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

April 14, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FISH STOCKING PROGRAM

SECONDARY EDUCATION STUDY

ROAD CONSTRUCTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF HERBICIDES

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

EQUAL PAY

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY

DECLINING ENROLMENT

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

DEATH OF LILLIAN HESS

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT

WINE AT TRADE SHOW

INSURANCE INFORMATION

JAIL REMANDS

PETITION

UNIONVILLE SCHOOL FACILITIES

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MOTION

SHARING OF TIME

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

FARGO DISPOSAL COMPANY LIMITED ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FISH STOCKING PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, last December I reported to this House concerning our fish stocking program in Lake Ontario. I dealt more specifically with disease problems in coho salmon, namely IPN or infectious pancreatic necrosis. I expressed our concern about stocking the lake with diseased fish and the effects that such stocking could possibly have on other species in Lake Ontario, such as brook, lake and rainbow trout.

I explained in my December statement that I was debating the pros and cons of releasing the coho in the spring and that any decision would be deferred until I had studied the science, the law and the intentions of other agencies that are also releasing this species in the Great Lakes. I have considered the advice of the scientists of my ministry who have reviewed the programs of bordering Great Lakes states. We have examined the economic and recreational aspects, particularly of the Lake Ontario salmon fisheries.

From this I have come to the conclusion that virtually nothing would be gained by failing to plant our coho salmon this year. However, these plantings will be restricted to Lake Ontario where, as members will know, a number of other agencies, especially US fisheries, are making similar and, in most cases, larger plantings in the Great Lakes.

Before this decision was reached, a meeting on stocking and disease control programs and concerns took place among the heads of Great Lakes fisheries agencies, with my deputy minister, Dr. Keith Reynolds, representing our province. Prior to that meeting, more information was garnered from a January 17 meeting of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission’s fish disease control committee at Romulus, Michigan. So members can see that the decision to release our coho was not made without much soul-searching.

I want to assure you and all honourable members, Mr. Speaker, that my ministry will continue to press for and provide leadership in an international effort to control disease and to search for and develop disease-free salmon stocks. But this will take time. There is no logic in our being out of step with everyone else to the detriment of a thriving sports fishery which has developed in recent years. I would like to repeat, however, that it is our firm intention to encourage all other agencies which make Pacific salmon plantings in the Great Lakes also to pursue most vigorously efforts to reduce and eventually eliminate the planting of diseased fish.

Our goal must be to improve the overall environment and habitat of the Great Lakes for the establishment of other salmonoids which will be self-propagating, something which, it appears, coho and chinook are unlikely to be.

As members know, rainbow trout reproduce successfully in a number of Lake Ontario streams. Our stream improvement work under the strategic planning for Ontario fisheries (SPOF) program is extending the number of successful spawning streams. In the case of stocked lake trout, we have observed concentrations of mature spawners on the shoals of eastern Lake Ontario, and we are checking on the success of reproduction by searching for young fish.

Such growing evidence suggests welcome and encouraging results of the province’s efforts, spearheaded by the Ministry of the Environment, to improve the water quality of the Great Lakes, especially Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. This year we will supplement the coho plantings with 140,000 rainbow and 400,000 lake trout in Lake Ontario. Members will be interested, I am sure, to note that the plantings this spring will bring our total plantings over the past five years to approximately 587,000 rainbows, 1,282,000 lake trout and 945,000 cohos. This is in addition to some 539,000 fingerling chinook salmon.

We are taking these steps to continue my ministry’s dedicated efforts to maintain and expand our fishery heritage in the Great Lakes.

SECONDARY EDUCATION STUDY

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on February 22, at the Secondary School Headmasters’ Council, I announced that the Ministry of Education would commence an intensive one-year study of secondary school education in this province.

The study will be under the chairmanship of Mr. Duncan Green, director of education for the city of Toronto. I am grateful to the board of education for the city of Toronto for permitting his participation in this important study. Mr. Green, who is a former secondary school teacher and principal, will assume the responsibility of generating a series of sequential reports. These reports will deal with assessment, evaluation, reaction and design, which will culminate in recommendations that will indicate the ways and means whereby secondary education can operate in the best interest of students and society as we approach the 21st century.

The project includes the following objectives: to focus upon the needs and the goals of secondary students commensurate with their levels of ability; to set the criteria for a program which prepares students for the futures envisaged by society; to assess the goals of education and to realign the secondary school program to ensure that the goals and programs are compatible and viable; to redesign the program to better prepare students for the world of work; to consider the structure of intermediate and senior divisions with respect to the characteristics of adolescents and the problem of mobility of students within and to or from the province; to assess such features as the credit system, required subject policy and diploma requirements; to devise means to provide appropriate educational programs which include courses at various levels of difficulty to meet the needs of students with different interests and aptitudes; and to respond to concerns regarding standards and discipline in secondary schools.

The project will involve the work of four committees which will operate in a consecutive progression towards the development of the overall plan. The membership of the committees will include educators employed by school boards, students, representatives of parents, employees’ organizations, representatives of employers and others from the private sector, and officials of the Ministry of Education. Each of the committees will be chaired by Mr. Green.

The first committee is the steering committee, with a membership of 18 people, including a secretariat. I will name the members at the conclusion of this statement. The steering committee commenced its work on April 1 and will function until March 31, 1981. Its initial activity will be the preparation of an assessment report which will identify existing issues and problems relating to secondary education, assess the issues and problems in their present context and comment on future possible directions and alternatives.

This exercise will take place during the next three months, after which the steering committee will continue to co-ordinate the activities of subsequent committees as the project progresses.

2:10 p.m.

The second committee is the evaluation committee, consisting of approximately 10 members, with a balanced membership representing both the Ontario public and the profession of education. Its peak activity will take about three months, overlapping with the work of the steering committee in the early summer of this year.

The evaluation committee will study and analyse the assessment report and assist the steering committee in organizing a symposium to be convened for three days which will provide an opportunity for approximately 175 participants to react to papers and debates on issues related to secondary education. International, national and provincial expertise will be provided and will be a valuable input.

On the basis of the reaction with experts, submitted papers and symposium findings, the evaluation committee will prepare a report for the consideration of the steering committee.

The third committee is called the reaction committee, and it is to consist entirely of members drawn from the general public, including students. The committee members will have attended the symposium and will then have the opportunity to react to the papers presented, to discuss further and analyse the issues that are of concern, to review the reports of the previous committees and to assess contemporary data. That committee will submit a report for the use of the steering committee. The work of the reaction committee will require approximately two months and should be completed early this fall.

The final committee is the design committee. Its membership of approximately 12 people will be drawn entirely from the education profession, and it will study and review the assessment, evaluation and reaction reports. These members will also have participated in the symposium.

From the broad background of studies generated throughout the project, the design committee will develop a secondary school plan and submit this as a design report to be prepared over approximately a three-month period and to be ready by the end of 1980.

The steering committee will publish the design plan as a discussion paper on secondary education for comment by the general public and the educational community. The time allotted for reaction to this paper is approximately three months. On the basis of reaction to the discussion paper, the steering committee will prepare a final blueprint for secondary education in Ontario which will be examined by senior officials within the Ministry of Education and submitted for consideration a year from now.

Mr. Green, the project chairman, will continue with the Ministry of Education until the end of June 1981 and act in a consultative role as we consider the future implementation of the project’s recommendation for secondary schools in this province. The secretariat, which consists of Mr. Green and three ministry officials, will be working full-time throughout the entire project and will assist the four committees in their studies and the development of their reports.

The steering committee will have the overall responsibility for monitoring the activities of the secondary school education review project. I am pleased today to announce the members of the steering committee.

The membership is: Mr. Duncan Green, project chairman, director of education, Toronto Board of Education; Mrs. Sonia Bata, director of Bata Limited; Mrs. Jalynn Bennett, assistant vice-president, Manufacturers’ Life Insurance Company; Mr. Gerald Blake, education officer, senior and continuing education branch, Ministry of Education; Mr. Thomas Bolton, deputy chairman and chief executive officer, Dominion Stores Limited; Mr. Carl Butcher, regional director of education, midnorthern Ontario region; Mr. Frank Clifford, director of education, Waterloo County Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

Mr. P. R. Doyle, president, Sault College of Applied Arts and Technology; Mrs. Kay Forsythe, chairman, Kapuskasing Board of Education; Mr. George Isford, education officer, senior and continuing education branch; Mr. Rosaire Léger, director of education, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry County Board of Education; Mr. Gregory Murtagh, director of education and training, Ontario Federation of Labour; Dr. Charles Pascal, chairman of higher education group, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education; Dr. Ronald Watts, principal and vice-chancellor, Queen’s University; and Mrs. Margaret Wilson, president, Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation.

The secretariat consists of Mr. Green, Mr. Patrick Fleck, Mr. Jack Bell and Mr. Morris Liebovitz.

Mr. Nixon: How much is that going to cost?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Six hundred thousand dollars.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to table the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Ministry of Northern Affairs road construction program for 1980-81. This fiscal year my ministry is planning to spend an estimated $302.1 million for construction on the King’s highway system in northern and southern Ontario, an increase of approximately $26 million over last year.

In addition, we will be subsidizing municipal road construction for another $220 million, which generates about $380 million in total expenditures when we include the municipalities’ share.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Obviously some of the members are not interested in the road program, Mr. Speaker. I know you are interested in our road program, and I thank you for listening so intently.

In all, some $682.1 million will be spent on projects considered critical to preserve the present quality of the existing highway system, which ensures the movement of goods and people in Ontario.

Briefly, we are proposing new work on a total of 579 kilometres of the provincial highway system in southern Ontario, primarily on two-lane highways. Construction of 64 bridges is also scheduled to begin.

In northern Ontario, my ministry will continue to carry out the planning, design and construction of some 575 kilometres of provincial highways, a system which I am sure all the members know is the partial responsibility of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, which allocates the funds for capital road construction. Again, the majority of the work is primarily on two-lane highways, although the construction of passing lanes, remote and municipal airports is also included.

Details of all these projects and others are contained in the program document I am tabling now, copies of which will go to all members via the legislative post office. In addition, we are including copies of the ministry’s long-range perspective for provincial roads, reflecting the government’s viewpoint of Ontario’s future highway system, a perspective which, of course, is subject to an annual review.

