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

June 7, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L076 - Mon 7 Jun 1976 / Lun 7 jun 1976

PRIME MINISTER’S COMMENTS ON DAIRY INDUSTRY

FOREST FIRES

GRASSY NARROWS RESERVE

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS FUND

FOREST FIRES

GRASSY NARROWS RESERVE

RADIOACTIVITY AT PORT HOPE

WATER POLLUTION

SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENT SURVEY

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

AID TO NORTHERN ONTARIO FARMERS

PETROLEUM PRICING REPORT

TARIFF POLICY ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

ALLEGED OHIP FRAUDS

CLOSURE OF ARENAS

BENDED ELBOW II

OHC RENT INCREASES

KELSON SPRING PRODUCTS LTD.

AMUSEMENT PARK SAFETY INSPECTIONS

POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AMENDMENT ACT

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

PRIME MINISTER’S COMMENTS ON DAIRY INDUSTRY

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on some comments on the recent report relating to the dairy industry.

I was interested, perplexed, and frankly, angry at Mr. Trudeau’s comments on the Betty Kennedy show which were later reported in last Saturday’s Globe and Mail. In this newspaper the Prime Minister blamed provincial mismanagement for dairy surpluses.

An hon. member: You are complaining?

Hon. W. Newman: What a switch from Mr. Trudeau’s earlier comments to the House of Commons on Sept. 4, 1973 --

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: What did he say in 1971?

Hon. W. Newman: I quote: “Increased food production in Canada, encouraged by measures to bring more stability and security of prices to producers -- ”

Mr. Kerrio: The statute of limitations has run out.

Hon. W. Newman: “ -- strikes at the heart of high food prices now being faced by consumers.”

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: To continue:

“Therefore, the government is prepared to put in place measures such as higher support payments for agricultural commodities, advanced payments on a wide range of agricultural products, commodity- oriented government-producer financed income stabilization programmes and such other measures as might evolve after the September conference.

“The September conference referred to by Mr. Trudeau is the federal-provincial ministerial meeting on food production policies held in Ottawa on Sept. 27, 1973, and explicitly convened by Mr. Whelan with direct orders from Mr. Trudeau.”

At that conference the Ontario government presented a policy paper which stated categorically, and I quote:

“The Ontario position is that the several governments of Canada, provincial and federal, should encourage an increase in agricultural production in Canada, provided that producers receive guarantees that this increased production will not impinge upon their incomes.”

The paper went on to say:

“If governments take over-active steps to stimulate production and then, in the absence of realistic price guarantees, prices fall toward historically unattractive levels, governments will quite properly be held responsible by Canadian farmers. We welcome the Prime Minister’s comment that his government will put in place higher support levels for agricultural products.

“Ontario believes that the producers should be encouraged to expand production to fill assured markets, whether they be domestic or export, but this production should be geared to provide the security and confidence so urgently needed by the industry.”

After all that, Mr. Trudeau has the nerve to suggest provincial mismanagement for dairy surpluses.

An hon. member: What a shame.

Hon. W. Newman: Our IMPIP was implemented in 1973 because the federal government was trying to make the Canadian dairy industry as nearly self-sufficient as possible, and the provinces were responding to its calls for increased production. However, as Ontario’s output increased, part of our market share quota was automatically transferred to other provinces annually.

One fact that Mr. Trudeau fails to realize is that even with our IMPIP programme, our milk output was only 97 per cent of what Ottawa has asked us to produce in the 1975-1976 dairy year.

Yes, the dairy industry is facing problems, but we must work in a spirit of co-operation to resolve the present problem. Let Mr. Trudeau get the facts straight before he comments on a subject which he knows little about and should better leave to his Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan.

FOREST FIRES

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, before oral questions, I wonder, in view of the seriousness of the fire hazard in northern Ontario, if perhaps the Chairman of Cabinet (Mr. Brunelle) could give us a report in the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) as to the occurrences there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the Minister of Natural Resources was out in the lobby talking to his deputy about that very subject. I expect he will be in shortly.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it could be raised as a question --

Mr. Reid: Could we revert to statements when the minister comes in?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. Or perhaps it might come up in a question addressed to the minister when he arrives, if he does not have a statement prepared.

