had a formidable athletic career himself, immediately appointed two distinguished Canadian athletes as advisers: Ms. Cindy Nicholas, the marathon swimmer, and Ms. Debbie Van Kiekebelt, the pentathlete.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the honourable members please conduct their private business elsewhere or resume their seats?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It was just a year ago that I brought to this House volume 1 of Can I Play, in which the task force considered amateur athletics in the community. I am pleased to report that since the publication of volume 1, there has been public feedback from notable athletes and quite a demand for copies of the report.

We have established an interministerial committee to find the best method of proceeding with the 24 recommendations of volume 1. On this committee sit representatives from the ministries of Tourism and Recreation, Education, Colleges and Universities, the Ontario women's directorate and the Ministry of Labour, including the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has provided special funds to support particular projects of 10 community organizations designed to attract female participants and to provide new or improved programs or services for them. Additionally, that ministry now asks all its funded clients to report on female participation in their programs.

Volume 2 of Can I Play recommends both moral suasion and legislative changes to achieve and maintain equality of opportunity in athletics for the sexes at all levels of Ontario schooling. Within the 23 recommendations Mr. Sopinka makes relating to elementary and secondary schools, he addresses Ministry of Education guidelines on fitness, coeducational classes and competition and role models for girls. He recommends a strengthening of the policies and guidelines of the Ministry of Education to affirm a policy of equal opportunity in athletics and monitoring of compliance by requiring information from boards of education.

The task force does not recommend any change in the existing provisions of the Human Rights Code vis-à-vis elementary and secondary schools. The code states that the right to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities is not infringed where membership in an athletic activity is restricted to persons of the same sex.

The task force states that school boards should treat female physical education specialists as a separate category in order to stem the decline in their numbers. This decline occurs when male and female school athletic departments are unified and a position is abolished. More often than not, it is the female instructor who is the junior.

The task force further recommends that school boards establish committees to deal with women's issues and to encourage contact between school boards and municipal recreation committees.

At the post-secondary level, Mr. Sopinka notes that while male and female students contribute an equal portion of their student fees to finance athletic programs, females receive an unequal portion of the budget for their activities. He also says that teaching and coaching imbalances persist and that male sports are more heavily promoted at the post-secondary level in Ontario.

10:30 a.m.

With regard to colleges and universities, Mr. Sopinka recommends removal of the exemption imposed by subsection 19(2) of the Human Rights Code, whereby membership in an athletic organization may be restricted to persons of the same sex. He further recommends that subsection 19(2) be amended in favour of females only to prevent domination of female sports by males.

I expect there will be a good bit of public discussion of this second report of the Task Force on Equal Opportunity in Athletics and I would appreciate receiving comment from the public by next March 31.

I wish to advise the members of the Legislature that Mr. Sopinka will be available to answer questions in the press studio approximately half an hour after question period today. I am sure honourable members join me in thanking Mr. Sopinka and his conscientious task force members for this very thorough review.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION EXEMPTION

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, under the Assessment Act, machinery and equipment used to operate amusement rides such as rollercoasters, monorails, slides and Ferris wheels, as well as the rails, trestles and foundations that support these rides, are liable to taxation by municipalities.

This provision has been under active discussion during 1984. Several of my colleagues in cabinet and some of the honourable members opposite have expressed concern that it negatively affects the expansion and development of the tourist industry in Ontario. After careful review, I have concluded that amusement rides play a role in the tourist industry similar to that played by tax-exempt machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and industrial sectors.

It is therefore my intention to introduce a bill at the next session amending the Assessment Act to exempt amusement rides from municipal taxation, beginning in 1985. Since in the short term this will result in a loss of revenue to the municipalities involved, the proposed legislation will permit my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) to make compensating grants extending, in decreasing amounts, over three to five years.

I am sure that over the longer term municipalities will derive sufficient economic benefit from improved tourist facilities to offset the relatively insignificant tax loss and that the bill will support Ontario's tourist industry without adversely affecting municipalities.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the Premier is here today, and I am going to ask him a question about the Morgentaler case.

It is obvious there is a division in his cabinet. He will be aware the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) issued a plea for restraint on Tuesday last, and it appears that plea has been ignored. I am sure the Premier is sad to see the sorry spectacle on a daily basis of police protecting that institution, with picketers from both sides fighting and arrests being made. I am sure he will agree the situation has been exacerbated -- in fact, passions have not been cooled, they have been inflamed -- by this lack of leadership from his government.

Is the Premier happy about what is happening right now? What leadership is he going to exercise to end this sorry spectacle?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that any of us is happy about the particular situation. I have complete confidence in the capacity of the ministers of the crown who have an interest in this area to deal with their responsibilities in the appropriate fashion.

Mr. Peterson: They do not agree, however. There is no action, and the Premier has not been here to assert his leadership. I am asking him, as the still current head of government, what is he going to do and what instructions is he giving his Attorney General or his Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor)? How is this matter going to be resolved? Surely, that is his responsibility. Even on this last day, when I would very much like to charitable, he cannot avoid that responsibility. As the head of government, what is he doing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say that if anybody is attempting to exacerbate the situation at the moment it is the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I simply say to the Premier and to the leader of the Liberal Party that if the Premier were ever to give instructions to the Attorney General with respect to a legal matter before the courts, I would find that to be not only improper but also highly irregular and completely out of order.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the member ever naive.

Mr. Rae: Let the members think about it for a moment. Do they really want the Premier telling these people when and what to do with respect to matters affecting the crown law officers? That would be unbelievable. If we ever found that it did happen, it would be completely irregular and unconstitutional given the practice in all the common law countries.

What is the government's

interpretation of the meaning of the acquittal of Dr. Morgentaler and his colleagues a couple of weeks ago?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is our responsibility to interpret. The Attorney General has indicated to the public of this province that the results of the case are under appeal. It would be improper for me to comment until that appeal is heard.

Mr. Peterson: Obviously the policies of the Solicitor General and the Attorney General are not coming together. If the Premier is trying to stand in this House --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That is nonsense.

Mr. Peterson: Is the Attorney General talking or not talking? Is he talking with the police and with his own crown law officers? He avoids responsibility on some occasions by saying it is someone else's fault, and on other occasions he takes responsibility. He has created tremendous confusion.

The results of the policies of this government are obvious on the streets today. That is the reality. If the Premier does not want to take responsibility, he can turn it over to the Attorney General or to the Solicitor General; but they are not taking responsibility either. Surely the Premier cannot be pleased to watch what is going on in a province where he is the head of the government. Is it not his responsibility to make sure government policy is being implemented? What is that government policy? What are the Solicitor General and the Attorney General going to do?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition should read the definition of responsibility and then apply it to his own attitudes and questions in this situation, such as trying to get me to say I will instruct the Attorney General to take certain actions, which would be totally improper.

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Premier about something that is in his area of competence. The Premier will recall that he rode into office on a white charger in 1971, full bore down the Spadina expressway.

What is the Premier going to do to honour his promise made in 1971? Is he going to bring in legislation? Is he going to do something definitive to stop the extension of that highway, or is he going to leave it up in the air and let his successor deal with it? Is he going to let the great promise he made go unfulfilled?

Will the Premier give us a definitive statement in this House today, his last day in this House as Premier, of what he is going to do to honour his promise?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that when I first assumed office Spadina was something of an issue, and that when I am about to leave office it may or may not be an issue. As I relive a little history for the Leader of the Opposition, one of the great problems of the Liberal Party in those days was that it had no position on Spadina. Some of its members wanted to build it to Rochester, and others did not want to build it at all. I doubt if that party has a unanimous position on it today.

I look at some members opposite and I think, as is the case with many of the Liberal Party policies, that there is total fragmentation within their caucus on this issue. I offer that only as an observation and suggest to the Leader of the Opposition --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: This is just like so many other issues. They were issues when the Premier took office in 1971 and they are still issues, only worse, in 1984. That is the hallmark of his leadership, if he wants to be partisan. He is talking about then, but my question was what is the Premier going to do to honour his promise? Is he going to keep the promise or is he going to be immortalized as one who broke his promises?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I have no expectation of being immortalized; that has never been an ambition of mine. I expect his immortality will be his rather singular lack of success, although I have to interject that I was impressed by Shelley's contribution in the past couple of weeks. The honourable member might seriously consider asking her to assume his responsibilities. I have suggested to Kathy that she run in Brampton; so I am not saying anything to the member I have not said to myself.