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF HERBICIDES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), who is in the process of taking his seat. Given that there is only a month or so -- because of the nature of the material and the time of year in which it has to be used -- before the minister will be giving out permits to spray the 2,4,5-T and 2,4,5-TP stocks, would the minister agree to the immediate formation of a committee representing all three parties in the House to review the available evidence and to offer advice to the minister and to the Legislature? Would he agree, before doing any spraying of this material, that there should be such a committee?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I find that an unusual suggestion, given the history. As the member well knows, I consulted with his Liberal critic and had what I thought was a reasonable agreement on what we would do. I also consulted with the New Democratic Party and was told I really could not expect them to take that kind of responsibility on behalf of the government. In other words, the member’s suggestion has been rejected by the New Democratic Party previously; so I see no way it would make sense. Indeed, his own member has not seen fit to give alternative advice.

Mr. S. Smith: I am disappointed that the minister continues in this vein. The minister now admits that the information he gave to both opposition critics was incomplete --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I did not --

Mr. Speaker: Let him finish.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: -- inasmuch as four of the most recent articles were not even read by the Pesticides Advisory Committee. The minister admits that at least some of the articles show that 2,4,5-T is a danger to health, and some of those articles have not been read by the Pesticides Advisory Committee. He also admits that he did not know about the possibility of burning at sea. And who knows what other information he did not have when he consulted with the critic.

Since this is so, why will he not accept a constructive and reasonable suggestion to have an immediate committee set up, with all three parties on it, to look at the available information, to meet with members of the Pesticides Advisory Committee and to make a decision within the next month before he starts to spray a material that he considers too dangerous to store?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is rather interesting that the leader of the Liberal Party should suggest in this House that we meet with the Pesticides Advisory Committee. Just last week I made it very clear in this House that the chairman of that committee was here on that given day, and not a single soul of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, chose to consult with him then or since. In fairness, he was here.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister said in this House that the gentleman was waiting in the lobby to speak to us. We went out there and could not find him. What kind of an arrangement is that supposed to be? He was not out there. Let us bring him into this committee. What kind of arrangement is that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of the Environment has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, a member of the press did find the gentleman in question. I really thought that the members opposite would have had the same ability to have ferreted out that gentleman which they suggest is so difficult. Not only was the press able to find him, but I also made an offer here and I pleaded with members to speak to him. He was readily available.

May I go the next step and suggest that if the members wish to speak with the committee as a whole, I will be very glad to offer their services. But I do reject the concept that they will not accept the responsibility and then ask the next day that they have that privilege again.

Ms. Bryden: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would certainly be interested in examining the evidence that has come before the Pesticides Advisory Committee and meeting with them. But I would like to ask the minister, while this is going on, will he put on a complete ban and not issue any permits this year? Will he have it put in storage for another year until we get a chance to look at the evidence? There is all sorts of new evidence coming in -- a new study going on in Australia and so on. Will the minister maintain the complete ban for another year?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think we have answered that question several times. I have acted on the best advice it is possible to get in Ontario. There isn’t any doubt about that. The leader of the Liberal Party suggests there were one or two studies that the committee has not seen, as though that was a very representative approach to the consideration of the committee. I think that is not correct, that they have --

Mr. S. Smith: It was the basis of the EPA’s whole case.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, it wasn’t. Indeed, the committee reviewed many pieces of literature, and the chairman was involved with those studies right at the very inception. He has been well briefed in not only those studies but many others. I listed them in the House and I think all I can do is reiterate that we will be more than pleased to let any members of the House visit with the committee. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) suggests that they will not take part of the responsibility, that we take that solely on ourselves. That’s fair enough; I understand that and accept that. But I think the consultative process would be not very fruitful.

Mr. S. Smith: Instead of sending members of the House out to see if we can ferret out the chairman of this or that committee, will the minister do things in a businesslike fashion? Will he arrange to have a committee of all parties in the House meet expeditiously on the matter?

While he is deciding that, can he tell the House whether he has ever laid eyes on this report, which happens to show the at-sea incineration of herbicide Orange on board the MT Vulcanus? Has he personally ever laid eyes on this report, and what does he think it says?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) suggests he has all this great information and then -- I had better be careful with my choice of words -- he implies that 2,4,5-T is being burned at sea. It is not. He implies that it is the same thing as Agent Orange. It is not.

If he has read that report, I think he needs his glasses improved a great deal, because he doesn’t read it very well.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: First, since the minister seems determined to allow spraying across the province this summer, and especially in northern Ontario, is he ready to admit that 2,4,5-T will be sprayed in conjunction with 2,4-D, which is Agent Orange?

Second, if he is concerned about the safety of this pesticide, is he lobbying with the federal Minister of Agriculture to deregister this material for use across Canada?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am not sure I heard that correctly, Mr. Speaker, but I thought I heard that 2,4,5-T is one and the same as Agent Orange.

Mr. Wildman: That is not what I said. What I said was that 2,4,5-T would be sprayed in conjunction with 2,4-D. The combination is indeed Agent Orange.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There is a vast difference, as I have tried to indicate here in the House. The member is wrong on two occasions. We are talking about Agent Orange, which has a tens of thousands more concentrated form. As I said in the House the other night, that makes an entirely different preparation.

Second, the member has incorrectly suggested that it would be sprayed only in northern Ontario. I answered that previously. I said it would be used as a useful product on the same conditions throughout all of Ontario.

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), Mr. Speaker. In his submission to the Hall commission on health services the minister stated, and repeated in the Globe and Mail today, that the issue of physician participation in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan has been a concern to some observers of the health-care system. I would like to know from the minister: Is he one of these concerned observers and is he worried about the rate of participation in OHIP? If he is concerned, what does he intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, short of rereading into the record the full extent of the Hall submissions -- which I would like to do at some point in the future, perhaps in the budget debate -- let me say that of course we are concerned. I think our actions prove that. In particular, we have been very careful not to take actions that would undermine the health-care system of this province.

Mr. S. Smith: I think it behooves the minister to have the courage either to state that he finds the present situation reasonably satisfactory and is prepared to let it continue, or to state that he is seriously concerned about the present level and finds that it is not acceptable to let it continue. Why will he not get off the fence? I know the Premier (Mr. Davis) refers to me as unbalanced, but he knows a lot about balance, because he has been on the fence on this issue the whole time.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister’s allies to my left who are supporting him on health care are busy interjecting. His allies in the New Democratic Party want the present situation to continue for at least one more year. We know that much. What I want to know is: What does the minister want? I know what the NDP wants. It wants the present situation to continue for another 12 months. But what does the minister want? Does he want the present situation to continue as it is? Is he concerned about it? Is he not? If he is concerned, why does he not take action to change the situation?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I find it amusing that it would be the Leader of the Opposition who would make remarks about sitting on the fence. He reminds me of that member of the British House who was referred to by the Right Honourable Lloyd George in 1915 as having sat on the fence so long that the steel was embedded in his soul. That’s the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith).

The honourable member knows very well that we believe the present system has served the people of this province extremely well. I don’t know if he has read the whole submission to Hall -- likely not -- but the opting-out situation is in the main confined to six counties. Our reaction to that is to address particular concerns that have led to opting-out, such as concerns about family practitioners’ incomes. That has led to a significant reduction in the number of GPs opting out, down to very manageable proportions. We have also developed proposals such as the alternative payment arrangement for anaesthetists.

We will continue to explore for, find and apply innovative solutions to particular problems rather than using some heavy club. I’m not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition agrees with that, because he has never taken a position one way or the other.

Mr. Breaugh: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister if, when he is reading into the record his concerns, he would also read into the record the concerns that we expressed before Mr. Justice Hall. Further, would the minister also read into the record all the fine concerns expressed by the Liberal Party of Ontario to Mr. Justice Hall? It shouldn’t take long, because that party didn’t say a damned thing.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that at the appropriate time my friend from Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) will read into the record his own brief. I am waiting to see what the member sends Mr. Justice Hall, inasmuch as he promised to send him some information as to how the member would implement what he said he thought should be done. I am deeply interested in that. But I agree with the member: I was most impressed with the Liberal brief to the Hall commission. It’s the typical thing that comes out of Liberal parties.

Mr. S. Smith: If I were the minister, I would be embarrassed at the support of the NDP.

The minister has referred to the situation involving the specialty of anaesthesia; will he tell us whether the anaesthetists of Ontario have accepted his suggestion that they all accept to work on contract? If they have not yet accepted his suggestion, is he prepared to make it an order?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have been approached by a number of the larger anaesthetist groups which have indicated an interest in this proposal. As I indicated to the House a number of weeks ago we will, therefore, be sitting down with them on an individual basis. I believe meetings have already been held and will be held over the spring. In this way we believe we will be able to bring about a mutually satisfactory solution rather than driving some of our best physicians out of Ontario.

EQUAL PAY

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier (Mr. Davis), since he was talking to the women’s conference of his party at about the same time I was talking this weekend to the women’s conference of the New Democratic Party in Kitchener. Our people came up with damned fine recommendations as well.

Now that the women of the Progressive Conservative Party have added their voice to what women in the NDP and women across this province have been saying for a long time now in urging the government to bring in legislation to provide for equal pay for work of equal value, is the government prepared to bring Bill 3, which would provide that equal pay, into this Legislature for third reading? This is the bill introduced by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall). If not, is the government prepared to announce that a bill from the government side to bring equal pay for work of equal value will be before this Legislature this spring?

Mr. Breithaupt: You don’t have to vote for them.

Mr. Bolan: Let the Premier throw them a crumb.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the interjections of the Liberal Party that it’s quite obvious the relief they feel that the New Democratic Party, in its wisdom, may support the government a little later today is causing them a great deal of embarrassment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Up to the wall.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the member said something earlier to me about how I was surrounded by the most incompetent group of people he has ever seen. The only reason he can say that is he never looks to his left, he never looks to his right and he never looks behind him. That’s how he would make that sort of observation. That is the kind of thing that limits his political career. That is what will limit his political career.

Mr. Speaker: Need I remind the Premier that the question was asked by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and had something to do with equal rights?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to get equal rights in the Legislature. I was just answering a supplementary observation from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Roy: Say “Yes, Mike, my friend.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I have to say to the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) --

Mr. Speaker: No, you don’t have to say that at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This is the first time I have seen him on a Monday in generations.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Premier have a response?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. They really are interrupting me.