Mr. Lewis: Why take the time of question period?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, due to the importance of the whole situation, I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to revert to statements when the minister comes in.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have such unanimous consent if the minister has something to say on this? I am sure he will have. Thank you.

Oral questions.

GRASSY NARROWS RESERVE

Mr. Lewis: A question first for the Solicitor General, if I may: Can he report on his espionage inquiry into Grassy Narrows?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I received a report just about one minute ago; I haven’t had an opportunity of looking it over, but I will do so now.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since a charge of sabotage was put, involving a major reserve in the northwest, could he possibly just read -- that’s only on one page; I imagine it clarifies it pretty easily.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I would like the opportunity of reading it myself first. I don’t know who made the charge of sabotage. It wasn’t made by me --

Mr. Lewis: The Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I want to read this over. It’s a police report and I will read it.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I have the agreement of the House to revert to ministerial statements when the minister has read his report?

Mr. Speaker: If the minister has a statement to make.

Hon Mr. MacBeth: I don’t intend to make any statement at this point. It may warrant a statement tomorrow or at some time in the future, but I have no intention of making a statement on it today.

Mr. Lewis: If it’s a whole page, suppose the minister reads it and I will come back to it.

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask the Minister of the Environment what happened in the case of the Stouffville dump and York Sanitation, which initially caused the government so much anxiety in giving the dump the right to pursue its processes? Now the ministry finds in two separate tests that in fact there are polluted wells and that information is not shared with the public but is shared only in private with the council. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As the hon. member knows, there was a lengthy hearing dealing with that site. The board approved the establishment of the dump, based on the satisfying of certain conditions that were laid down by the board. One of the conditions was the concern of leaching from the dump which may affect some private wells. There was some indication of some contamination. That is being held up until the operator of that facility can satisfy the ministry.

I’m not aware that this information isn’t public, Mr. Speaker; I assumed it was public information. It’s referred to in the report and certainly the conditions laid down by the board are public information.

If there are some specific wells owned by people living in that area who are concerned about whether or not they are affected I’d be happy to get that information.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister not aware that within the last 10 days senior environmental officer Paul Isles met with Mayor Gordon Ratcliff and members of the council in secret and revealed that tests have shown aquifer pollution in two wells tested by the ministry, and that this information had been kept private for a month? Indeed, he may have met with the council almost a month ago. I’d like to know when the tests will be made public and what action the ministry will take.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether or not they met in secret. I imagine it would be an informal meeting --

Mr. Lewis: The council admits it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- in somebody’s office, possibly. I don’t know if they met with the full council or not. There have been ongoing meetings between my ministry and the representatives of the council to find out whether or not they wish to have that site operating and plan to meet our conditions. If the hon. member wants a report on the wells I’d be happy to bring it to the Legislature.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS FUND

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Can he comment today on the Marisa Zorsitto case, the jury award of $349,000 because of an automobile accident and the motor accident indemnity fund providing a maximum of $50,000? Can he discuss the government’s position on this kind of unhappy situation?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, of course, I think everybody sympathizes with the very tragic circumstances the young lady finds herself in. The statute provides for a maximum of $50,000 out of the fund. I would prefer not to deal with it in a very haphazard way but to see whether or not there are alternatives whereby this one unfortunate circumstance can be dealt with, rather than saying, “Yes, we can pay more.” We can’t, under the law. The law limits it to $50,000; I’m sure every member is aware of that.

I would like to be able to put together some of the thoughts there may be on the subject -- those appearing in the press and elsewhere -- to see whether or not, first of all, the young lady’s situation can be dealt with and whether similar situations in the future can be dealt with in a more orderly rather than an ad hoc fashion.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may: Given the clear injustice of this case and the insufficiency of the fund to deal with situations like this, why is the minister’s philosophic rigidity preventing him from recognizing that if there were compulsory automobile insurance in Ontario, appropriately enforced and administered, with a high enough minimum, this kind of case could never occur?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to point out to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that philosophical flexibility would not result in anything more in any other province, regardless of the political stripe of its government.