10:40 a.m.

The Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe) has outlined to the House what has transpired. My understanding is that the documentation is to be finalized this coming week wherein title will be assumed by the province with certain leaseback arrangements to Metropolitan Toronto. The question of the three-foot strip will be determined when we get title to that parcel of land.

I can only ask the Leader of the Opposition if he has his Queen's Counsel yet. He was given his QC? So this means he is very knowledgeable in the law, he has a total understanding of what the law says. So he does understand that whatever arrangements we may make with the city of Toronto, by way of deed or lease of the three-foot strip for 99 years, that would make it far more difficult for Metropolitan Toronto to expropriate the lease, which might be its legal right; if we were the owners of that and had just a lease arrangement with the city that would not be possible.

I hope the Leader of the Opposition understands that I said this government would not agree to the extension of Spadina. That is still the policy and I would be very surprised if that policy were to ever change. I doubt that it will.

I have been reminded by the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the New Democratic Party on so many occasions that the Legislature of this province is supreme and it is quite within the realms of legal possibility, although I would say not probability, that even if we were to deed or lease the three-foot strip somebody -- perhaps the member -- might introduce a private bill saying he would want to extend Spadina. If that bill were to carry, then that would become the law.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us, is he the same William G. Davis who signed a letter dated May 19, 1981, to the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) in which he states as follows, "I give assurance that if negotiation fails to provide the necessary agreement to put in place the three-foot reserve at the Eglinton terminus of the Allen arterial road, by way of grant or lease in favour of the city of Toronto, then government legislation will be introduced to do so"?

If he is the same William G. Davis who signed that letter, where is the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the letter is fairly clear: it says if we are not in a position; however, I expect by some time next week we will be the owners of that three-foot strip.

Mr. Peterson: To make this simple, with all the bobbing and weaving the Premier has done for the last 13 or 14 years, he has not honoured his promise and he is making it very clear again that his successor could change it. Is that not true?

Mr. Nixon: And probably will.

Mr. Peterson: And probably will, depending on who is elected.

Does the Premier not feel somewhat badly that his premier promise of 1971 will not be honoured?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, while I made the decision along with my cabinet colleagues not to approve the extension of Spadina, I would have to believe there have been other modest issues in the intervening period.

I also have to remind the Leader of the Opposition that in 14 years --

Mr. Epp: Separate schools, for example.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is right.

Mr. Epp: What a flip-flop that was.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Flip-flop? Does the honourable member remember what his people said in 1975 and what his present leader said in 1977? They were going to have committees and they were going to study it. They would say to one group, "We are going to study it," then quietly indicate to another group, "We are going to do it." Their position on that issue, I would say to the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), was so hypocritical over the years that it was perceived by everybody in Ontario, and he knows it.

Mr. Speaker: I am going to ask the Premier to reconsider the use of the word "hypocritical" and withdraw it, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to use the word "hypocritical", but "contradictory."

Mr. Rae: Now that we are into contradictions, at the end of the Premier's answer to my question he said he expected something to happen next week with respect to the ownership of the three-foot strip.

Could the Premier tell us, in words that are understandable even to those of us who are not lawyers and not QCs, exactly what he is talking about? Could he explain that, particularly in the light of the commitment made by one of his putative and possibly happy successors in January, the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller), who said it is his policy to pave all of northwestern Toronto? That seems to be the objective of his policies.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: No, I am not talking about the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman). I know he is smiling. One man's arterial road may be paved with good intentions, but they may not be the good intentions he thinks are there.

Can the Premier please clarify exactly what he said with respect to the ownership of this three-foot strip? What does he intend to do with the three-foot strip once he gets it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understood the member for York South (Mr. Rae) had studied a little law for a period of time. Did he not study a little law?

Mr. Rae: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought he had. Does he know what leasehold interests are? He understood that; he took law for at least a few months. Quite obviously, it was too much for him.

I thought my answer was very clear: I expect that some time next week the province will have title to that three-foot strip. There have been discussions with the city of Toronto, and the member will know in the fullness of time, which will not be that long, how we intend to approach that three-foot strip.

Mr. Rae: With great respect to the Premier, that is not a satisfactory answer. It is not satisfactory on the last day of the last session of the Legislature in which he is the Premier to tell us that at some future date he will be kind enough to tell us his future plans.

He knows now what his intentions are concerning the three-foot strip, he has made certain commitments in writing to the citizens of Toronto concerning the future of that road and I think he has an obligation on this, his last day in this Legislature, to stand up and answer questions for us that give a very clear indication of what he intends to do.

What does he intend to do with that three-foot strip once he has it? Without getting into any legal gobbledegook, it makes one heck of a difference what he does, what the rights of the parties are and whether legislation is going to be required. I know that much about the law and so does the Premier. I would like him to have the courtesy to tell us today, finally, after his long absence from this place, exactly what he intends to do with that three-foot strip.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not want to get personal, but my absence has not been any longer than that of the member opposite was when he became leader of his party and could not find a seat for several months.

Mr. Foulds: You were elected; you had a seat.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly I had a seat. He could have had one but he did not want one.

Mr. Rae: You did not have the decency to call a by-election.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. You could not persuade Donald to retire soon enough.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You had not sorted out his retirement allowance. I know all about it. Do not give me this sort of nonsense about not calling it.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Mr. McClellan: Take the high road.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What do you mean, "Take the high road"? I thought that was the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) last night.

I can say this much to the member for York South, I really do not expect that legislation will be required to resolve this issue. As I say, discussions are going on with the city concerning the three-foot strip and whether it will be by way of lease or by way of deed.

Mr. Peterson: The ownership of that three-foot strip is clearly the essential issue in preventing that extension and in honouring the Premier's commitment. Is he going to turn it over to the city in perpetuity or not? Is he going to give it a deed to that strip of property?

That is the issue. The Premier knows that enabling legislation has been tabled by us in this House. It could be done. Is the Premier going to do it or not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I understand the position at the moment, and I think I am right in my information, no legislation will be required.

Mr. Rae: That answer does not give me any great cause for happiness. It may simply mean that what the province is going to do will be very temporary and something that can be overridden, not even by legislation of this Legislature but by a decision of one of his successors who thinks the answer to Toronto's problems is to asphalt all of northwestern Toronto.

What is the Premier going to do to protect his promise against those of his successors whose answer to any of Toronto's problems is simply to pave them?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Any of the four very able individuals offering themselves for the leadership of our party are so able, they are going to win the next election. I give the member that assurance.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Any one of the four. I would be very disappointed if all of them did not feel they had certain things to bring to this position.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is interrupting.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the Leader of the Opposition hates to be ignored.

Anyway, what did the member ask? He does not get any comfort in my telling him it does not need legislation. All I am saying is that it does not.

My understanding is that the province will have title after the exchange of documents some time next week. We have raised this with the city of Toronto. Whether to protect its interests to the degree that is possible would be better done by leasehold from the province for 99 years or by the conveyance of the three-foot strip is open to question.

Some lawyers would say the city of Toronto's interests would be better served by having a leasehold interest, with the province still having ownership and the right to expropriate, than by Toronto having the three-foot strip by way of title. We are discussing this with the city and I am always open to the best legal advice I can get.

FAMILY LAW REFORMS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. Several times this week we have been asking different ministers what happened to family law reform. We have had several different answers. It appears to have been mugged in the corridors of power somewhere on the way to the cabinet room by a group of people in the Tory party who do not believe in equality between men and women in the division of assets or in the importance of enforcing maintenance orders.

The Attorney General is the same minister who has spoken several times in this House and outside, and I know he would not want to be accused of misleading the press. Where is the Family Law Reform Act? We have been waiting for it. Today is the last day of the session. He promised several times it would be here before the end of the session. Where, in the name of goodness, is the Family Law Reform Act?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on several other occasions in recent weeks, it had been our intention to introduce amending legislation to the Family Law Reform Act. We had hoped to do this before the end of the session, but, as I indicated to the leader of the third party earlier, we are still engaged in a consultative process, which I realize is a process that is strange to this member's party.