I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that I hope he reads very carefully the text of what I said on Saturday. I know it is upsetting to the Leader of the Opposition, but I did indicate a degree of responsibility on the part of the New Democratic Party, which promoted a response from the leader. Did my friend hear his response on the news? It was very facetious and somewhat sarcastic.

However, I did have the pleasure of speaking to more than 300 dedicated, hard-working, intelligent Progressive Conservative women on Saturday; that is correct. I assume the leader of the New Democratic Party had the same delightful experience with the same numbers when he was addressing whatever the multitude was in Kitchener. It was not quite that number, I happen to know.

What I did make clear to the women of our association was that this government, in terms of its desire to see equality, had taken significant steps of both a legislative nature and a policy nature. I pointed out to them the distinction between equal pay for equal work and equal pay for work of equal value, and made it quite clear --

Mr. Bounsall: They knew it all right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just telling the members what was said. I made it quite clear to them that this government is committed to equality of opportunity, to nondiscrimination; this applies to females as well as males. I said this government has been in the forefront of this sort of approach for many years, and we would continue to pursue this matter over the next several months. That is, in substance, what I said.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the Premier says this government has been committed to equality of opportunity and to that principle for a number of years, explain why it is at present, of the $400 million spent annually in Ontario on skills training for workers in the province, that only $6 million, or 1.5 per cent, is spent on the 40 per cent of the work force who are female? Can the Premier explain that inequality?

Is the government prepared to bring in an affirmative action program at least to redress that imbalance and to give women equality of opportunity in the work force if he will not give them equal pay for work of equal value?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the leader of the New Democratic Party knows full well from the historical standpoint why there are more males than females involved in, shall we say, skills training.

Mr. Cassidy: No, I don’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member does know. Historically there have been more men than women involved in that sort of activity. I am not saying whether that is good or bad. I am just saying that is historically the case. It is also historically the case that manpower training programs or on-the-job training programs by and large have related to the job occupations that are there at present.

This government, through the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour, is making every effort to see that these programs are expanded to include women. But I say once again to the leader of the New Democratic Party that part of the problem historically has related to the traditional position of the labour union movement when it comes to questions of apprenticeship, et cetera. I lived with it as Minister of Education and debated with the heads of the labour unions as to what degree of credit would be given in the four-year program in the secondary schools in this province. I know what their attitude was then. It has improved.

I think we can anticipate that they will see, along with the business community itself, a far higher percentage of women moving into those particular areas. But it will not be done overnight. I am not going to lead anyone astray.

There are certain historical or established situations of which a number of people who support the New Democratic Party have been a part over the years.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Doesn’t the Premier consider it to be a paradox, if not positively antediluvian, that his own party and the New Democratic Party still have separate women’s groups, instead of the women being active members of the parties? Surely it is an old-fashioned approach that the Premier is leading a party where the Progressive Conservative women -- they’re fine people, and many of them vote for me in my own constituency -- are required to be hived off to meet separately, and every now and then the Premier and one of his colleagues will go down and say: “You’re coming along fine.

We think you’re doing a good job.” Surely it’s time he showed by his actions that he really believes in equality in that regard.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Ontario -- or, as their letterhead now indicates, the Smith Party of Ontario -- could never have a women’s organization. The women in my party debated this at some length -- they are not told what to do; they are quite independent, quite intelligent and have the capacity to make their own determinations -- and said, “We would like to have the Ontario Progressive Conservative Association of Women.”

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition or the Liberal House leader (Mr. Nixon) -- the former leader who is some days acting leader -- who dictate to the women in their party, the women in my party are independent and can make their own determinations.

Mr. Bounsall: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier addressed his remarks to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Association of Women on Saturday and dwelt upon the topic of the technical difficulties of implementation of equal pay for work of equal value, can this House assume that neither the Premier nor the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) knew that the Quebec Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the United Steelworkers of America, all three of whom have a clear implementation method for achieving this principle, all offered Ontario their advice and expertise in this area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) that I covered many topics when I was discussing certain issues. I covered topics such as the rather apparent desire of the Liberal opposition in this province to have an election at any cost, at any price, for any reason, at any time, with no justification. That made up a part of my remarks.

This is all in answer to the question.

Mr. Breithaupt: An election based on principle.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) should be careful. We may beat him this time. He should be a little more nervous. It will be in the same way we defeated his cousin in Peel South. Does he remember? We’re looking forward to it.

I also touched on many other subjects. I will not burden the House with them, because I know the members do not want to hear me repeat all of those things. I am not averse to getting advice, suggestions, information or guidance from any source. It is then our responsibility to assess how helpful it is.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) about the impact of interest rates on Ontario farmers who, it is estimated, are going to suffer a 40 per cent drop in their net incomes this year and who have had an increase of $140 million in interest charges over the last two years and face a further increase of $140 million in interest charges in 1980.

Can the minister tell the House, given that Ontario has got the least generous provisions of interest rate assistance to farmers of any province in all Canada, when we can expect programs from this government to help farmers who are hit by the rising interest rates and thereby, as well, help consumers have an assured, continued supply of food at reasonable costs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think that is basically the same question I was asked on Thursday, if I am not wrong. At that time, I tried to answer the question. I had been hoping for some guidance from the speech from the throne in Ottawa today. I really have not seen much guidance in that speech and, therefore, I am continuing with my efforts to see what can be done.

Mr. Cassidy: Given the fact that his Liberal colleagues are not prepared to act on this, according to the speech from the throne, are the Treasurer and government of Ontario prepared to implement any action to protect farmers, some of whom are being driven to the wall because of the interest rates that are being charged for the spring seeding and other costs they have to bear for the spring planting?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Obviously we are considering the impact and the costs of assistance to a number of areas. It has to be said that it is not easy to draw a line. I think the member would agree with that. A farmer has specific problems. A small business has specific problems. Individuals owning homes have specific problems. One of the problems we face is that a program for one immediately begets a program for another. It is very difficult to know whether the total impact can be borne.

We had hoped for some guidance -- so far I have not seen it in this document -- to say there would be some kind of a federal program. I trust and sincerely hope there will be. In the event there is not, of course, Ontario has to consider alternatives.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that other provinces in Canada have moved on their own and have not waited for the federal government, and in view of the fact that there does not appear to be anything in the throne speech for the farmers in regard to assistance on interest rates, can we expect in the provincial budget that will be coming out soon to have a program similar to what the other provinces in Canada are doing for their farmers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: With the budget’s being a week tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the member will have to await that date.

Mr. Cassidy: Given the fact that farming in Ontario is almost as important to the Canadian economy as farming is in Saskatchewan, can the Treasurer explain why we could not at least emulate the provisions of interest rate assistance that are given to farmers in the great province of Saskatchewan, where FarmStart programs allow farmers an interest rate of eight per cent on the first $90,000 and thereby enable young farmers to get into and stay in farming?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I tried to point out that I am not unaware of the gravity of the problem here. In fact, I would have to argue that I do not know how a young farmer gets started in business today if one has to buy a business.

The facts are very real. The gentlemen from Grey-Bruce area who came here with the member the other day had a number of problems of which interest rates were one. A number of the farmers were hog producers, as I recall. It is not a question of interest rates alone for hog producers. I think the member would be the first to admit it.

Digressing for a second, I ran into one problem with the photographers. They brought a big, I would say, bovine animal with them that day. The photographer who was talking to me said it was a cow. I said it was a bull. A young lady in the elevator said it was a steer. I was only able to say I would not steer members wrong, and that’s no bull.

Interjections.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The problem is a little more serious than the minister would lead us to believe. Is he aware of the vulnerability of our farmers to foreign investors? Their interest rates are now so high that they are being compelled to sell their operations, and thousands of acres of land are now being sold to foreign investors. That is absolutely right. I wonder if the minister is aware of that and if it is not time to do something to try to keep the land in Canadian ownership.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am aware of the allegations the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) has made fairly consistently, but I think the person best able to answer that question is the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson), who has often discussed the problem with cabinet.

PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) with respect to the Allen Spraggett case. The minister often has held himself out to be a champion of the rights, freedoms and protections of the individual in our society. In so far as that local and well-known broadcaster has been not only acquitted, but also completely vindicated by a court at his trial -- although not before suffering tremendous personal loss and humiliation as a result of untimely publicity

-- will the minister introduce legislation to protect the identity of accused persons at least until the time of trial, saving them from trial by media with all its consequent negative ramifications?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns expressed by the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong). As he knows, this is a difficult, controversial issue. It is a matter I have discussed with media representatives -- for example, at their annual seminar at the University of Western Ontario -- because I agree with him that many individuals, particularly those who are prominent and have some public profile, have their reputations damaged irreparably by pre-trial publicity. A subsequent acquittal is of little comfort to those individuals. The public forgets the acquittal and recalls the initial publicity, which is often quite extensive, as it was in this case.

On the other side of the issue we have the right of the public and of the press to know when somebody has been arrested, particularly if this arrest involves incarceration, so that it does not appear that these matters are being held in secret. Against the one issue we have the other issue, that this criminal process be carried on as openly as possible. I know the member would agree that also is a serious consideration.

It is a matter that has long troubled me as a lawyer who was active in the courts before becoming a member of this Legislature. I will welcome discussion of the matter during the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General, which will commence on Wednesday of this week.

I am not in a position to state that I would support such legislation but, at the same time, I have to concede it troubles me greatly. I think it brings unnecessary unfairness into the lives of many people who are judged to be not guilty at a later date. I just do not see any ready solution to it at present other than to continue to urge our friends in the media to show great restraint as far as pre-trial publicity is concerned.

Mr. Stong: Does the minister at any rate recognize that the two interests that he has alluded to are not irreconcilable, namely, the right of the public to know and the protection of the individual from unfortunate, untimely publicity? In so far as those two principles are not irreconcilable, in my respectful submission, does the minister not recognize that the public can be made aware of the facts without disclosure of identity?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In certain cases that is quite so. In other cases it may not be so. I don’t think I can add anything further to what I have said, other than that it is an issue I am not prepared to give an off-the-cuff response to and say, yes, we should have legislation or, no, we shouldn’t have legislation. I really suggest it is a matter that does require a great deal of thoughtful discussion and well-considered debate.