Mr. Lewis: Come on!

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The maximum being paid under compulsory insurance is $50,000 unless the driver wishes to obtain more. That’s open to any driver in this province, too. I don’t see that the philosophic rigidity --

Mr. Lewis: Change the minimums.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- the hon. member refers to has any bearing whatsoever. Again, I would like to say that I don’t want to reject this proposition out of hand but I certainly can’t ad hoc it either. I think we have to take a careful look at it.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: In the particular case being referred to, is the minister aware that the $50,000 maximum will hardly even pay for this very unfortunate person’s medical and rehabilitative expenses, to say nothing of the grave difficulty she now faces for the rest of her life in attempting to carry on her profession? Can he not bring in an increased limit to the fund and make it retroactive to cover this case or have some other means of handling the situation?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want it to appear as though nobody on this side of the House has any sympathy whatsoever for the situation the young lady finds herself in but, again, I should point out that this is an isolated incident. To change the fund -- which could be done, of course -- to suit one particular case of an injustice might not be the best course of action. It may very well be necessary to deal with it as an individual case.

But I would like to point out that if we were to raise the fund or to impose compulsory insurance with amounts of $100,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 or $500,000, there would always be a case of a judgement higher than that. There was a judgement recently in Ottawa of $1 million, and the question is whether or not the public is ready to pay more for the isolated instances.

We recognize the injustice to an individual, but whether or not that creates a situation whereby the whole system has to be changed is another matter. We are certainly sympathetic to that case.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Quite apart from the ad hoc-ery that the minister is talking about, isn’t he of an opinion -- inflation being such and cost of everything being such -- that the time has now come to raise the $50,000 limit right across the board, both for the fund and for the minimum amount, and make it at least $ 100,000, and perhaps more, depending on what the select committee might later advise? Would the minister agree that $50,000, in light of the circumstances existing today, is far too low?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would probably agree to that in principle, and I’m pleased that the chairman of the select committee has relieved us of the responsibility of waiting for the report.

Mr. Singer: Bring it up to $100,000.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Certainly, I think it is worthy of consideration. Again, the question of the additional premium is one that we would have to consider and whether the public is prepared to pay, because somebody is going to have to pay for the additional coverage. The other aspect, of course, is that the higher that amount, the more likely the courts are to make higher awards, and it becomes a snowballing effect. However, I think we can take a look at that and deal with it on its merits.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may, in two short parts: To avoid the snowballing effect the minister describes, just how many drivers are covered by the motor accident indemnity fund, and can the minister later make a statement to the House as to how he might make up the discrepancy between the $50,000 presently available under the law and the $350,000 which the court awarded?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t made any commitment at all to make up the difference between the $50,000 --

Mr. Lewis: Well, the minister said he wanted to talk about it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I said we would like to look at the circumstances to see whether or not some relief can be given to the individual involved. Whether or not that means paying out of public funds the full amount of the award might very well be something that I would want to give second thoughts to.

Certainly, the number of drivers who contribute to the motor vehicle accident claims fund is less, in our view, than three per cent of the drivers on the road in Ontario. So we have more than 97 per cent of our drivers who are insured, but they may be underinsured, too, and that’s another point that we would have to look at. I was hoping, of course, that the select committee would deal with that in its deliberations. But if it is an urgent matter that has to be dealt with, then I’m sure the government will do that.

Mr. Lewis: Can we revert to the Minister of Natural Resources? I have one question.

Mr. Speaker: I might point out to the hon. Minister of Natural Resources that there has been a request that perhaps he might be in a position to make a statement about the forest fire situation. If that is so, he has the unanimous consent of the House to do so.

FOREST FIRES

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House that the situation continues to be very grave and very serious, particularly in northwestern Ontario. I believe I referred to it on the weekend as an explosive situation. At the present time, we have 165 fires raging in northwestern Ontario. There were 65 new ones yesterday. We were able, with our forces, to extinguish 32. As a matter of comparison, this year we have had 928 fires to date, and the normal for this time of the year is about 400 -- so you can see the seriousness of the situation from those figures.