Certain people dictate to his party what it should do at any time and it usually falls very quickly into line. Although the word "democratic" is attached to the party label, the process we on this side of the House follow is in reality much more democratic. We consult with one another and with the public, and we must be satisfied that a reasonable consensus has been reached before we introduce legislation.

Mr. Rae: Listening to the Attorney General talk about democracy is like watching a dinosaur trying to breakdance. It is an absurd sight. He looks ridiculous trying to do it.

He has been mugged by the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) and others in the cabinet who do not believe in equality and who are not committed to it. He has been involved in a secretive process of delay. He has gone to the media and manipulated them about what is going to happen, and he has the gall to come in here and talk about democracy. He would not know it if he fell over it in the dark.

He has had two and a half years of this consultative process. Even for Brian Mulroney that is a long time to go around consulting people. I know consultation is the vogue; it is the name of the game. However, he has had his period of consultation. Where, in the name of God, is his policy?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There are no dinosaurs on this side of the House. When the history of this great province is written, the dinosaurs are going to be seen to have had much greater influence than those people, and they have not been around for a while. They have not been around for a long time, but their place in the history of this province will be more significant than that of the New Democratic Party.

The people on this side are committed and dedicated to equality. This legislation will have a high priority in the next legislative session. The members are going to see the best legislation this country can produce.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I understand some of the Attorney General's cabinet colleagues have admitted they are dinosaurs and said they are proud of it.

Interjections.

Mr. Wrye: If they all want to stand up and claim they are proud of it, they can.

In April or May 1984, the Attorney General said we would have this legislation and that the consultative process was complete. Now on December 14, with the year over and with legislation an impossibility for this session of the Legislature, he is still talking about consultation.

Is the consultation complete? Is the bill going to be ready for spring? What new promise is he willing to make on this last day of the session?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, we will have the legislation ready for very early in the next session.

Mr. Rae: That commitment is worth the same as every commitment he has made since 1982 -- absolutely nothing. He is not committed to it and his party is not committed to it.

Can the Attorney General explain why the policies with respect to family law reform are no longer pre-Keynesian but are now preCambrian? Is he denying that a draft bill has been submitted and circulated and that he has not been able to generate the necessary consensus in cabinet for that draft bill? Is it not a fact that the cabinet is divided? It is a secretive process. Is that what he calls democratic?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We have had important discussions around the cabinet table, but I have not seen any draft legislation. No draft legislation has been circulated and no draft legislation has been hidden from anybody.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has the answer to a question asked previously.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on December 4, in response to a question from the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), I undertook to review the figures relating to plant closures and layoffs for the nine-month period ending September 1984 and to report back to the House.

I have had an opportunity to review the figures and I wish to clarify earlier statements made with respect to comparisons of 1984 and 1983 regarding closures and permanent layoffs.

As the honourable member knows, the ministry differentiates a number of different categories of layoffs in the figures it reports. First, there is a requirement for companies to inform me whenever a closure or partial closure affects 50 or more employees. We have complete and accurate information on this category.

For the first nine months of 1984, there were 45 such episodes and the total number of employees affected was 5,087. In the corresponding nine-month period for 1983, the number of closures was 49 and the number of employees affected was 4,996. In other words, in this category the picture, while sad, has been relatively stable.

The second category relates to complete or partial closures where fewer than 50 workers are affected. Our best information regarding this category is as follows: in the first nine months of 1984 we have data on 43 such cases affecting 1,275 workers. The numbers for the corresponding period in 1983 were 20 episodes and 569 workers.

11 a.m.

On balance, the member for Hamilton East is correct in his assessment that, taking both complete and partial closures, large and small, the situation in 1984 is somewhat worse than it was in the corresponding period a year ago.

The third category of workers relates to those who are permanently laid off as a result of reduced operations. Here the situation has improved remarkably over the past year. For this category we have reliable figures only with respect to reduced operations where 50 or more employees are affected, since in such cases the employers are required to notify the ministry. In the first nine months of 1984, there were 35 such instances affecting 3,503 workers compared with 45 cases affecting 8,329 workers in the same period in 1983.

When one aggregates the figures relating to workers affected by reduced operations on which we have reliable information with the complete and partial closure information, we obtain an aggregate picture which indicates a significant improvement in the situation on laid-off workers in 1984 as compared with 1983. It is this improvement to which I was drawing attention in my earlier response. I would be pleased to provide to the member the rationale and backup material for this information I have provided here today.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, in arranging those figures to come to the realization of how many plant closures we have had and how many people have been put out of work, could the minister confirm the monetary settlements? I have a case in Niagara Falls of the Canadian Ohio Brass company where surplus pension funds have not been distributed after a year and a half. Can the minister tell us whether he is actively involved in settling the monetary problems that some of those workers have had for a long time?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The answer is affirmative. We get actively involved. In the particular circumstances the member is talking about, he and I have discussed them on previous occasions and we have tried to expedite matters, as he is aware. That is a matter that is before the pension commission, I understand, and we are hopeful it will be straightened out shortly.

Mr. Mackenzie: I appreciate the minister responding. His figures verify the very point I made. I pointed out to him when I raised it that there was a difference between reduced operations, where there is at least a chance that the operation may come back into further production and employment. The point I made with him, which he has verified, is that in permanent and partial closures, where the operation disappears, the facts are that the figures are worse for 1984 than they are for 1983. It points out the need for this government and this minister to take some action.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, A point of personal privilege.

Mr. Ruston: What is going on in here?

Mr. Elston: Why do we not stop the clock?

Mr. Williams: It is a point of personal privilege. Yesterday in the House, in a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker), Instant Hansard at page L-1500-2 indicates I made the following statement.

"Given that serious allegations have been made in the media today, as referred to earlier in the question period, that someone from the office of the Attorney General had intervened to stop a raid on the clinic by the chief of police..." and carries on from there.

That in itself is an appropriate comment. It has been drawn to my attention that in fact what I said was "Someone from McMurtry's office had intervened." While that is not unparliamentary, I consider it to be disrespectful and I would like it to be known I have the highest regard and respect, not only for the office of the Attorney General, but also for the Attorney General himself. I wanted to be assured that the final edition of Hansard reads as it is in the Instant copy.

INTERNATIONAL YOUTH YEAR

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. His recent letter of November 30 says that his secretariat will be developing the leadoff for Ontario's participation for International Youth Year, which is 1985.

A survey was completed over the summer of 1,000 youths in Scarborough, 67 per cent of whom were between the ages of 15 and 18. I believe it is representative of the hopes that youth hold for International Youth Year. When asked, "What is the most pressing problem, issue or concern affecting Scarborough youth, your friends or you personally?" 66 per cent said it was unemployment. In fact, when they were asked, "If International Youth Year were to accomplish one thing for you, what should it be?" the answer was more jobs.

Can the provincial secretary tell us how Ontario will respond to the concerns of our youth, 152,000 of whom were out of work in November 1984?

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, not only as part of International Youth Year but also as part of the ongoing policy of our government, many programs have already been put in place to deal with the very real problems of unemployment among our youth. I refer the honourable member particularly to the youth works program, youth venture capital and the youth corps, which have been in place for varying times this year and are ongoing.

The interest in these programs, especially in the excellent services being provided in this whole area by the youth employment counselling centres, is very high. We are very pleased with the way the centres are fulfilling their obligation and our intention to address the need, which is certainly very real, for employment among youth.

Mr. McGuigan: We realize that some efforts are going on, but it will shortly be 1985, International Youth Year. The secretariat is doing nothing more than acting as a coordinating unit. The minister has allocated no funds.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McGuigan: When is he going to do something that will match the work of provinces such as Quebec, which has actually set aside $10 million in the agency dealing with 1985 and the youth year? What is he going to do specifically?

Hon. Mr. Dean: Our particular focus through this secretariat, in addition to the provision and supervision of the youth employment programs I have just described, is on positive images of youth, because we recognize the young people in our society are not all unemployed.

In addition to the employment programs we are carrying on, we are going to emphasize as much as we can the actual achievements of young people in our society, which are considerable and which are often lost in the adverse image that is created in the public eye by the small percentage who are perceived as negligent, indifferent or actually hostile to society. We are emphasizing positive images of youth under the general caption of visions of the future.

My secretariat, as the member knows, is not a program deliverer but rather a co-ordinator. That is why we do not have in our budget the millions of dollars that other jurisdictions are spending on this program.