DECLINING ENROLMENT

Mr. Bounsall: I have a question of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), Mr. Speaker.

With reference to the honourable minister’s statement today on the Green study and investigation on post-secondary education, can she assure the House that this study will in no way delay her formal response to the Jackson Commission on Declining School Enrolments in Ontario, a response we have been expecting periodically since last summer, and will in no way interfere with or delay the public hearings on her response before a committee of this Legislature, as she also has been promising since last summer?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I can make that assurance to the honourable member.

Mr. Sweeney: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would that also include the honourable minister’s response to the committee on the cost of education, started in 1970?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the commitment I made was related specifically to the report of the commission on declining enrolments. Of course, much of the activity recommended in the earlier reports, the compendium of seven or eight reports altogether, has already been carried out. Some of what Dr. Jackson suggested is similar to that which was recommended by that other committee. It will not include a formal response to that committee’s reports, no.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

On December 28, 1979, when the honourable minister made an announcement for Ottawa-Carleton that she was rejecting what had been accepted unanimously in all of Ottawa-Carleton -- that is, a French-language school board -- she said what she would be doing was establishing what is called French-language panels. The purpose of these panels was to allow French-language trustees to have more say in the decision-making process affecting francophone education in Ottawa-Carleton.

When does the honourable minister plan to implement this decision, and does she plan to implement it in spite of the fact this suggestion has been rejected unanimously by francophones and anglophones in Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I could support that rather sweeping final statement of the honourable member, but I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to a question of his on Monday. That is an unusual opportunity for a member of cabinet, since Mondays and Fridays are not the member’s usual days of attendance in the Legislature.

3 p.m.

I am pleased to reply to the honourable member that the examination of the responses we have had to the proposal made regarding the activity, which would ensure greater francophone control over the educational program for francophone students in the Ottawa-Carleton area, shows responses have come from a wide variety of sources expressing some support and some concerns, and also intimating some rather detailed matters that really had to be investigated very carefully in terms of ensuring there would not be a limitation of the right of the individual to exercise an electoral franchise.

A number of other matters along that line have occupied our time since February 28. We are still examining that and I anticipate we will be making some response to that in the not-too-distant future, but at this time I can’t give members a date.

Mr. Roy: The announcement of the decision was made December 28. I am sorry to say the honourable minister’s performance on Monday is no better than on other days of the week. I ask the honourable minister, if she is not even aware her suggestion has been rejected in Ottawa-Carleton, is it her plan to remain with the status quo in Ottawa-Carleton? Is it her plan to pass the buck and do nothing for Ottawa-Carleton? If so, why doesn’t she say so instead of putting people off with excuses and plans that are not workable?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: When I said I disagreed with the honourable member’s final statement in his initial question, it was that all the anglophones and all the francophones had disagreed with it.

Mr. Roy: Elected.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That isn’t what the honourable member said; he should read Hansard. Indeed, not all the people in Ottawa-Carleton disagree with that proposal, but we are looking at responses that have come forward in terms of specific areas of concern.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary: Given that the first question raised in the House about this matter was two years ago in June, by the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), and given the fact that all the flacks around the province have now agreed upon a wording that they would like to see in enumeration, why is the honourable minister not able to guarantee that by Thursday, when Mr. Yalden is here and all the press will be around and the whole national ramifications of this will be brought to bear, she will be prepared to be able to make a statement about enumeration for the French electorate?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure that is a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: I am not at all sure it is either.

DEATH OF LILLIAN HESS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) regarding the bizarre death of Miss Lillian Hess. Has the honourable minister read the recent statement by Mr. Vince Walsh that Thomas Wardle Junior’s financial arrangement with Miss Hess effectively tied up her savings and she wasn’t able to get sufficient funds to live on? Is he now prepared to reconsider his response to me in this House on March 31, at which time he told the House the financial relationships of Miss Hess would not be considered by an inquest?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I said that was not a matter that would come within the jurisdiction of an inquest under the provisions of the Coroners Act. Following this matter being raised by the honourable member, I communicated my concerns to the chief coroner and subsequently to the honourable member, to the effect that the chief coroner had asked one of our local coroners, I believe Dr. Cass, to investigate the matter to determine whether it would be appropriate to have an inquest. In this respect we also requested that the local police assist the coroner’s office in the investigation.

I am not aware of the matter just raised by the honourable member, but if there are any legal issues that should command the attention of the police other than in relation to the inquest itself, I am sure these issues will be dealt with according to law. I don’t want to say anything more than that, particularly as I am not aware of the statement just attributed to Mr. Walsh. I am sorry, I am just not aware of that.

Mr. Philip: By way of supplementary: Would the honourable minister not agree that under

section 9 of the Coroners Act, the coroner may investigate where a person may have died from a negligence, and in so doing, under

section 14 of the act, inspect and extract information from any writings or records related to the deceased? Would the honourable minister and the coroner contrast the recent statement by Mr. Wardle, in which in a public statement he claims he has had no

part in the discussion or arrangements surrounding the making of the will of Miss Hess, and the information in a recent newspaper

article which claims that Miss Hess handed to her lawyer instructions for her will written in semi-legal language, language that one would not expect a lay person to have knowledge of?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not going to comment on any of these matters that might have appeared in the press because I don’t know them to be facts, other than to say that the honourable member is quite right in referring to the particular

section of the Coroners Act, which I think does give the coroner who is in charge of the investigation a fair degree of latitude.

It may be that if certain financial arrangements are related to the manner in which this unfortunate lady met her tragic death, then this is certainly a matter which will be considered by the coroner and the police. I don’t think it would be appropriate for me, particularly during an investigation, to comment on any of the statements other than to say what I have already said.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last in the absence of myself and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) asked whether a decision had been made as to whether the Residential Tenancies Act court decision would be appealed. The chief law officer of the crown, the Attorney General, has decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

As a supplementary question, the honourable member asked whether there were certain sections of the act I could proclaim or put into action. I cannot because the enforcement of those sections relies upon compliance orders. It is the ability of the tribunals under that statute to provide enforcement that is the core of the case that will go to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, would the minister then include the central registry and those other provisions I referred to under that heading as well?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Those are the sections, particularly the central registry, I was referring to. The enforcement for that provision was a compliance order by the commission. Since the ability of the commission to issue compliance orders is the core of the appeal case, that would be impossible.

WINE AT TRADE SHOW

Mr. Eakins: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), Mr. Speaker. When I attended the food service trade show at the International Centre yesterday, I was rather appalled to see that our Ontario wine companies could not offer others in the food service industry a complimentary thimbleful of their product because it was Sunday and presumably there must be some food served with any wine sampling.

Since this was a controlled food-industry trade show and not open to the general public, and since only a few feet away all kinds of food was available for free, because the exhibitors were not allowed to sell the products, why should our wine companies have to close up their demonstration? What steps does the honourable minister intend to take to make sure that this hypocrisy is ended?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario did not grant that application, nor has it granted one for this Sunday for a rival food industry show. The reason for the board’s denying the application -- and it wasn’t just Ontario wine, by the way; it was all wine -- is that the board was not going to grant to a trade show what the ordinary public could not have on a Sunday. There’s no hypocrisy in that.

The very fundamental rule of alcohol consumption on Sunday is that while the individual does not have to eat, the particular premise, even with a special-occasion permit, has to provide food in at least a 50-50 ratio. If we are going to exempt trade shows, then we are going to have to exempt premises in Ontario. Right now, the lounges that do not serve food are not open on Sunday. It is that simple.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, is the honourable minister then saying that he places greater faith in the bartenders of Windsor than he does in the people in the wine show here at the trade centre?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No comparison. But I would ask the honourable member, is he going to go back to Lindsay and say he wants open drinking on Sunday? That is exactly what he asked me.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable minister take this opportunity to enlighten the House as to whether or not he will consider the experiment with the Republican convention in Windsor-Detroit to be exactly that, an experiment? If it works out well, would he then take that opportunity to expand it into some other tourist areas of the province so that our tourist-based economy in those regions can be helped?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I don’t regard it as an experiment. I think the honourable member might be on more solid ground if he suggested events rather than areas to me. The exemption was not given simply because it was the area of Windsor; it was in conjunction with the event. If there is a similar type of event -- and I am not talking about scope -- that is in another area, then I will look at it.

INSURANCE INFORMATION

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), regarding the right-to-privacy guidelines that were tabled in the Legislature last Friday.

In view of the fact that the guidelines the honourable minister tabled last week do not lessen the broad powers insurance companies had prior to this issuance, and the fact that the insurance companies can gather information not only from authorized medical sources but from employers, friends, enemies and neighbours of the applicant, and disseminate this information to whomever they please, would he inform the House what reasons the insurance companies gave him for retaining those wide powers?

Second, if the honourable minister were concerned about protecting the privacy and civil liberties of Ontario citizens, why did he not tell the insurance companies that the only information they can get is from properly authorized medical sources and no more?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Obviously the honourable member didn’t read those rules. They are not guidelines; I made it very specific on Friday there were now rules and conditions of the licence. Not just an insurance company, but anybody dealing in life insurance or sickness and accident insurance or any type of benefit protection has been very sharply curtailed by those rules.

In conjunction with applicants for certain types of protection, that statement made it very plain there is a balance between the privacy of the individual and also the right of the insurance carrier to know circumstances that occasionally are other than those that can be supplied directly by a physician. Those rules make it very plain that if you are going out and seeking information, then you are going to have to be accountable for it. It can be challenged; it can be validated.

The problem in the whole area is the privacy of the individual, that fact that the information is used correctly to determine the acceptability of an applicant or the proper rate. In regard to the rest of society it would be a very difficult thing to enforce. In fact the rest of society might very well be prone to subsidizing an irresponsible individual by the fact he deliberately lied on an application, knowing full well it could never be checked or validated.

Mr. Grande: Since obviously the honourable minister is now going to curb the power of the insurance companies in this province, would he consider the proposition to establish a permanent body within his ministry that is going to have powers to get into the life insurance company files and computer banks, whether they be in the United States or Canada, to get rid of all the damaging little bits of intelligence that the insurance companies have right now on Ontario citizens?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Obviously the honourable member is confused or he hasn’t read those rules. If any bit of information is secured about a person, the insurance company or the accident benefit company or whatever type of operation it is, must disclose to the person whence it came and what it is, and give the person the opportunity to challenge it. I know of no tighter rule anywhere.