The weather conditions are encouraging. There is a weather system north of Red Lake causing some cloud formation. There was very little precipitation in the northwest last night -- more electrical storms. At the present time about 300,000 acres of prime forest land are burning in northwestern Ontario. One further aircraft has gone down, following my report of last week, at White Cliff. No fatality. Two of our staff are in the Sioux Lookout district hospital with minor injuries.

The community giving us some concern at the present time is Pickle Lake. There is a fire of about 12,000 acres just south of Pickle Lake, and that is receiving our full effort and is a top priority with our staff at the present time. Rounds Lake was in danger for a short period of time, but I have to admit and I am thankful that the federal government has assisted us in bringing a special force to that particular community, along with our own forces, and we’ve been able to hold the fires in around that community.

Allan Water has been evacuated and 70-odd people have been brought to Armstrong. A number of summer cottages have been destroyed in the Allan Water area; we haven’t got the exact details at this time.

I might say we are receiving some tremendous co-operation from other jurisdictions. Alberta is sending us nine 28-men crews that are completely qualified and experienced in firefighting, along with their equipment. They will be arriving today. Also, from Boise, Idaho, we’re receiving some infrared camera equipment and some mobile weather detecting units which will assist us in combatting the serious situation in northwestern Ontario.

On the weekend I asked for the co-operation of the public at large. My own ministry has curtailed all work activities in the forests of northwestern Ontario such as tree planting and silviculture programmes. We have cancelled temporarily any roadbuilding programmes. We have asked the private sector to do likewise. We have had excellent cooperation to date from the tourist industry. The indications from the woods industry are that we will receive that same co-operation.

At the present time, we have sufficient access to firefighters and that particular resource. When the sawmills and the logging industry shut down, this will give us further ample supply, so I don’t see any particular shortage in that respect. If we do not get the co-operation to the fullest extent with regard to the curtailing of forest operations, I indicated yesterday at Dryden that I’m prepared to enact further stricter measures and controls under

section 23 of the Forest Fires Prevention Act, but I hope we won’t have to do this. It will depend on the cooperation of the public in that particular area. The time and effort that are spent taking people out of the bush in hazardous areas are causing us some concern. As an example, in the Sioux Lookout district alone on Saturday, we spent more time evacuating people and looking for people who we knew were in that general area than we did in actually combatting the fire. We think that with the co-operation and the continued effort of our staff and the industry, both the tourist industry and the logging industry, we can come to grips with it if we get a little rain.

Mr. Reid: May I ask a question for clarification, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: There will be an opportunity for questions in a moment, please. I judge the statement to have been about four minutes long.

GRASSY NARROWS RESERVE

Mr. Lewis: I would like to ask the Solicitor General whether, having looked at his one-page statement, he is able to establish sabotage at Grassy Narrows?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, I’m prepared to read this report with one or two admissions -- omissions.

Mr. Lewis: Selective editing, eh?

Mr. Moffatt: Admissions?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Not admissions -- omissions. I want to leave out the name of a youth involved and what the next step may be. It’s a report from Inspector Douglas Civil “re: Freezer and Fish, Grassy Narrows Indian Reserve”:

“On May 31, 1976, Stephen Lewis, leader of the New Democratic Party, claimed that the freezer in question had not been functional since mid-May. Lewis said that Natural Resources personnel failed to respond to a complaint made by the reserve. The Hon. Leo Bernier, Minister of Natural Resources denied that his personnel had received a complaint and [said] that the freezer had been deliberately sabotaged. Bernier requested police investigation through the Solicitor General, Hon. John MacBeth.

“My investigation revealed that no report of a non-functional freezer had been received by Natural Resources, or the freezer installer, Northwind Refrigeration Co., Kenora. This information comes from Chief Joseph Quoquat, Grassy Narrows, and council. Investigation revealed that the two compressor switches were in the tripped position. The two fan switches and one louvre switch were in the off position. The above would indicate that there was no ventilation in the compressor room; therefore, the compressor motor would overheat” --

I’m having some trouble. The police used a machine to send this through and reading it is not that easy.