I would also like to mention that I recently met with Mme Andrée Champagne in order to co-ordinate what our government and the federal government are doing for International Youth Year.

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier in the absence of the retiring Premier. My question concerns patronage appointments.

The Deputy Premier will be aware there are approximately 3,500 patronage appointments in this province, 2,500 of which are at the disposal of the cabinet and 1,000 of which are made by the Premier himself. The minister will also be aware that about a third of the defeated Tory candidates from the last election have obtained patronage appointments of some kind.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Philip: Is the minister now prepared to accept the recommendations of the 1981 all-party standing committee on procedural affairs and put an end to this patronage system once and for all?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the question carries certain assumptions that should be challenged. We always seek the most qualified and competent individuals to serve in particular areas of responsibility. I think the honourable member should be very pleased to know this is our policy.

Mr. Philip: The procedural affairs committee outlined a very detailed procedure by which the back-door patronage system in this province could be eliminated.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

11:10 a.m.

Mr. Philip: Since there will be a flood of appointments by the present Premier prior to his retirement next month, is it not now time to do what this all-party committee recommended, namely, to open up the positions of agencies, boards and commissions to all members of the public and to do it in an open way rather than in the back rooms of the Conservative Party?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am not aware of any flood of appointments that is soon to descend upon us.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who is interested in serving on any board, agency or commission is at liberty to indicate that through his or her respective member. The most competent, qualified people will always be chosen through the selection process.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, will the minister speak to his friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) to ensure that all future hiring at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario offices is done through the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission?

Mr. Kerrio: Now wait a minute; that is sacred.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for Niagara Falls may not want his candidates to be subjected to that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I do not want to upset the member. Perhaps I had better consult him first before I go to that.

Certainly we seek very qualified and competent people. As the member will know, being a member of the Legislature, there are many who walk into the various stores and ask for application forms. There is a very objective selection process which follows with respect to that matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I did have a question for the Attorney General, but I do not see him in the House. Since he is not here, I will direct my question to the Minister of Health.

In the case of Regina versus Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, one or more of those doctors openly and boastfully admitted to breaking the civil and criminal law of the land by illegally operating in unlicensed medical hospitals to perform illegal abortions. One or more of those same doctors appear to have once again expressed a clear intent to do so and there appears to be considerable evidence of that being undertaken at this time.

Given these facts, will the minister use his good offices to approach the board of management of the medical profession in this province, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, to have these self-same doctors brought before the disciplinary committee of the college to explain their reasons for being in apparent violation of their professional code of ethics?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the honourable member and other members of the House that I have already reviewed with my legal advisers the scope of my duty, responsibility and authority under the Health Disciplines Act. I had discussions with my legal advisers as recently as this morning. It is my intention to review the matter further over the weekend. I want to assure the member that I shall discharge my responsibilities under the Health Disciplines Act fully once I am satisfied as to their scope.

Mr. Williams: Given the seriousness of professional misconduct of this nature as it relates to illegal acts that offend our civil and criminal law, does the minister not consider it to be something he should address on an emergency basis? Can he give assurances he will use his good offices forthwith to pursue this matter and approach the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to get its assistance in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think it is a very serious matter. Once I am satisfied as to what my responsibilities are under the statute, I will not delay one way or the other, whether it be that I do have a duty to respond in a particular way as set out in the act or whether I perhaps do not have that authority. I can assure the member I hope to know my response by early next week.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister knows that on more than one occasion this fall I have expressed concern on behalf of the people in the Pottersburg Creek area in London, Ontario, about the polychlorinated biphenyls that have been found in that creek.

The ministry's maximum standard for safe handling of PCBs is 50 parts per million. Two recent samples taken from the creek registered 280 in one instance and 1,350 in the other. Given that he wrote to me in November, saying Dr. Hutchison, the local medical officer of health, had not declared the creek a health hazard, can he tell me whether these recent findings are proof enough for him and/or Dr. Hutchison to declare the Pottersburg Creek area a health hazard?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have not had occasion to discuss those results with Dr. Hutchison. I shall certainly inquire whether he is aware of those results and what his opinion of them is. It obviously requires an informed, professional assessment. It is not something that I as a layman would respond to without appropriate professional advice.

Mr. Van Horne: I respect that statement, but I point out that the minister's colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) has kept close tabs on the situation through his officials in London and he is informed. It appears this minister is not informed.

Let me stress again the health concern that the people in my riding have. In one breath they are told the health hazard is not there and then they look out the window and see someone from the Ministry of the Environment, dressed in protective clothing like a moonwalker, protecting himself to the nth degree from the possibility of being in touch with the stuff.

They do not accept the statement the medical officer of health repeats in our local media that there is no health problem there. I ask the minister whether he will direct the medical officer of health or some of his staff to proceed with a health survey of the citizens living adjacent to the creek.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would normally proceed with such a health study only if I were advised by the medical officer of health that it was necessary or desirable such a study be conducted. At the moment, I have not had such advice, but pursuant to the honourable member's raising these recent results, of which I was unaware, I will arrange to consult the medical officer of health through senior officials in my ministry to see what the appropriate action might be.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, a group of workers worked on a government-sponsored job creation program this summer doing bank stabilization in Pottersburg Creek in the area of the contamination that is now coming to light. In addition to an investigation in regard to the people living along the creek, is the minister prepared to do an investigation of the people who worked in that creek all summer to see whether there are any indications they have high levels of PCBs?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to consult the medical officer of health and my colleagues the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) on that matter to see what the appropriate response might be.

11:20 a.m.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. On this last day the House sits prior to the implementation of the 8.6 per cent increase in Ontario Hydro rates on January 1, will the minister recommend to cabinet that the proposed 8.6 per cent increase in the wholesale rates not be implemented in January 1985 but be frozen for at least six months to allow a select committee of this Legislature to examine the overall operations of Ontario Hydro and make recommendations on rates and capital expenditures.

In thinking about his answer, will the minister take into consideration the statements of three of the four leadership candidates, who are currently senior members of cabinet, that they are dissatisfied with the operation and/or control of Ontario Hydro? Will he also take into consideration the very sound principle that the Ontario Energy Board, and not Ontario Hydro, should make the final decision, subject only to appeal to cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I remind the honourable member that the rate submission for 1985, as proposed by Ontario Hydro, was given a full review by the Ontario Energy Board last summer, and the Ontario Energy Board recommended the 8.6 per cent figure.

Mr. Swart: Is the minister not aware that Ontario Hydro has deviated before from the recommendation of the Ontario Energy Board? The board has no authority. Is he not aware of the damage to the economy of this province when Hydro levies something in the order of $325 million more against those people, plus distribution costs?

Is the minister aware that Hydro-Québec has postponed rate increases? It is not going to have an increase on January 1, 1985; it is postponing the increase to July 1, even though it had an increase of only three per cent to four per cent last year. Is it not true that the only ones who are really shafting the public on energy costs are the minister's colleagues in Ottawa and this government? Why not have a public review of these exorbitant hydro rates that are being implemented?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The member is correct; the board of Ontario Hydro has on occasion varied the recommendation of the Ontario Energy Board. To my knowledge, it has varied the rate twice during the past decade in setting a rate higher than what the board recommended; there were two other occasions on which it set a rate lower than what the board recommended. If I am accurate, on the other six occasions it set the rate based on what the board recommended.

As I have done on many occasions, I stress that Ontario Hydro's rate increase is necessary to retain the strong financial position of that corporation. I remind the member for Welland-Thorold that Ontario Hydro's rates remain among the lowest in North America. Hydro is still one of the best energy bargains in North America.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is absolutely convinced that Ontario Hydro is as efficient as he describes, why does it not have to answer to the Ontario Energy Board and live within the limits that are imposed, as the gas companies have to do? Why does the minister legitimize the rates of Ontario Hydro by insisting they are the lowest in North America? Is he aware there are many jurisdictions across Canada, particularly some of the major producing provinces, that have rates much lower than those of Ontario Hydro? Why does he not compare the rates with those in jurisdictions across Canada, rather than comparing them with our cousins to the south -- Mulroney's people?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I believe the honourable member understands that by statute, the board of Ontario Hydro is required to set the Ontario Hydro rate for bulk sales to municipal utilities and direct customers. That is a statute in place today, and my understanding is that it will be in place when the 1985 rate is set.

NEIGHBOURHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), I would like to ask the Treasurer why the government has strangled its neighbourhood improvement program by reducing its funding from $12 million in 1984 to only $7 million in 1985, completely cutting off large communities such as Toronto and Ottawa? Is this the first nail in the coffin of a doomed program?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ruprecht: As the Treasurer knows, the city of Toronto was counting on receiving $500,000 next year, an amount it intended to match so the Davenport west community could receive badly needed improvements. The proposal was developed by area teachers, social workers, home and school representatives and the police to serve the needs of a district with children from 31 different countries.

Why has the Treasurer cut off this community while still funding the borough of East York, which is represented by a cabinet minister?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What did he say?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It all made sense to me, anyway.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Use one-syllable words in answering him.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know on calmer reflection the honourable member will not want to suggest any political interference in those kinds of decisions.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know he would not. I was just giving him credit.

As the member knows, those decisions on funding flow directly from an analysis made by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing with regard to those priority projects which it thinks are ready to go ahead. His question, therefore, should more appropriately be placed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who I think is in the neighbourhood.

FOREST MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Is it accurate to say the minister is aware of a controversy that has arisen as a result of allegations that large licence holders under the forest management agreements are inflating road costs far above what they are allocating for that specific use? Will the minister undertake to do an audit to make sure the funds being expended under the forest management agreements are going for the purposes for which they are intended so we can assure the taxpayers they are getting value for their dollars?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the discussion on that point, which is going on in the Thunder Bay area and throughout the province. The forest products industry has indicated that in total forest-management-agreement expenditures its contribution is 40 per cent, which is a new expenditure level for the industry.

However, because of comments that have been made recently, two months ago we began an audit of expenditures on the road program under forest management agreements and of total expenditures under forest management agreements with a view to finding out whether there can be some changes in the rates of payments under the forest-management-agreement arrangements and the true extent of the contribution of the private sector to the forest-management-agreement work being done.

Mr. Stokes: Is the minister aware that one of the vice-presidents for woodlands of Great Lakes Forest Products admitted to the media the costs were inflated, and that the amount claimed for roadbuilding was not a reflection of what it actually cost but they were spending the money for a useful purpose anyway? Does that not bother the minister? What has been the result of the monitoring he has done to date? Is it conclusive enough that he can assure this House the money being spent on regeneration, silviculture and management purposes is being spent in an appropriate way?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I am aware of the press reports in the Thunder Bay media with respect to that individual. I am not in a position to verify his comments that the money, in any event, is being spent on reforestation and regeneration. One of the purposes of the audit we are carrying on is to prove to ourselves that this is the case and to address the issue of total expenditure and contribution.

11:30 a.m.

OPP DETACHMENT

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, can the Solicitor General confirm that his ministry has plans to phase out the Ontario Provincial Police detachment in St. Catharines, to move people all over the province and to expand the territory of the Niagara Falls detachment from Niagara Falls to Winona? If that is so, can he tell us whether he is prepared to reconsider that decision in view of the fact there is so much traffic and so many problems that must be confronted by the OPP in that area?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made to phase out what is referred to as the Niagara detachment. That area has a district headquarters in Niagara Falls and a detachment in St. Catharines, located on the Queen Elizabeth Way; both of those cover concurrent traffic areas.

From time to time the OPP does look at its manpower load to see whether there is duplication and whether some of its people should be shifted to other areas of the province where there is demand for their services, particularly in the north, as the honourable members request from time to time. However, there is no decision currently to close the detachment at St. Catharines on the Queen Elizabeth Way, if that is the one the honourable member is referring to.

Mr. Bradley: The information the minister has provided differs from the information that has come to me. The rumours are extremely strong that he is going to phase it out and that it is just a matter of time.

Would the minister not agree with me that in the St. Catharines-Niagara area, from Hamilton right through to Fort Erie, which is increasing in traffic and where the police have to deal with problems associated with other crimes, he would be ill advised to reduce the number of OPP employees and to have them transferred to other areas of the province unnecessarily when their services are required in our part of the province?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Whenever there is a change in the work load in a particular area, naturally it is incumbent upon the commissioner of the OPP to decide whether to change the number of officers in the area.

I have talked about this problem with the minister in the area, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch). His concern is the same as that of the member asking the questions. There has been some concern that the particular building and those services would be phased out. However, we do provide the necessary people to handle the work load in the area, and if there is an increased amount of criminal activity or an increased amount of traffic activity, the necessary officers will be put into that place to meet the demand for services.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener), the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean), the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) and the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), I would like to present petitions worded as follows:

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

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

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

"Whereas there is an understood convention in democratic societies which respect the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented such matters should be debated in the Legislative Assembly with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and be heard."

Mr. Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition identical to the one you have just heard. It comes from Tagwi Secondary School in the county of Stormont in the township of Roxborough. It is signed by 29 staff members.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with the same

preamble and which concludes:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for the people to appear and be heard."

It is signed by a number of teachers from the Simcoe-Delhi area in the constituency of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and by a number of people from Brantford.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by a great number of teachers from Parkdale Collegiate Institute; it reads:

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

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

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

"Whereas there is an understood convention in democratic societies which respect the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented, such matters should be debated in the Legislative Assembly with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and be heard."

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition similar to the previous ones read. It petitions the Ontario Legislature "to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for the people to appear and to be heard."

This is submitted by approximately 70 constituents from the Mitchell District High School, Stratford Northwestern Secondary School and St. Marys District Collegiate and Vocational Institute.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which states after a similar

preamble:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and be heard."

It is signed by 37 members of the professional staff of Norwell District Secondary School.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; it has the same

preamble and states:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and be heard."

The petition is signed by 10 residents of Hamilton-Wentworth.

11:40 a.m.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, I have some petitions to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, worded as follows:

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

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

"Whereas there is an understood convention in democratic societies which respect the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented such matters should be debated in the Legislative Assembly with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and be heard."

I present this petition and I have a similar petition on behalf of the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe).

[Later]

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 60 teachers on the staff of Cornwall Collegiate Vocational School petitioning "the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and be heard."

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"I, Thomas Prue, president of the Unemployed Workers Coalition of Niagara Falls, Ontario, and the undersigned, ask the government to investigate the following items:

"1. The surplus pension fund money involving former employees of the Ohio Brass.

"2. The protection of employees in the event a company is given a grant to locate in Ontario and in the event the company moves after receiving the grant, that the grant money is to be repaid with a penalty to the Ontario government."

This petition is signed by 150 members of the Unemployed Workers Coalition of Niagara Falls. I would like to share the fact that these members gathered together to sign this petition. I am pleased the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) is here today because he has indicated support of these workers and of the resolution of these problems. I support this petition wholeheartedly.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the House continue to sit beyond 1 p.m. today.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, resolution 14.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, resolution 15.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, resolution 16.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, resolution 17.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, resolution 18.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, that the resolution be amended by adding that Mr. Shymko be substituted for Mr. Piché on the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Will the government House leader explain why I am being taken off the regulations committee?

An hon. member: Is the member being dumped again?

Mr. Piché: Yes. The member should see what is behind that. I have no further comment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I was handed a note. Does the member want to stay on?

Mr. Piché: No.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right.

Motion agreed to.

STATUS OF BILL

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, resolution 19.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Theatres Act;

Bill 101,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved third reading of Bill 17,

An Act to revise the Election Act.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question, I want to indicate that this is a major revision of the Election Act, the first for about 15 years.

I draw to the attention of members that the Charter of Rights in the new Constitution of Canada says in

section 3, "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly." Accordingly, this new bill removes the provision that prevented judges and people in psychiatric hospitals from voting and conforms, therefore, with the new Charter of Rights.

Motion agreed to.

METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS PROJECT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, third reading of Bill 140,

An Act to revise the Metropolitan Police Force Complaints Project Act, 1981.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, Bill 140, that makes permanent the office of the public complaints commissioner. The office was set up in 1981 as an experiment to establish a police complaint bureau independent of the police force. It was viewed by many as a far-reaching, progressive piece of legislation for Metropolitan Toronto.