JAIL REMANDS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker), I’d like to put a question to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) having to do with the statement made by his colleague, the provincial secretary, which indicated that 17,000 people are jailed needlessly in Ontario at least in part because of the procedures of the courts and the tendencies of the lawyers.

Will the minister indicate his views in connection with the provincial secretary’s statement, as follows: “It’s a great old ploy to leave people rotting away in the cells. In that period of time memories fade, witnesses pass away. Remove a key witness and you might raise a question of whether a conviction will be registered”?

Would the chief officer of the crown care to comment in that connection?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen my colleague’s statement. I will be happy to review it and comment on it later. I rather suspect that the statement made by my colleague dealt with a whole host of issues related to problems facing the Ministry of Correctional Services. Occasionally cases are delayed simply because lawyers are too busy, but I certainly would not like to comment until I have had the advantage of reading the statement as a whole.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, might I direct a supplementary to the provincial secretary since he has now resumed his seat? Would he care to express some additional views to the House, since there is obviously so much interest and concern and since the indication is that 17,000 are jailed needlessly? Since it does involve the Attorney General directly, would he care to comment on the statement made by Clayton Ruby? He charged: “The crown attorneys abuse the bail system and often try to jail people to put pressure on them to plead guilty. Young people often sit in jail awaiting trial on charges for which conviction wouldn’t merit a jail sentence, just because they can’t raise $100.”

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I basically reject most of the comments made by Clayton Ruby, who is a noted counsel in the city and who also thought our food was no good and that our jails had a lot of stink attached to them. I certainly do not accept those comments at all.

With respect to the comments I made in the paper, I indicated in a broad interview that I was talking about a large number of people who had been remanded for a significant period of time in jail and yet finally were not given a sentence of incarceration at their time of trial. The numbers were quite dramatic; in that particular example I quoted a figure of 17,000.

We can say that two thirds of the remanded people are basically people who do not receive a sentence of incarceration once their trial occurs. That has to suggest that a large number are serving sentences prior to trial, and obviously in an unnecessary way if the numbers are that dramatic, and we think they are.

I indicated at the time that there are many reasons for it. Some people, of course, are acquitted, and that’s appropriate; some people have their time spent on remand taken into account by the judge and are given some credit. Others are probably the subject of busy lawyers; others are the subject of perhaps some finagling with the system. There is a host of reasons why people are unnecessarily staying in there and that was only part of it.

3:30 p.m.

PETITION

UNIONVILLE SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition containing 2,000 signatures from the Unionville area requesting a high school facility, and I would present this as a petition to the Premier (Mr. Davis). It reflects the frustration the residents of Unionville feel in their dealings with the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and requests in an accompanying letter that the Premier intervene on their behalf to provide a much-needed high school in the Unionville community.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr1,

An Act to revive Basin-Jib Mines Limited.

Report adopted.

MOTION

SHARING OF TIME

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the time spent on consideration of the third order today be divided equally among the parties.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

FARGO DISPOSAL COMPANY LIMITED ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill Pr20,

An Act to revive Fargo Disposal Company Limited.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 61, 65, 66. 67, 68, 69, 72 and 78, and the interim answers to questions 64, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 80 on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

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

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, it’s a pleasure to participate in the debate this afternoon.

I want to put before the House the two matters which are of prime concern to us this afternoon. One is, there will be a vote later this afternoon, at which time the members of this caucus will have the opportunity to be supportive of the throne speech. The second matter which will be considered by the House this afternoon is an amendment to that throne speech which has been presented by the Liberal Party in Ontario, as I believe it is now called.

It poses a bit of a problem for people like me. If one were given only to knee jerking, if one were given to kind of an immediate response, one would say there isn’t any chance to vote for something one likes this afternoon, but I thought we should run through the process that I have been going through for the last little while, the first set of business.

Since naturally I don’t have a clear preference of voting for either one motion or the other motion this afternoon, I thought we would do what the government does.

It seems to be very popular these days to conduct public opinion polls. In the absence of a freedom of information bill in this province, I thought I would take it upon myself to supply the members with that information from my personal poll, which was conducted by a series of extensive interviews throughout the province. Although not quite as extensive as Goldfarb, it offers a cross-section.

The first person interviewed on this matter of whether we should have an election was a gentleman employed in the petroleum industry. His speciality is interpersonal relations, and he spends his entire day interfacing with the population in the great riding of Oshawa.

While he was pumping gas into the back of my Chevrolet, I asked him: “What do you think about the Liberal amendment? Should we support that?” His answer was a bit confusing because it was another question. He asked me if this guy Smith was really as crazy as he seems. I proceeded to tell him that I thought the member was quite a distinguished psychiatrist and probably very good at that trade, and may soon get his opportunity to ply that trade again.

I asked other people in the riding, and there seemed to be a clear consensus that there was not much reason to have an election now. In the recent past some very clear political issues were put to the people of Ontario, and the Liberals showed a great reluctance to vote for no-confidence motions at that time. They could not see why now, on a throne speech debate, there ought to be an election. There was a growing consensus on that.

In the course of conducting this particular survey, I went to visit that centre of cultural influence in eastern Ontario called Napanee. I point out to members that Napanee produced not only the member for Oshawa, but also the press secretary to the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis), and I understand the Liberal Party has an adviser who practises law there; so I thought that would be a logical place to go to look for advice on a matter as urgent as this.

In a three-day search in that town -- and it’s possible to cover a great number of citizens in three days -- I found no one who thought that having an election was a good thing or that I should vote for the Liberal amendment.

Around the province, in conversations with many people, I have found those who thought it would be a disaster to vote for anything the Liberals proposed. I was unable to find anyone who thought that having an election now, over a throne speech, was a good idea.

I think the matter is summarized rather nicely in an editorial which appeared in a publication known as the OHEU News. It puts the question rather succinctly. It says: “Ontario Liberal Leader Stuart Smith, encouraged by the federal victory, is making noises about forcing an election. Hopefully the opposition parties can resist the temptation and work towards making the present government start to solve some important current problems, like repairing medicare, providing affordable housing, stopping the complete erosion of Ontario’s manufacturing industry, and improving Ontario’s labour legislation to stop first-contract and dues checkoff strikes.” Perhaps that provides the consensus we need.

I think most of the members of this House become impatient with the governing party, in part because we fail to recognize what we’re dealing with. We have a rather old and sorry lot governing Ontario these days. Speaking in terms of my own field of criticism, the field of health, I think we sometimes forget that it is difficult to teach this old hound new tricks.

As I believe we did in the fall session of the House, it is certainly possible to provide -- around an issue as broad as medicare, and with things of considerable substance, like a petition which ultimately had close to 300,000 names on it -- that kind of broad kick near their thinking point that forces the old hound to get up and move around a little bit and shake off a few fleas. But it is difficult to get the old hound to lurch its way out the door. There are continuing problems with that.

I believe there are occasions in this House -- and this is one of them -- when the government’s attention has been brought clearly into focus on an issue which it did not choose.

3:30 p.m.

In January of this year I wrote to the Premier and suggested to him that in my own area there were three or four substantive matters which the government should consider. The first was the project now known in North Pickering as Seaton. It previously was called the North Pickering project and, before that, Cedarwood. The government has been having great difficulty with the project for some time. I said to the Premier that surely was one matter which the government did not have to proceed with at this time.

I am pleased to see that, at least in that case, the government has decided the Seaton project would cause rather serious damage to the local economy in the region of Durham. It would come on stream at a most inappropriate time. The government has decided it will not proceed with Seaton.

We also proposed in that letter that the government give serious consideration to the extension of GO train services from Metropolitan Toronto to the Durham region at a time when energy prices are of prime concern to commuters. The government now is doing a study in that regard. There are at least some indications the government is listening on particular issues and that, in its inimitable way, it is moving with glacier-like speed to resolve some of those difficulties.

On the matter of medicare -- which is rather close to my field of work here -- the government has recognized there are substantive problems in that area.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: You don’t have to set them down for me, Mr. Speaker. I pay little attention to them. When I was a young boy, my Uncle Willie Rush told me there are two ways to handle young pups. First, never let them in the parlour, because they are liable to chew up the chairs and dirty the rug. I’ve always followed that credo. Second, if they get too loud and yappy, just give them a shot on the snout and they’ll run underneath the wood stove. I’ve always followed that practice, and I’ve found it works faithfully.

On the matter of medicare, I believe substantial changes have taken place on the part of the government. I think they are worth noting. I do not anticipate that the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), the Premier or anybody else is going to acknowledge publicly the role that members of all parties in this Legislature have played in bringing attention to the great difficulties the medical care system has had over the last few years in this province. It has reached a point where the level of care in particular hospitals has dropped substantially. In particular, there are problems in doctors’ offices these days.

Through the committee system, through debates in this House and through the question period, I think that matter has been brought clearly into focus, and the government in its own way has responded.

For example, I recall the debates about this time last year when government ministers were maintaining that there were no problems in hospital funding but that, if there were, they would certainly look after them. We put our committee system to work.

In July 1979, the government announced an additional $65 million in funding for health-care institutions. That was a response. In September 1979, another $100 million from the lottery fund went towards the construction of new teaching hospitals. I believe that, in January 1980, hospitals received an announcement of a percentage increase double that of last year’s. Those who have read the throne speech acknowledge that, in the provision of 600 more nursing home beds, there is at least an acknowledgement that the serious problem of bed shortages has been recognized by the government.

A number of specific projects have been put before the House. In most parts of the province, we could run through areas where documentation has been provided, in many cases by opposition members, showing that local hospitals need more funding. There are problems that need to be resolved, and financial resolutions can be part of it.

We have to point out that some unfairness remains within the system. Physicians put it to the government that they had problems with the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and with the amounts of money that were paid. Through their negotiating committee, they got increases ranging between nine per cent and 11.5 per cent this year. Physicians have had the government respond to them.