-- “and short the breaker switch into the tripped position as found. Hugh Murray, of Northwind Refrigeration, verifies the above findings and I inspected the freezer with Natural Resources personnel.

“On Friday, June 5, 1976, [This is where I’m leaving out the name and date of birth] aged 13 years, admitted that on the evening of May 22 he broke and entered the freezer. The youth played with the switches for the fan, turning them on and off. He would throw stones into the fan blades and watch them be thrown about. He also played with the light switches, leaving all switches in the off position when he left the building, locking the door that he had slipped. A statement has been obtained from [so-and-so] in the presence of his uncle. [There is a little description of the uncle.]

“I should point out that the fish were tested on May 18, 1976, by Health and Welfare Canada. The fish were found to be unfit for human consumption. A letter dated May 28, 1976, from Dr. T. C. Kershaw, programme medical officer, 34 North Cumberland St., Thunder Bay, verifies this fact.

“[So-and-so] acted alone in this situation and did so without realizing the seriousness of his act or the consequences. The youth entered the building to play with the equipment and still fails to realize the connection between the fans and the compressor units. A total of 7,500 lb of whitefish has been disposed of from the freezer in question.”

Then there was another paragraph in connection with the reference to the Crown attorney.

Mr. Lewis: I start with a point of personal privilege, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to say that I regret I accepted the information given to me that MNR was phoned if, in fact, there was no such phone call made. Having said that, I now want to seek certain points of clarification which, frankly, stun me a little.

Did the minister say that on May 18, 1976, Health and Welfare Canada said that the fish was unfit for consumption?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The report stated:

“I should point out that the fish were tested on May 18, 1976, by Health and Welfare Canada. The fish were found to be unfit for human consumption. A letter dated May 28, 1976, from Dr. T. G. Kershaw, programme medical officer, 34 North Cumberland St., Thunder Bay, verifies this fact.”

Mr. Lewis: If the minister thinks I was bewildered when I was up there he doesn’t know how I feel now. I presume there will be a further statement?

May I ask the minister to speak to his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, or the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) and try to clear up for us why no one was told or knew at a meeting on May 20, at which National Health and Welfare was represented, that the fish was unfit for human consumption and nothing was said in the presence of all the Indians gathered? Second, am I right in having heard the minister say that the number of pounds of fish destroyed was in excess of 7,000?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Seven thousand five hundred.

Mr. Lewis: Seven thousand five hundred; so that, in fact, what the Indians said was valid on that occasion? Finally, do I take it that the young boy involved was not, in the minister’s mind, guilty of sabotage but rather one of those unhappy and destructive adolescent pranks which occur from time to time? Is that a fair distinction?

Mr. MacDonald: But it was all after the fish had spoiled.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think that’s fair. They suggested here that the young lad didn’t know the consequences of what he was doing. “He would throw stones into the fan blades and watch them be thrown about. He also played with the light switches leaving all switches in the off position.” Somewhere else there’s reference to that.

Mr. Lewis: By way of one quick supplementary: This isn’t much solace or salvation but I take it that the boy’s prank was inconsequential anyway, since the fish were unfit for human consumption on May 18, several days before his act of delinquency?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I’m not prepared to say that because I don’t think this report gives us the date of the first time he went in to play with the fan in that way. I don’t think that date is given so I’m not so sure it was inconsequential.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has a mess over there and he is going to have to clear it up at some point.

[2:30]

RADIOACTIVITY AT PORT HOPE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Regarding the soil from Port Hope and the possibility of putting it in Base Borden, what studies have been undertaken of the Base Borden area, in view of the sandy soil and the inevitability of leaching action into two of southern Ontario’s best trout streams, to support the minister’s reported statement a week or two ago that the base would be an ideal site to dump radioactive waste?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, regarding Camp Borden, as far as I am aware there hasn’t been any testing or checking or analysing of that particular location or that particular camp as far as its being a disposal site is concerned. All I was attempting to say, indicated in the discussions with the press after my statement in the Legislature, was that this type of site might be ideal for the disposal of radioactive waste.