With some tensions emerging at that time between some of Toronto's ethnic groups and its police force, the government acted. Prior to 1981, all citizens' complaints against the police had been dealt with internally, but now outside channels are available through the commissioner's office.

As stated in a 1984 issue of Canadian Lawyer, almost everyone agrees that the new system is a vast improvement over the old. One of the key reasons for the good reviews for the office has been the appointment of Sidney Linden as commissioner of the office of public complaints. The wise appointment of Mr. Linden shows the continued ability and effort of the government to ensure the appointments it makes are of the highest quality. The journal Canadian Lawyer agrees that Mr. Linden has slowly been gaining the confidence of many ethnic groups in the city of Toronto.

In the Ontario Legislature on June 22, 1984, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) stated that the office of the public complaints commissioner --

11:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order. I suggest the only matter to be considered on third reading is why it should or should not be brought for third reading. I have not heard you give any reason this bill should not be proposed for third reading.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to why. There are some comments I would like to put on the record.

The Acting Speaker: May I just say that is done during second reading, not during third reading. Please proceed quickly to your conclusion and why you are raising this point.

Mr. Piché: On that point, I agree with the Attorney General completely. As a result of the success, we are now hoping to approve Bill 140 in order to make the office permanent.

The success of this office, however, brings to mind a remark made by Phil Givens during the hearings of the standing committee on administration of justice, of which I was a member. In the fall of 1981, when we examined the legislation that set up the office for its three-year trial period --

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member to move quickly toward a conclusion or I will rule him out of order very rapidly.

Mr. Piché: I remember Mr. Givens saying that if the bill works in Toronto, it should undoubtedly be applied to the rest of the province. It is upon this point that I wish to elaborate.

The Acting Speaker: I think you have made the point. I will not allow you to elaborate. I thank the honourable member. We are on third reading and the member has made a point that is not pertinent to the third-reading process.

Motion agreed to.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, over the holidays and in the coming year, I hope the minister will have a good look at the resolution I have put on the Orders and Notices. It calls for a moratorium on the spending of capital funds to extend our prison cells and to put the money into alternatives to prisons, such as rehabilitation programs and fine options, etc.

One of the big problems we face in this area is overcrowding in our system. One of the reasons for that is too many remands. I hope the minister will convene a meeting with the justice system before too long to have a good look at the problem in the courts and the slowness of the courts to provide for all these remands that tend to hold our offenders in detention centres, thereby causing overcrowding.

The other reason for overcrowding is too much recidivism in the system. In this regard, we have to look at alternative programs, alternatives to prison and different ways in which we can stop these people from repeating their offences and returning to our prison system.

The solution to some of these problems is what I have mentioned, to speed up the court system. I have an example of a case in Owen Sound that was brought to our attention by the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) yesterday. It is the George Bothwell situation. This case points out the slowness of the courts. This is another area that has not taken the limelight in this case, but to me this is one of the main things it has pointed out.

The offender in this case has been remanded for about two months to January 14. The crown has said it wants that length of time to prepare the case. I feel if they are going to lay a charge, the crown had better be ready to proceed with the case. It does not seem right to me that it can ask for a two-month remand period to enable it to prepare for the case. When the offender is committed to the prison system, this adds to the overcrowding as well. I feel if they are ready to charge a person, then they had better be ready to proceed with his trial.

Another solution to our overcrowding would be the fine options program. People should not be going to jail for not paying fines; prisons should be kept for criminals. We could have more community service orders for these people.

A lot of these things have to be worked out within the whole justice system. I know the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) cannot do it all on his own, that it is a matter for the justice system. These things have to be looked at. We have to look more closely at the fine options program.

Concerning repeaters, the money that is now being used to build new jails should be going to alternatives to jail, such as more community resource centres, rehabilitation programs and programs to integrate the offender back into society. A lot of people are at fault for the fact we are not integrating them back in and for what I feel is the problem of too much recidivism.

I might tell members just one story about a case in Mississauga in which the council refused an offender's request for a refreshment vehicle licence so he could go around with his truck at coffee breaks, etc. He had been in this business before he went to jail. When he came out he started in the business again, asked for a licence, was turned down and was told to come back when his parole ran out a year and a half later.

To me, society in this case is not helping to integrate the offender back into society. It is not a case of an employer saying, "I do not want to hire the fellow because he is an ex-con"; it is a case of a municipality saying, "We do not want to license him because he is an ex-con, even though he is going to provide employment for himself."

What is a person such as this supposed to do for the next year and a half? He has offered to employ himself and yet he is turned down when he tries to do so. Society has to help out in this regard and try to help integrate these people back into society.

We all realize they have broken the law and they have to pay the penalty, but we also realize that the sooner they get rehabilitated and integrated back into society, the less it is going to cost us as taxpayers when they fit back into the system, take up employment and support themselves rather than be supported behind prison walls or on welfare.

As I say, we all have to play a

part in reducing this recidivism. I will just mention four areas in which we can help. First, we should have better rehabilitation programs. Second, we should have more offenders directed to community resource centres. Third, we should keep those people who do not pay their fines out of jail, where the chances are they will become further infected by the criminal element; they should not be going to jail. Fourth, we should have more volunteers. I think the Ministry of Correctional Services should encourage more voluntarism; in a lot of cases the only chance an offender has for rehabilitation is through a volunteer association.

12 noon

I hope the minister will take action in these areas in the new year; and I hope that in a very short time we will have less overcrowding in our detention centres, less recidivism and more integration of the offender back into society, thereby having a better society.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock). However, as exhibited in his one-man commission report, I think he lacks a total understanding of this ministry and the programs we offer, not only in our institutions but on the community side.

The Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services is the model for corrections anywhere in North America. We have programs in the community as alternatives to incarceration that are second to none anywhere, not just in North America but anywhere in the world. People from various jurisdictions come to this province to study our community programs. I am very proud of what our staff has done over the years.

The member for Grey has suggested I might look at his resolution over the Christmas holidays. I might suggest to him that he spend some time studying the programs, functions and objectives of this ministry so he might have a better understanding in the new year of what this ministry is all about.

Resolution concurred in.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

Resolution concurred in.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express very briefly to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) my concern with regard to the latest reports in the Toronto Star on the appointment to the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police. I am wondering what the minister is using as a guideline and what the qualifications are of Mr. Clare Westcott, who has been very involved in the government and in politics -- not only he but also five members of his family. I am concerned with the appointment system the minister is using.

I still think it would be much more acceptable to the general public if a notice were put out announcing that an appointment was to be made to the Metropolitan Toronto police commission. If the government were to advertise the position and then turn those applications for it over to the Legislature's standing committee on administration of justice, which would be empowered to recommend two or three candidates for selection by the minister and the Premier (Mr. Davis), I think that would be much more acceptable to the public of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this falls within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), but I would like to say that I endorse the appointment that has been made to the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police. Mr. Westcott will make an excellent contribution on behalf of all the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto to the work of that board of police commissioners. I would think that because Mr. Westcott is well known to members on both sides of the Legislature, his qualities would be equally well known to them and they would all want to applaud the wisdom of this appointment.

Resolution concurred in.

Resolutions for supply for the following ministries were concurred in by the House:

Ministry of the Environment;

Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development;

Ministry of Energy;

Ministry of Agriculture and Food;

Ministry of Tourism and Recreation;

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations;

Ministry of Industry and Trade;

Management Board of Cabinet;

Ministry of Labour;

Ministry of Education;

Ministry of Transportation and Communications;

Ministry of Community and Social Services;

Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

Consideration of Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

section 6:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves subsection 6(2) of the bill be struck out.

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

12:10 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in wrapping up this session for the New Democratic Party, I want to begin by renewing our best wishes to you and to your colleagues in that chair for a good holiday season and to congratulate you for having served the House so well this last year.

I also want to extend our greetings again to all the members of the House, to the staff, the Clerk's office, the pages and everyone who worked so hard to make this the very happy family it of course is at all times.

Mr. McClellan: The happiest Legislature in the entire world.

Mr. Rae: It is certainly the happiest Legislature I have ever been in, and I have been in two. I would like to summarize in a few short remarks our concern about what the government has not done, our concern at the agenda that has not been touched and, frankly, I think it would not be too strong to say, our sense of real outrage that the government, instead of choosing to face in a courageous and direct way the major problems facing this economy of ours in this great province of ours, has chosen to practise the politics of trivialization, the politics of manipulation and politics that refuse to address the real issues of the day.