I am awaiting the response of the government to the other health-care workers -- nurses, nursing assistants, hospital workers in a number of unionized situations -- who share that problem even more. The discrepancy is much sharper at the level of hospital-care workers and their incomes. The government has recognized that physicians had some legitimate grievances in terms of their salaries. I anticipate that this government will deal in the same manner with people who have lower incomes but a more valid case.

I do not accept the notion that the government’s increase in funding for hospitals will solve the problem there. I do believe that for hospital care workers, for nurses, and for patients who use the hospitals, the problems will remain and, I believe, will become aggravated. I believe some of the problems for administrators have been resolved by the funding that was announced this year. The headlines from around Ontario reflect that. The Brantford Expositor said the province has given hospitals some breathing room, and I believe that to be a reasonable assessment of what has occurred. There is now some breathing room in the budget for hospitals that was not there previously.

There are a number of hospitals whose names we could bring before the House this afternoon which have had budgetary problems in the past. Slowly, but surely, that particular phenomenon, on which we spent so much time in this House last year, I see at least being addressed by the government and some resolution in place.

Mr. Martel: Where were the Liberals last year?

Mr. Breaugh: I don’t know where the Liberals were last year. I never get terribly concerned --

An hon. member: Do you really care?

Mr. Breaugh: I don’t really care where they were last year. It seems to make very little difference where they are.

There are some encouraging signs in the rather long, sometimes confusing and certainly always complicated debate about the provision of medical services in Ontario.

For a number of physicians who, last year about this time, thought that opting out of OHIP was the great thing to do, it would now appear that some of their concerns must have been resolved -- certainly, in my judgement, their financial concerns. The basis for opting out of OHIP was strictly financial. It would be my judgement that the set of negotiations just resolved would provide to physicians adequate salary or income, from anybody’s point of view; so I think that one should be resolved. The current trend shows a slight increase in the numbers of doctors opting back into the plan.

I am further encouraged by an incident which occurred at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, where the psychiatrists on that staff could have dealt a rather serious blow to the provision of mental health services and psychiatric assessment for virtually all Metropolitan Toronto. The Clarke Institute is a fine one and one that is used extensively by a great many service agencies and organizations around Toronto. I am pleased to note the psychiatrists at the Clarke Institute have voted as a group to stay within the plan. I find that an encouraging sign and one we should not deal with lightly.

In a number of other areas there are some interesting experiments being planned. The province of Ontario, according to statements made by the minister, now is considering using as a model the plan used at Toronto’s Northwestern General Hospital for the provision of anaesthetic services. Although that may not be applicable in all parts of the province, I think what is useful to note is that the ministry now is prepared to move forward with some alternatives for the payment of physicians to provide them with adequate income. They are now prepared to recognize there are other ways to provide that.

It has not necessarily been the one which has always served in the best public interest, at least by perpetuating the fee-for-service process.

In many parts of the province there are some interesting alternatives being considered very seriously -- we might even say for the first time -- by the medical profession. These are matters that, to put it as fairly as I can, have been proposed at some length by members of this party.

There are some changes in the provision of ambulance services which should be noted. The ministry has set up a new ambulance centre. At some point in time the members of this House will want to spend some considerable effort looking at a great many things that have to do with the provision of ambulance services in the province. There are different levels of service, which I think most people would acknowledge. The ministry has been extremely active in the last years in providing some rather interesting concepts about communications centres.

There is a continuing problem, though, in terms of private operators who seem to have some rather substantive problems in communicating their needs and problems to the ministry. There have been continuing problems with ambulance drivers in terms of getting certification. I am sure the minister is aware of all those problems. I know I have a number of questions on the order paper and, when the ministry finally gets around to responding to those questions, we may well have some resolutions to some rather serious and conflicting problems that were there.

3:40 p.m.

In the throne speech debate, members on this side have pointed out with great regularity in this House that there are great problems with the provision of ambulance services in the northern part of the province, particularly with air ambulance services. The ministry at least has acknowledged that problem by announcing in the throne speech it is going to make use of jet aircraft to provide these. The proposal centres particularly on the provision of a jet helicopter service to bring patients into a central point and then to bring them down here.

I would encourage the government to read Hansard and to listen to the other problems having to do with air ambulance services from the north, such as whether relatives can come back and forth with their children to Metropolitan Toronto, where a number of the medical centres are, and whether we can provide this service in a reasonable way to all of the north or only to certain parts of the north. I am not personally convinced the ultimate answer is contained in the throne speech, but I am aware the ministry has several proposals on its table.

I would hope the ministry would take under consideration at this time, because it didn’t do so before it made this announcement in the throne speech, those concerns expressed by different health councils throughout the north. In my visits with health councils in Thunder Bay, Timmins and a number of other places in the north, they seemed to me to have a good grasp of at least what the local problem was and to have provided some considerations to the ministry through their health councils. I am not sure that all those considerations are met by the provision of two jet aircraft.

I think the government, having acknowledged the problem, now has an obligation to follow up on all of the other perspectives that have been presented on the provision of ambulance services from the northern part of the province and to consult with those health councils that it supposedly set up in the first instance to advise the minister on health matters.

There are a great many concerns we have put to the government on health-care matters. In our submission to the Hall commission, we attempted not only to reiterate what those concerns were, but also to provide documentation on them and to provide for the consideration of Mr. Justice Hall some other documents we have used here in committee and in the House during question period.

One of the things we have been rather firm about is the matter of changing the provision of health services to the population at large. About a year or so ago we prepared a discussion paper called a green paper, the title of which is Prevention -- Not Curative Care. That green paper attempted to identify a model for the provision of health-care services. It is one that is already in operation in many parts of the province. I guess the most successful health service organization is probably the one we refer to as the Sault Ste. Marie clinic. That clinic has been in existence for some time now. It serves a population of about 35,000 people and does so with great success.

A number of the other health service organizations are not nearly so large or so well established. To follow up the argument that we have managed to get some concessions from the government, about a year ago we began to raise what was a serious problem with HSOs, that their funding had been frozen, for some of them for two- or three-year periods. This most economical way of providing good health care to the population at large was not getting the emphasis.

We found out, for example, that the ministry staff have been relatively removed from that particular kind of consideration and that the funding for many of our lowest-paid physicians in the province had been frozen. The government did respond to that, and there have been further studies and, finally, some consultation with these.

I note too, with some sadness, that before the public accounts committee of this House there is the question of the operation of one of the HSOs in Ontario, This may shake the tree. I would encourage the government to look at all the other health service organizations. Though they might have identified what appears to be, at least at first glance, a problem in the way one is set up and run, that should not be transferred to get this government to retreat to its previous position of ignoring the HSOs here in Ontario.

I have found the most dedicated physicians, nurses, nutritionists and therapists at work in the health services organizations I have visited. They have a clear understanding and most of them have a community board. There is interchange between the community they serve and the professionals who provide the service.

I would urge the government to take the current state of funding health service organizations and to expand it to provide that alternative form of care and that alternative organizational model. I find it to be a good one.

I have noticed that here in Metropolitan Toronto there is a new St. Lawrence community health service centre. It’s a community clinic of a kind different from many of the ones I have visited, and it has a good deal more funding. It’s my understanding that it does not have a community board, but at least we are seeing some alternatives in place now in the province that were not there a couple of years ago. Those that are providing good care and reducing the utilization of hospital beds, I think, are providing several good services -- good health care -- to the people of Ontario.

I think a great deal of savings can be achieved through the use of these health service organizations, although that is not my prime concern in supporting them. My prime concern is that they provide good health care on a broad base, using a team approach, to an identifiable community. Whether or not we save money is not the prime thrust to the motion. It provides, in my view, a better balanced form of health care. It certainly provides a clear alternative to the OHIP fee-for-service system which is now so prevalent. I would urge the government to continue with that concept of health service organizations or community clinics.

I have put on the order paper for discussion in this session a resolution that would urge the members of this House to consider a dental care program and particularly one that is modelled on the one operated by the New Democratic Party government in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Kerrio: Those models you can keep.

Mr. Breaugh: The member’s interjection is rather interesting, because the Liberal health critic is quoted in the Toronto Star as being highly supportive of that program. As a matter of fact, I even saw somewhere, I believe, the current leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition quoted as being in favour of that kind of dental care program for children, modelled on the NDP experience in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Kerrio: Our plan -- not a Socialist plan.

Mr. Breaugh: I think it does show that models for the provision of health care, and in this instance for the provision of good dental care, can be provided to a large segment of the population at relatively low cost and that the cost savings for that are substantial if one looks at the other end of the scale.

I think that the balance, in terms of preventive care versus curative care, is beginning to shift slightly. It would be my concern that the government continues to provide that balance, that it encourages those activities, those models, those provisions of health-care services that are preventive in nature. I am not making an argument that we should cease to fund curative health care in this province, because that can never happen. I am saying some balance is necessary.

I notice that in a number of other areas -- providing housing needs for the physically handicapped, for example -- the government now is conducting a survey in my own riding of Oshawa. I find that a little unusual, because I wrote to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) in the fall and outlined my concern that we had a large number of vacant housing units in the area. I suggested to him that perhaps he could take under consideration the matter of converting those units into good housing for handicapped and another of other groups of people in our community, like senior citizens, who require more housing.

He said at that time that he didn’t think he could do it, but I also notice that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) is in the process of doing exactly that. So, quite frankly, I don’t expect a straight answer from the Conservative ministers. I am satisfied to get the answer that I want from one of them over there.

There is another area where problems have been identified; I refer to the use of X-rays in hospitals and extensively in a number of other health-care service units. The government finally has twigged to the fact that there is a problem with that as well and has that under investigation.

The number of in-home health services, which in my view are for many people a better way to provide health care than keeping people in an institution, is expanding somewhat. I am encouraged by the news that the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), who last year at this time had promises -- for example, of chronic home-care programs in 12 communities across the province -- now says that in a couple of years he hopes to have that expanded across the province. I think that, too, would have a substantial impact on not only the cost of health care in the province, but also on the quality of care that is provided.

There are certainly some outstanding problems sitting in front of the government these days. There is a substantial problem in terms of people who provide care in psychiatric units. There are a number of those people now who are attempting to bargain for a new contract, and there is some difficulty with that.

I would hope, as I said earlier, that the model set out when the government sat down with the Ontario Medical Association, through its committee on physicians’ services, would be used as a model for everyone else and that the dollar values are roughly equivalent and the percentages are in the same ball park, because I think the government would want to make sure that what is fair for the doctor is fair for everybody else who provides health care to the people in Ontario.