First of all, it is owned by the federal government, and it is the federal government’s responsibility to dispose of this radioactive waste. It is a large tract of land, usually with a great deal of empty space adjoining the buildings and hangars and the barracks and things of that kind, and therefore it could be ideal from the point of view of being isolated from the public generally and from housing generally. But as far as specifying that the site was acceptable, I had no intention of doing that.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, as Minister of the Environment, doesn’t the minister feel it would be wise to get some advice about aspects other than simply distance from housing? And could the minister tell us please where in relation to the Mad and the Nottawasaga rivers and the Minesing Swamp and the village of Angus his site was located? Is it not the minister’s job to make sure that the public understands that the dumping of radioactive fill requires more than just physical distance from houses, and that soil conditions and streams are probably the most important aspect?

Hon Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member has had a great deal of correspondence and possibly even a telephone call or two since that statement was made. Certainly we satisfy ourselves before a site is acceptable and designated for disposal of waste of any kind. As I just said to the hon. member, that was used as an example. There are hundreds of such sites across this country owned by the federal government that were used for armed forces training, and the point I wanted to make was that such a site is owned by the federal government and, therefore, it doesn’t require costly acquisition or expropriation of land in some other way.

WATER POLLUTION

Mr. S. Smith: Another question of the Minister of the Environment on an unrelated topic, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister provide us with the most recent findings concerning the testing of municipally treated water for the presence of chloro-organic compounds, particularly chloroform and the like, especially in view of the recent report from the United States indicating that birth defects may be caused by pollutants of this nature?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am sorry, I didn’t hear the first part. Is the member talking about water purification plants?

Mr. S. Smith: Yes -- the chloro-organic compounds; chloroform in the water. As the minister knows, the level is very high in Brantford and certain other areas in the province.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I’ll get that information. I am not aware of any problem as far as our own filtration or purification plants are concerned. Our water is tested at these plants as being acceptable for drinking purposes and I would assume there is no problem. However, I will get that information.

Mr. S. Smith: Just by way of supplementary, is the minister aware that Belleville has, it seems, topped the province in chloroform counts, and is he aware that in a recent

article on May 31, reprinted from the Washington Star, chloroform was directly linked with cancer and with birth defects in several American cities? Perhaps he would like to look into this and report to us about that?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, it is always a dangerous thing to relate existing circumstances with respect to a plant in Ontario with some

article that is written in the United States. The cause of chloroform in water may be as the hon. member relates, but the question of clean drinking water is a very sensitive thing. I think the hon. member should be careful before he alleges there are any problems in any community in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, I will be careful. I am still hoping the minister will give an answer.

SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENT SURVEY

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Education, following up on the question in estimates asked by my colleague, the member for London South (Mr. Ferris) on Thursday. Given the rather expensive nature of the interface study being conducted under the auspices of his ministry, how can the minister have confidence that the standards being tested represent a meaningful average for the secondary school population, when there is reason to believe that a certain group among the school population is simply choosing not to bother to take these tests and the sample may well be skewed with those who are more interested in achievement and more inclined toward this form of testing?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, as I said the other night during the estimates when my friend was not present, this is a very extensive research study that is going on.

Mr. S. Smith: I am sure the Premier was present at the time.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My goodness, you are testy.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It’s being done by competent researchers and they know their business better than you or I know the research business. I’m sure if there is something happening that is going to skewer the study, then that will not go ahead. I have confidence they will do it in such a way that the results they present will be meaningful and that we will be able to draw some conclusions from them. I don’t think I can say any more than that. I’m not personally running the study; it’s being done by three groups of competent researchers.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, would the minister assure the House that he will kindly contact these researchers, as we have done, and find out from them whether they are concerned that this expensive study might show nothing, because of such a bias, and report the results of that inquiry to the House?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am kind of amazed, if the member has been in contact with these researchers and they’ve reported this to him, that we, who are supposedly hiring them, have not been alerted to this fact. I think they probably have alerted us to the fact that they may be having certain problems, but all I would have to say is I think the onus should be on them to report to us.