Perhaps there could be no finer indication of that than the statement today by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory), that the question of the exemption of roller coasters from municipal taxation has been under active discussion during 1984. One almost gets the impression that this crucial question of ferris wheels, roller coasters and carnival barkers has been of such importance and preoccupation to the government that it has been unable to address the important questions that are facing the province.

Just as last year, at a time when we were facing record unemployment in this province, the government chose to use that occasion to introduce legislation such as the Arborial Emblem Act, which, as all members know, is the legislation that officially decrees the white pine as the official tree of Ontario, next year it appears the Legislature is going to be preoccupied with questions involving roller coasters, ferris wheels and carnival barkers rather than legislation that really matters to the people of this province and really affects the future of this province.

It is with this whole theme, and perhaps as we focus on the whole career of the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- and I am sorry he is not in the House today to hear the remarks I have to make; I am sorry he has chosen not to reply to the --

Mr. Kennedy: He is tuned in; he does not miss very much.

Mr. Rae: He is tuned in, is he? I am glad he is tuned in. I am delighted to hear that.

His colleague, the member for Mississauga South, says he does not miss very much. I have noticed that as well, but I would have hoped he would have chosen today to break the fast, to be with us and perhaps to reply to the points we are going to be making and to the points I am sure the leader of the Liberal Party is going to be making about our sense of frustration with this session.

It is not simply unfinished business since 1984 that we are talking about; it is unfinished business since the member for Brampton became Premier. It is perhaps worth recalling that it was in 1971 that he raised the issue of Spadina and attempted to take credit for ending the construction of the expressway.

Yet as we end this session we still do not have any indication of exactly how the government intends to ensure there will not be an extension of the Spadina expressway and there will be real protection for the city of Toronto and for the residents of Toronto, who, as the government well knows, feel so strongly about the possibility of extending that expressway through homes, neighbourhoods, ravines and people's streets, thereby making life for them in this great city much more difficult and much more unpleasant.

I find it ironic that the Premier would in a kind of almost offhand way, at the end of an answer to the leader of the Liberal Party as we were having this exchange this morning, simply drop the point that he hoped it would all be resolved next week, but he could not tell us exactly how or exactly what form it would take.

I say I find it ironic because to me it would have been very easy for the government to have indicated some weeks and months ago what its plan was. It certainly would have been possible to have had legislation passed by this House, given the commitment that exists to making good on our commitment to the people of the city of Toronto who feel so strongly about that particular issue.

I want to touch more broadly on other questions affecting the province which the government has really failed to deal with in a quite unusual way. After all it was in 1964, in the mid-1960s, that this Legislature first began considering the whole question of reform of our private and public pensions.

I find it more than a little disappointing, in fact nothing short of an outrage, that we would have come this far and this long into this session without having one single piece of legislation dealing with job security, the protection of the ordinary workers of this province from the devastating effects of economic change and the need to reform our private pension system in this province.

As of today, half the workers in this province do not have a private pension. This government has launched special inquiry after special inquiry, legislative study after royal commission, dealing with the question of the reform of our pension system. As the Premier decides to take his own retirement, it is perhaps more than a little ironic to find this government has done absolutely nothing for pension protection, pension reform, job security reform and early retirement reform.

In fact, this government is part of a movement in this country to take us in the opposite direction. Under the policies of Mr. Mulroney, it will be more difficult for older workers to retire earlier in Ontario. It will be more difficult and more punitive for those workers to try to get out of the work force before they are 65.

I must confess I find it sad that this government would have no response to that whole range of problems, no response to what I think has become the most burning issue affecting this province, namely, the issue of security. The basic challenge facing this province is how to cope with the amount and effect of change, both economic and social. How do we do it in a way that protects the values, the instincts, the property rights, the job rights and the people rights of the people of this province?

This government has not addressed that issue; it has not touched that issue. It puts its head in the sand when the Simpsons layoffs take place, the strike at Eaton's takes place, when workers are affected by economic change and when it is faced with the fact that four out of every five jobs created in this province in the last three years have been part-time jobs. The government has done nothing to ensure rights for part-time workers in the private sector.

In terms of legislation, it has completely ignored the most important question affecting this province, the question of security. I look at that agenda which not only has not been dealt with, but has not even been addressed or put to this House. We have been faced with a myriad of minor pieces of legislation and various pieces of housekeeping that come up here and preoccupy this House for so long.

I think the public would be more than a little surprised if they were aware what was really on the agenda of this government, compared to what is on their own personal agenda and what they themselves are faced with. It is a government which specializes in evasion, avoidance, delay and indecision. It is government which has made that its very watch-piece.

12:20 p.m.

If I may turn for a moment from the fundamental questions of job security and pension reform to other issues that are of vital importance to the people of this province, we find the same pattern repeating itself time and again: a pattern of delay, avoidance, evasion, trivialization and misleading the public with respect to what is being done and considered.

Let us take the question of equality between men and women. The members of this House voted unanimously in favour of a resolution supporting the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, but this government has yet to address that question in a straightforward way. Last session, it brought in a bill that was criticized by every women's group at work in the province, ranging from the Young Women's Christian Association to labour groups and teachers' organizations. These were not fringe or special interest advocacy groups; they were a range of groups representing a wide basis of interests in this province.

We went through a federal election campaign during which the federal leaders of the Tory, Liberal and New Democratic parties indicated their support for equal pay for work of equal value. However, to this day, this Tory government is in effect opposed to equal pay for work of equal value. The four leadership candidates are opposed to equal pay for work of equal value. Let the record show they are completely out of touch and out to lunch on the question of equality in Ontario.

We have the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) saying he is going to deal with the question of family law reform. That is something that interests me a great deal. I can remember asking the Attorney General about it soon after my election to the House. It is a subject that has been a personal concern of the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) for many years.

This party is on record as expressing its dissatisfaction with the failure of the initial Family Law Reform Act to deal with the question of the equality of men and women and the need for women to have access, upon the breakdown of a marriage, to all assets accumulated during the course of that marriage. That principle has been accepted in other jurisdictions and provinces. It is a principle on which the government could easily have obtained a consensus if it had been determined to play a leadership role in the issue. Instead, we have had a kind of good-cop, bad-cop routine from the government for more than two and a half years.

The government talks about the need to be democratic and for a process of consultation. Of course one needs to have a process of consultation, but once that consultation has been done, and we all know it has been done, it becomes necessary to make a decision about the values one's party and government have and the value that one's legal system will have.

As of today, men and women are being discriminated against. Women in particular are being denied access to support and assets they ought to have. I can tell the Attorney General that the family courts are in a mess. Many lawyers are declining to settle cases totally because they have been expecting the legislation. The process of delay and procrastination is unbelievable.

We have a strong and deep sense that the governing Tory party of Ontario is not committed to equality when it comes to family law reform. It is not committed to seeing that both spouses get a fair shake out of the partnership that is a modern marriage. It is committed to an unequal situation within the family and in the division of assets within the family. That is something the record will show.

I am convinced the Attorney General has decided to go soft on the question of family law reform because he is seeking the nomination of the leadership of a party that is moving steadfastly and lemming-like to the right. He knows that if he is going to appeal to those delegates at the convention, if he is going to appeal to the right-wing element in the Tory party at all, he is going to have to lower his voice, he is going to have to placate, he is going to have to change his mind. He is going to have to bury, to deep-six; he is going to have to avoid and evade the basic questions of family law reform.

It is a sad thing to see, but I have to say that if this government and this Attorney General had been really interested in family law reform we could have had a bill at the beginning of the session, hearings in the middle of this session and a law by the end of this session; instead of which we have had absolutely nothing from the Tory party of Ontario when it comes to equality in a marriage.

I held a press conference last year with five women who talked about the difficulty they were having in getting their maintenance orders enforced. These women were owed $10,000, $12,000, $15,000, $20,000 and $25,000 by their husbands. These women were not wealthy, but they had husbands who were working, and they knew they were working. They also knew those husbands had systematically avoided their responsibilities.

The legal system has become a maze or nightmare for such women, who are faced with endless delays, court costs and lawyers' fees. It has become a complete, abysmal nightmare for women who are facing the need to provide for themselves and their families and must have serious enforcement.