3:50 p.m.

I note too that a number of the groups, the agencies that are out there -- the nurses’ association in particular -- have been very active in the last few years talking about their role as providers of services; I might mention physiotherapists as well in that context.

A number of studies are under way in different parts of the province on how to provide good health care to the elderly. I guess if we are looking at one kind of health care that is extremely important, one only has to look at the population projections on our ageing population over the next 20 to 25 years to discover, perhaps with some shock, that this government had better get clued in as to how to provide good health care to the increasing number of elderly citizens in Ontario.

I know they are aware of the problem, because a number of groups have made formal presentations to the government, outlining their concerns about the provision of those services, and many of them suggested solutions to those problems.

I mentioned previously the committee being chaired by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. The one thing I must get on the record is that I was somewhat disappointed, because my colleague who is the health critic for the Liberal Party of Ontario can be an articulate spokesman from time to time on various matters, and I was somewhat taken aback that he or his party did not make a presentation to Mr. Justice Hall.

I suppose one can understand, in the fall of the year when some 284,000 people signed our petition on medicare, why the leader of the Liberal Party would have refused to express his concern at that time. One can understand, when there was a no-confidence motion put to the House in the fall centring on medicare and the provision of services, that they would be a little reluctant to do that.

But I don’t understand how they can turn their backs on that many citizens of Ontario, ignore them, and when they have something to say about how health care should be provided or problems they perceive in the provision of those services that they wouldn’t at least take the time to drop a note to Mr. Justice Hall, who is an extremely distinguished citizen in Canada and has done a great deal in providing medical services across the country.

There remain some disturbing problems in health care. I want to mention two or three which I think the government ought to pay immediate attention to. This government has been diddling with the problem of whether doctors have the right to opt out and whether they can get away without informing patients ahead of time if they have opted out of the plan or if they are going to charge more than the Ontario Medical Association rate.

I think that has gone on just about long enough. There now falls on the government an obligation to provide very clearly, not just a nice statement by the minister here, but some kind of firm agreement we can see in writing between the government and whoever is chosen to act as the spokesman for physicians in Ontario. I would think that is obviously the OMA. I would like to see a firm agreement between the medical association and the government that, if doctors are going to continue to opt out, there is a legal obligation on those physicians to notify their patients.

My first choice, and I want to make this clear, is that doctors do not opt out of the plan and that we have one fee

schedule for medicine in Ontario. We agree that we should sit down and negotiate that with the OMA committee and, having struck that kind of agreement, then all parties should live up to it.

There are problems in health care and in everything else that this government has before it. I said at the beginning that there are some inequities, which I want to point out. Here is one which bothers me substantially: We had in this province some few years ago a major discussion in the House and outside of the House, in the media, about denturists and how they provide that kind of service.

I am not sure I understand the rationale of fairness which says that for the making of a partial plate somebody ought to pay a $1,000 fine or go to jail for 14 days. It seems to me that is the kind of simmering dispute that I and most of the members in here thought was resolved. It now appears obvious that it was not resolved, and I am waiting for the minister to make some kind of a statement, some kind of a change in his regulation, to talk to the dental surgeons committee and come up with some kind of a rationale so that we don’t have that kind of inequity in operation in Ontario.

There are many occasions when members can spend much time on particular issues. Let me focus my remarks on one proposal in Metropolitan Toronto. It offers, in synoptic form, some of the alternatives that are before the government in health care.

There is a proposal for a high-risk pregnancy program in Toronto. I attended a forum on this at the St. Lawrence Centre about a week ago where there were panellists presenting opposing views. I think it is reasonable to say that everyone here wants to do the best he or she can for the provision of medical services in high-risk pregnancies. We do not want small children to die. We want those mothers to have good care.

In abbreviated form, the proposal is this: Do we go to a highly technological model already in existence in this province, which uses extremely expensive medical personnel and costs slightly more than $6 million a year? Or do we run through an option, developed and put forward by a Toronto nurse named Doreen Hamilton, to move to some form of preventive care program in the community? Which of those options should the government exercise at this time?

It is difficult for me to understand, when we have this kind of unit at Women’s College Hospital down the street from this Legislature, why it makes sense to provide a second unit of the same nature across the street at Mount Sinai Hospital. Why not take the advice of Dr. Cynthia Carver, who says there should be some revamping of the funding at Women’s College Hospital so the unit can be expanded somewhat to accommodate more of these mothers and children and to move to the preventive care program?

To put it starkly, surely it is better in the long run to prevent illness than to let it occur and pay the high cost of curative care afterwards. Specialized care units of this nature cost around $2,500 a day, and a lot of the money the government would have to invest for the equipment used in this kind of care unit would go to the United States. I have visited a similar unit at McMaster University in Hamilton. The success rates are worth looking at.

I am not making a proposal against that kind of high-risk unit, because I think that perinatal care is important. In terms of developing the type of care and expertise, Canadians did a lot of the work. Unfortunately, we don’t have an industry in Ontario which supplies much of the technology for that kind of care unit. None the less, I think we should take a look at that kind of alternative care program.

My argument is this: In terms of priority, we have in place the curative care unit, the high-risk pregnancy unit at Women’s College Hospital. It has some funding problems that should be resolved and some capacity which could and should be expanded somewhat.

But I believe, too, that the preventive care program outlined by Ms. Hamilton is one that this government ought to support with some fervour. If in future we are looking at the choices a government has, then careful, balanced weighing of evidence on both sides through the careful introduction of new programs of alternative care can be presented to the people of Ontario. Subsequently, if we want to make judgements about which gives us a better return on our dollar -- although I hate that kind of evaluation of the provision of health-care services -- we can do that. We need to have the alternative in place before we can make that judgement.

There are a number of current political topics before the Legislature. There is the matter of the Windsor area and what will happen with the auto industry in that community. I think most of us on this side of the House are saying, “The government has an obligation now.”

When it hands out the money it gave Ford Motor Company, when it discusses providing public money to a private company like Chrysler Corporation, it has an obligation to see that is done in the context of securing the economy of this province. It does none of us any good if we put large amounts of public money into a private firm and come up empty in terms of employment. If we settle for kind of a short-term salvation of a company, but in the long run the effect of doing that is that the local economy takes a nose dive anyway, we really have wasted our money.

4 p.m.

For the most part, we are looking at places in difficulty, and my own area is one which is now facing great difficulty. In Oshawa last week there were about 4,000 auto workers who were laid off. Hopefully, we are saying they are laid off temporarily, and that there will be some adjustments. We know there are problems with an energy crisis. We know there are problems in terms of the production facilities in Canada and in the kind of models of automobiles we provide.

What we look for from this government is some sensitivity in going through that process to see that when we do put money into the private sector it’s a clearly understood business arrangement and not a giveaway program, that we have added some substance to the economy of this province, that we have protected the jobs we now have and expanded those into new job opportunities for Canadian citizens, for the people of this province.

That is the single most important issue in my area. It is not really whether we would have an election. An election does provide some employment. I understand that, but it does not provide long-term jobs. I don’t particularly want to have an election out of this afternoon’s routine. I am searching for solutions for a government which does have some difficulty recognizing or admitting there are some things which this government has not done particularly well. What I am searching for then are solutions, not elections.

I want to point out as I get near the end of my remarks that I listened to some interjections this afternoon from some people in the far right on this side who really want an election.

Mr. Philip: Social Credit Party in Ontario.

Mr. Breaugh: I thought they were called the Luddites, but perhaps Social Credit is good enough.

For those of you who are so anxious to have an election, I recall that on the second day this House was in operation, there was a debate on a Thursday evening which could have been taken clearly as a matter of confidence -- the government said so anyway. It had to do with whether the rules of this House would be changed so that 20 members standing in their place could block a vote from taking place.

I happened to chair the committee which brought that report before the House. We did so because in the fall of last year we debated Bill 185,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario. The proponent of that particular piece of legislation had the opportunity for the debate, made a rather fervent argument in here and left the House that afternoon absolutely incensed that the government had 20 members stand to block it.

That particular member came to see me and demanded -- demanded, no less -- that we change the rules of the House. We went off to committee and we did what that person wanted us to do. That honourable member insisted on that rule change. We did it in committee. We made the minority government work. We brought that report back in here. We had the debate on it, which we had been waiting for since last fall. Come time to vote, some members were absent.

The proponent of that particular bill was the honourable Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) in here, the current leader today, at least, of the Liberal Party in Ontario. When they had their first opportunity to defeat this government, two days after this House opened up, they were not here. Now this afternoon we are being asked to join with them in throwing the rascals out.

Mr. Cassidy: They only had 18 of 34 here that night.

Mr. Breaugh: While I believe there was a good explanation, the one I heard is there was a dinner on down at the Sheraton Centre. That is an indication of the great importance they gave to that matter. Certainly, a shift in priorities took place, so I don’t really have a feeling of obligation to vote for a Liberal amendment about anything.

Mr. Foulds: It’s a pity they couldn’t have taken the opportunity to improve the Legislature.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. This minority government is far from perfect, but I do feel very sincerely that certain advances have been made, however awkwardly, by the Tories over there. I would be the first one to say too that they did not do so willingly, but this minority government has been productive. It has not been successful in the sense that an NDP government in Ontario would be, that’s for sure, but it has managed to make some concessions here and there.

Mr. Kennedy: We wouldn’t want to be successful like that.

Mr. Foulds: Exactly, we feel exactly the same way.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, there are a few interjections which are almost causing me to change my mind. I wouldn’t want to do that.

I took some time in working our way through this process by talking to a great many people in my own riding and in other tidings across the province about whether there should be an election. All I have to say is that in my own little public opinion poll the overwhelming response was no, not at all.

When I asked the second question, which was “Should we support the Liberal amendment?” particularly of those people who were friends of mine who were a little uncomfortable with the New Democratic Party’s supporting the Tories on a speech from the throne first of all, I had to go through the process of describing what the speech from the throne is.