Mr. S. Smith: So the minister won’t report to the House. He’s invested in interface.

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Attorney General: Can the minister assure us that the OPP investigation into Browndale will be reported to this House sometime before we rise for the summer recess, and can he explain why the OPP has not simply gone in and taken the figures it requires to carry out its investigation? Why do we have to wait at the pleasure of Debbie Brown?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have not had a recent report in relation to the investigation into Browndale, part of the reason being in respect to certain of my responsibilities last week in Ottawa. What I would endeavour to do is obtain for the leader of the Liberal Party some information in respect to what stage the investigation is in and as to whether or not it is reasonable to assume there will be any report made to the Legislature before the Legislature rises. I simply can’t answer the question at this time, but hopefully I’ll be able to do so within the next day or two.

AID TO NORTHERN ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Angus: A question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: As his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, will tell him, the climatic conditions in northwestern Ontario are very severe and have led to a situation of almost crisis proportions to the farmers, particularly dairy farmers in Thunder Bay. Is the minister aware that they have only approximately two weeks’ supply of feed left for the cattle? Would he investigate the matter and table a report to the Legislature as to what emergency measures he will take to protect their investments?

Hon. W. Newman: I’m very aware of the problems in northwestern Ontario and the extreme drought conditions that have created some problems for the agricultural community up there. I’m also aware of the fact that we do have a northern Ontario fund, which is allocated to the various farmers in the areas and which, if I remember correctly, is somewhere over $400,000. Certainly we realize that if the drought continues there’s going to be a serious problem for the farmers up there. I’m not going to get a lengthy report, but I will get a report on it.

Mr. Angus: Supplementary: Would it be possible for the minister’s staff to meet with the farmers in the area within the week to ascertain how serious the problem may be, so that before they do run out of feed they can have some brought in?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, my staff are always available for meetings and I’m sure if the member contacts our office up there they’d be glad to sit down and discuss those concerns with the farmers in the area.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Is the minister thinking of a possible programme such as the one, I think, that had to be implemented two years ago, of flying in hay, feed and special emergency supplies? It was just prior to the election, I believe.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I think two years ago when we moved some hay into some of the areas this was because of a shortage of hay for the winter. That was the problem they were faced with at that point in time. I think there was some assistance in moving the hay. We’ve had the same sort of programme in the past, not in that area, but in some other areas. We look forward to the farmers meeting with our people up there and as soon as I get a report, certainly we’ll look into it.

PETROLEUM PRICING REPORT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell), I’d like to direct a question to the Premier. Is the Premier aware that a very similar report to that of the Isbister commission was published in the Province of British Columbia, with very similar terms of reference, coming to dramatically different conclusions from those of the Isbister report? Is the Premier aware of that BC report?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of it. I must confess I wouldn’t be totally surprised that with two different people you could have two different reports. If the hon. member would like to send it to me --

Mr. MacDonald: One took the facts into account and the other didn’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I’ll make sure the Minister of Energy gets a copy of it. I’d like to read it myself.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: In view of the dramatically different conclusions, and also in view of the Minister of Energy’s statement that he’s looking for public input after the fact, after the report is published, would the Premier consider having a debate in this House on the results of the Isbister commission?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure there need be a debate. I don’t know whether the hon. member has spoken yet in the budget debate to express his thoughts on matters of energy, though I know he has some. I don’t know whether the estimates for the Ministry of Energy have been passed, but that might be a good opportunity. However, if he would send me a copy of the report, I’ll make sure the minister gets it. As I say, I’d like to see it as well.

I really think I’ve heard the hon. member on two or three occasions give us his views on energy, but if these need to be updated now, I’d be delighted to receive those too.

Mr. Peterson: You can hear them right now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And I know what they are.

Mr. Mancini: Everything’s a laughing matter.