We have enforcement in Manitoba. Why can we not have enforcement in Ontario? There is one simple reason: the Tory party is not committed to it. The Tory party does not believe in it. The Tory party is not prepared to do anything about it. That is what has happened. That is the record. Those are the facts.

Those facts and those women speak far louder than any of the so-called commitments made by the Attorney General or the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) standing up in the House and saying: "Next year we will have pension reform. Next year we will have family law reform. Next year we are going to do something about layoffs. Next year we are going to provide some protection."

The Tory party has been promising "next year" for 41 years. It is time that "next year" was this year. It is time this government recognized that some things should not be delayed and cannot wait and that we must have today, now, things it is prepared to address in a straightforward manner. The question of equality is something that simply cannot wait.

The government has the ability to deal with this problem; it has the legal means to deal with it, and it has the will of the Legislature in that it has the majority. What it does not have is the political will and the commitment to deal with the problem.

The frustration we feel on this side of the House has been borne out by the by-elections that were held yesterday. I am very proud to say our vote and our party went up in all areas of the province, even in areas where we have traditionally not been particularly strong. We won two seats. We have done remarkably well in taking our case to the people of this province and in making a case on the issues.

If I may say so, there was one theme we began to pick up on the doorsteps in the last week. It was a theme we had not heard before. The theme was: "We think highly of Mr. Davis, but what is coming after Davis? What is it the Tories believe in after Davis? What is going to happen after Mr. Davis?"

That subject is of great concern to many people in this province as we hear the Tory party falling all over itself, each one of them falling all over themselves to show they are more right-wing, more fiscally conservative, more determined to get tough with people, more determined to move the province to the right, more committed to totally privatizing the universe and more committed to cutting back on the public sector and on public services and social services.

12:30 p.m.

The political mood of this province has begun to shift; that is something I am delighted to see and delighted to note. As that shift takes place, people will ask themselves the question, "What is the government doing to address the problem?"

Take the town of Ear Falls and the decision by the owners of the Griffith mine to shut it down. Throughout the 1960s and the 1970s in this Legislature, our party consistently raised the problem of one-industry towns. What do we do to provide security for towns that are reliant on one employer only for their future? During the period of minority government, we had the government saying: "We agree with this concern. We are going to set up a committee and we are going to have a task force."

That task force scarcely ever met. It issued no reports, it made no recommendations, it drafted no laws, it produced no regulations, it affected not one jot the decision of private companies and it had zero effect on the job security and the economic security of northern Ontario. In fact, it is symbolic of the policy of lethargy, neglect, evasion and avoidance which we now know is synonymous with the best the Tory party can do, even in the worst of times.

Who was involved in that? Not people who have disappeared from the scene. My God, would that they had. Not people who have passed on to their reward in the internal relief department of the Tory party, which knows practically no boundaries and no borders in the various commissions, boards and tribunals that are far greater than any solution any other party has ever worked out for its worthy citizens.

We are talking about the future leadership. We are talking about the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and about the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller), the man who sees himself as the Canadianized version of Ronald Reagan and who wants to lead the Tory party into the 1980s with a policy that smacks of the 1780s. We are talking about the two ministers who were involved in the task force on single-industry towns and who have produced nothing.

Since the Ear Falls closure was announced by the Minister of Northern Affairs, the government up until now has refused even to debate this matter on the floor of this House. It has said, "The Premier has written a letter to the president of Stelco. We are going to have a quiet meeting with Stelco." The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has had a lot of quiet meetings. We have had members there. The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) has been there time and again.

We have been involved in those quiet meetings ourselves. We have been asked to go there to be witnesses at burial of a company. One hears the apologies that come from the government. One hears the apologies that come from the ministers. They say, "Please, will you reconsider? Please sit down." When they get down, the company says, "We will take your concerns into account." A few weeks later, it says, "Our decision remains unchanged."

That is what happens when you have a party that is more concerned with cosmetics than it is with reality, more concerned with appearing to do something than doing something. I do not know whether the Minister of Northern Affairs will be successful in convincing Stelco to delay or change its decision. I have my suspicions. I believe that unless there is legislation the government is simply involved in begging, pleading, cajoling, wheedling, praying, pushing and needling in the hope that eventually the company will change its mind, even for a few weeks. Perhaps it will announce a change of mind in time for the next provincial election.

We all know the relationship between Stelco and the Tory party is a close one. We understand that. The government has the same relationship with Eaton's and all the other major employers and powerful private interests in this province. The Tory party has a very close relationship with all of them, from the nursing home industry to the retail industry and the major manufacturers.

It may be that behind closed doors some kind of sweetheart arrangement can be worked out for a few months, but there will be nothing that says to the companies of this province: "We simply want fairness for the ordinary employees. Your companies have received tax benefits. You have received special benefits. You have received special concessions with regard to the whole infrastructure of the town.

All we are asking is that you appear before a tribunal to justify and explain your decision and to satisfy us that there is no option or course for your company other than the one you are taking." Instead of that public action, the government prefers the private deal and the private arrangement; it prefers a deal on the q.t.

When there is a New Democratic Party government in this province, there will be no such special deals and arrangements. There will be open arrangements, openly arrived at according to the laws of this province, which will ensure the security of ordinary people. There will security for the people of the north.

This government is ignoring the most pressing and obvious lessons of the 1970s. We have in Ontario Hydro a major public utility that the government has refused to control or rein in. We are the only jurisdiction in North America with a utility that has not fully woken up to the realities of the 1980s. It is still on a binge as if we were in the 1950s and did not have to take into account conservation, alternative fuels and other means of producing power. It set itself on a nuclear course decades ago and has yet to get off that particular appetite.

Ontario Hydro is a utility that is charging the consumers of this province at twice the rate of inflation. It plans to continue to draw from the consumers of this province at twice and even three times the rate of inflation into the 1990s. It is nothing short of a disgrace that a publicly owned corporation which has earned the respect and loyalty of the people of this province over so many years should be imposing unsupportable and unjustifiable costs on consumers.

Hydro's present situation is the product of mismanagement and the Tories' refusal to come to grips with the need for an energy policy that learns something from the 1960s and 1970s, and from the experiences of the Tennessee Valley Authority and of utilities in every other jurisdiction that has woken up to what is happening. We pretend we can somehow put up barriers around Ontario and keep on with this binge as if no changes are necessary.

It is a feature of the leadership I associate with the Premier to try to avoid confrontation and difficult decisions, always to muffle opportunities, to pad everything and to avoid and evade things. It reminds me of Mackenzie King's leadership. There is no question that in political terms it has been successful.

We all look at the Premier with a degree of respect as a political operator -- and I do not mean that in a negative sense -- as a political man. What other politician could have been outside the Legislature for three months and had no adverse public commentary apart from what came from members of the opposition? That is an achievement.

I was in the House of Commons for three and a half years. Let us imagine Pierre Trudeau had not turned up in the House for three months. That would have been the number one item on the news every night, not because of what the opposition was saying but because the public would not tolerate it and would not stand for it.

However, in the cozy, private, happy family arrangement of Ontario, it has worked out. If the Premier chooses to be away for substantial periods of time, that is apparently something one must not comment on as if it would be unseemly to mention it.

It is nothing short of bizarre that at a time when pressing issues have been facing this province, the Premier has chosen to be absent. A lame duck is one thing; an absent duck is another. I do not think it is what the people of Ontario want, expect or endorse, but it represents the way things are done.

12:40 p.m.

If we look at Ontario Hydro, environmental protection, single-industry towns and forest regeneration, which admittedly are difficult issues, we see a pattern of avoidance and evasion in which the government says: "We will leave that until tomorrow. It is a difficult decision; we will put it off, we will not deal with it. We will set up another committee. We will have another task force. We will appoint a minister to be involved with a series of civil servants."

In the end, nothing happens and nothing gets decided. In face of such inertia, and in the glacial movement of large institutions such as Ontario Hydro, nothing gets changed, because if you do not take the tough decisions they do not get the message. That is why my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) advocated today a freeze on hydro prices for a year.

They can do it in Quebec; why can we not do it here in Ontario? If it is good enough for Quebec consumers, why not here in Ontario? If it is good enough for Consumers' Gas consumers and Union Gas consumers, why is it not good enough for Ontario