Once we had it clear that the speech was not really based on issues or directly on legislation but on the government’s general intentions, much of which we might happen to agree with, they said it was really not too reasonable to cause an election on a throne speech. But when I put to them as succinctly as I could that in order to defeat the government we would have to vote for a Liberal amendment, the consensus was clear. If they ever caught me voting for a Liberal amendment in Oshawa they would, quite properly, run me out of town on a rail. I gave them my assurance I certainly wouldn’t make that mistake this afternoon.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: In a week or so we’re going to see if this government is going to put its money where its mouth is. That is a matter of considerable substance. We will look at it.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: I might be given to change my mind if I saw the leader of the Liberal Party. Who is the leader of the Liberal Party today? Whoever he is, whoever has the badge on today, if he were to come in here and listen to this important debate, I might change my mind. I don’t expect him to show up for the vote because I’ve seen the track record of the Liberal Party on no-confidence motions six times in the last three years. There are lots of people taking walks.

I saw the Liberal whip two days after the House cranked up and he couldn’t get the members back here for something his leader wanted. If they can’t get the Liberal caucus to support the Liberal leader, why would they under any guise expect me to do that?

Mr. Kerrio: How about a little wager on this afternoon?

Mr. Breaugh: I’m prepared to invite the entire Liberal caucus to come to Oshawa and run against me the next time. They will quadruple the number of Liberals in that town and we’ll still beat the whole lot of them hands down.

Mr. Conway: How about Napanee?

Mr. Breaugh: That might take a few years to work on.

I want to conclude my remarks this afternoon by saying I think there is a reasoned and a rational argument in looking at what accomplishments have come out of the minority to say we should not take questions of confidence lightly. If there are matters put before this House -- and I’m sure there will be -- where there is a clear division on a specific, well-focused issue or piece of legislation, those are things that ought to be treated seriously. But I cannot treat the amendment proposed by the leader of the Liberal Party very seriously at all, either from his track record or based on what is in the amendment.

I, for one, will not be supporting that amendment this afternoon.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in representing my party.

Mr. Foulds: Are you doing this on legal aid?

Mr. Roy: Isn’t that interesting? Listen, it’s very rewarding to know there are more NDP members in the House for my speech than there were for the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).

May I begin with the traditional word of thanks and congratulations on the fine job you, Mr. Speaker, are doing in the Legislature. I don’t want to go through the routine of giving you the traditional kind words because I feel sincerely, as one who has been here since 1971 and watched the performance of different Speakers, that you have a perception of what this place is about. We see it every day. We see it in the paintings in the corridors. We are seeing sunlight in this place for the first time in many years.

4:10 p.m.

We see it as well in your rulings. It is important that it be put on the record that the tradition and precedent that you are establishing now is going to make it exceedingly difficult for the government party, in the future, to instal as it did in the past.

I don’t want to be unduly harsh on some of your predecessors, but there were times when we felt the Speaker was not really an independent official. Basically, the Speaker was responding to, and often reflecting, the directions and wisdom of the executive branch, if not the party of the legislative branch of government. So it seems to us you are doing something important. I want to be on the record as encouraging that, and any steps taken to continue the tradition and precedent established in this House will certainly receive my support.

As I view the press clippings which I see occasionally from the federal House and especially during the referendum debate from the Quebec House, I feel somewhat annoyed that what we are seeing coming out of this Legislature that is taken up here in the gallery is not of professional quality or does not enhance this House as it does, for instance, in the National Assembly or the federal House. I see no reason why the members of this Legislature should have a second-rate service. If the House feels we should go a step further in giving members the services available to other members, be it in Quebec or at the federal level, I am in full support of it.

When people tell us the cost is excessive, I look at the money the people opposite have wasted, be it on Minaki Lodge or on programs involving the sale of used cars or land assembly plans. When we look at priorities, it is not too much to ask that this institution is not seen across the province, or across the country, as something second-rate or inferior to, for instance, the Quebec or federal institutions. I will fully support anything that will enhance not only the rules and regulations, but also enhance the media and the way the public sees the workings of the House.

I want to say something about some of our colleagues who will be leaving the House shortly. I understand the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) is leaving. I don’t know if he is coming back or is at the end of his term.

Mr. Conway: Today is the last day.

Mr. Roy: I’m told today is the last day. I want to say to my colleague from Carleton that I think his contribution, not so much to this House but to the province through his efforts as a member of the executive at one time, is something that should be singled out. I did not always agree with the member for Carleton -- in fact, more often than not I disagreed with him. If I may say it with kindness, there were times I thought the member for Carleton was something like the Tasmanian devil you see in Li’l Abner: I was never sure which direction he was going to take. In any event, the contribution he has made is something that should be singled out and underlined.

I also want to say that member has given the best of himself on behalf of the province. We know he has had heart problems. I say with sincerity to him that this is something, unfortunately, that results when one has possibly worked too hard, whose enthusiasm was not mixed with a certain amount of pace and variety of activities so that he could accept the work load. I think his contribution should be underlined and he is one of the members we shall miss.

Talking about missing certain members, how we miss the former leader of the New Democratic Party in this place. I think he is one, over the years, whose debating skill and oratory is certainly missed. I intend to talk later on about my colleagues to the left. The enthusiasm that man generated as compared to what I thought was the thinking socialist, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). I thought he was going to stick to principle. Considering what is happening on that side now, Stephen Lewis must be wondering what is happening to his old party.

Another fellow we miss around here is the former member for Wentworth, Ian Deans, who is now in the federal House. We also miss some of our colleagues, like the former member for Sarnia, James Bullbrook, who performed well. We miss Darcy McKeough, who also was able to give this place some flavour. These are people we miss and I want to underline the fact that without them the place is not the same.

It is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate and it is an important day for members of this party, because this is our first motion of no confidence proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith).

Mr. Laughren: It took a long time for you to screw up your courage.

Mr. Roy: To the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), I remind him that we told the NDP on its eight other no-confidence motions -- we told it regularly -- “We will tell you when we are ready, and when we are ready we hope you are.” What happens on the first occasion we are ready? I intend to talk about our colleague from Nickel Belt. I can remember that famous statement of his, “Get out of the way, we are coming through.”

I must not get sidetracked. As appetizing as it is to go towards that issue right now, I must say other things that have been written for me here.

We in the official opposition had no choice but to propose a motion of no confidence for what I consider to be this weary, backward-looking, unimaginative, unfeeling and at times cynical, smug and arrogant government.

I will have choice words for the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) at the proper time.

One wonders why they feel so smug. It certainly can’t be based on their accomplishments, because the credo of the Tory Party since 1975 has been basically one of doing nothing. As my leader has said time and time again, theirs are sins of omission. They feel arrogant because they have managed to cling to power for 37 years and under Bill Davis, especially since 1975, they have had no goals, no priority except one -- that is basically retaining power. I intend to proceed on the ways they have managed to retain power.

In an

article just a few weeks ago in the Toronto Star, the author said, “The spirit of care and concern which brought the Tories to power under George Drew, nurtured them under Frost and sustained them under Robarts, has fossilized under Davis.” I thought that was so a propos.

How many topics are there in the throne speech? I think there are about 90. On the basis of the old scheme they say: “If we talk about it people will get the impression we are doing something about this, so we will talk about every possible topic that has been raised since 1975; not only raised by people out there in the community but raised by the opposition, raised by our friends, raised by every possible group out there in the community.”

4:20 p.m.

We have basically a throne speech which reflects the leader himself. I thought the Ottawa Citizen said it well. Looking at the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, March 12, 1980, if I may read, the title of it is “Too bland to bother.” It goes on: “Premier William Davis can take a bow. The speech from the throne in the Ontario Legislature has been graven in his image -- bland and inoffensive.” I thought, right on.

“No one will get too excited about anything it promises except a few anti-nuclear alarmists who don’t realize that the Davis government is saying nothing new in confirming its commitment to nuclear energy. This document will not bring about an election this spring despite Liberal leader Stuart Smith’s avowed intention of defeating the government.” Listen to this -- it’s not me saying it, it’s the Ottawa Citizen: “The shaky-kneed New Democrats won’t even introduce their traditional amendment to force a vote of no confidence.”

Mr. Conway: Say that again.

Mr. Roy: It says: “The shaky-kneed New Democrats won’t even introduce their traditional amendment to force a vote of no confidence. They are desperately afraid that no matter how carefully they word the amendment, the Liberals might rationalize it and join forces to cause an election.” It’s absolute panic over there.

These are examples of what we were talking about, how bland the speech was. One can see that the government is really thinking. Davis and the boys -- Hugh Segal --

Mr. Conway: Some of the girls.

Mr. Roy: -- and a few of the girls once in a while, get together and they say: “How can we get that enthusiasm of the past, the days of George Drew?” One will remember that effort in 1977, the charter, which was intended to repeat the promises that brought on a Tory administration back in the days of George Drew. “How can we bring some of that back?” they ask.

As one of the many examples of fossilization that characterizes this government, the throne speech states once again, “Proper manpower development and deployment will be of the utmost importance as one of the cornerstones of a healthy and growing economy in the 1980s.”

Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) is leaving.

Mr. Roy: That is right. His timing is just beautiful.

Mr. Nixon: He is on his way out in more ways than one!

Mr. Roy: Unfortunately he has the same contempt for this place as most of his colleagues and is walking out while we are talking about him. By the way, his major program --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The only one who shows contempt is you. You never bother to arrive.

Mr. Roy: Yes, Bette, yes. I am trying to understand what the minister is saying but I can’t.

Mrs. Campbell: “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Mr. Roy: Right. It goes on to say, “The key area of focus will be to produce sufficient numbers of skilled personnel from within our own work force to meet the needs of the Ontario economy.” Since 1963, at about the time the Premier (Mr. Davis) became Minister of Education, at least half a dozen government reports have strongly recommended the expansion of alternatives to formally institutionalize education and training. They have recommended enhanced apprenticeship programs.

In the throne speech of two years ago the government spoke of giving highest priority to evolving training programs geared to the manpower needs of industry. This year, some 17 years later, we get more talk and the situation desperately cries out for action.

Just last month we had something like 150,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 out of work. The rate of unemployment at that level is 14.5. We are talking of Ontario, not Newfoundland. There has been a 23 per cent increase in unemployment in that age category in Ontario. Yet, at the same time, industry is desperately short of skilled manpower for its needs and is forced to look to Europe and elsewhere to fill these jobs.

This crisi