TARIFF POLICY ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food on the federal government’s very real lack of concern for the farmers, particularly as witnessed by the recent federal budget which placed tariff burdens on fruits and vegetables --

An hon. member: Question?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Hodgson: -- and a certain variety of meat products: What is the minister prepared to do to bring trade equity between the farmers’ products and those coming into the province from outside this country? I have a very real concern, Mr. Speaker, particularly for the area that I represent. In the Holland Marsh, where the lettuce and stuff is coming on to the market, they’ve already lost a great deal of money on this --

An hon. member: Speech!

Mr. Speaker: I think the question has been put.

Mr. Conway: Straighten him out, Darcy.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure this House is well aware of the fact we were very much concerned about the federal budget that was brought down just recently.

Mr. Conway: Darcy thought it was a very good one.

Hon. W. Newman: We have set up a special ministerial committee regarding the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in the Province of Ontario. We’ve had several meetings. We’ve also had the Ministry of Industry and Tourism involved in our discussions because we are concerned about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and how the Ontario farmers are being ripped off --

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and I say ripped off, by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, because we’re still living in the 1930s as far as tariffs are concerned.

Mr. Nixon: I hear you are going to let them bring in grape concentrates.

Hon. W. Newman: To bring out this budget reducing tariffs on fruits and vegetables and on some pork products just puts an extra burden on the producers in this province.

We may talk about stabilization and saving farmlands, but I’ll say this, if we don’t have some equity in the border control we’re going to have some real problems.

[2:45]

Mr. Conway: Go to Quebec.

Hon. W. Newman: So, we are heading up to Ottawa on June 25, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and I.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mancini: Why don’t you go to Washington?

Mr. Hodgson: You are not concerned, eh?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There was a question asked and it is being answered.

Hon. W. Newman: The Minister of Industry and Tourism and myself are leading a delegation to Ottawa on June 25 to meet with Mr. Eugene Whelan, the Minister of Agriculture; Mr. Donald Macdonald, the Minister of Finance; and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. -- I have forgotten his name for a moment; sorry about that.

Mr. Conway: Alvin Hamilton!

Hon. W. Newman: Anyway, we are going to meet with them in Ottawa to discuss the problems that we are faced with here in the Province of Ontario.

We are not asking for anything more than equity. We are not asking them to put a barrier around this province of ours, but it is time we got some fair treatment for the agricultural industry in the Province of Ontario as far as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is concerned.

ALLEGED OHIP FRAUDS

Mr. Mackenzie: A question to the Attorney General: Would the minister inform this House as to the status of the 12 to 15 cases of OHIP billing which Mr. Featherstone told the public accounts committee last Thursday looked like obvious cases of fraud and had been referred to the Attorney General’s department but, with possibly one exception, have never come to court?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have no information at all relating to these matters, but I will inquire from the officials in my ministry and report to the House accordingly.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister, at the same time, let us know why some of these cases go back almost two years and why the ministry officials themselves have not been informed as to the reasons for them not going to court?

Mr. Makarchuk: You don’t hesitate to rap the welfare guys.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have nothing further to add, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A final supplementary on this; the member for High Park- Swansea.

Mr. Ziemba: A supplementary for the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker: Is he considering laying charges as a result of the information that I turned over to Insp. Manneke three weeks ago?

Mr. Speaker: Does that have anything to do with this question?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t think so.

CLOSURE OF ARENAS

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Based on the best legal advice I can afford, I understand the government’s authority to close arenas in the province under sections 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of the Industrial Safety Act is even more tenuous than it was with the hospital closings, which basically means that the government doesn’t have the authority to close arenas.

Since some communities are thinking of taking legal action, would the minister consider lifting the closure orders -- now winter is over and certainly the greatest danger has passed in that respect -- and, as an alternative, undertake to work with the communities affected to see if the necessary improvements cannot be made by next fall, thus avoiding the heavy-handed attitude which has been undertaken by the minister?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there has been anything but a heavy-handed attitude regarding the closing of arenas.

Mr. Smith: These guys are recidivists.

Hon. B. Stephenson: In 1969, municipalities were warned that their arenas would not, in fact, be fit for human habitation for short periods of time as a result of the lack of structural capability of their roofs.

In 1970, they were notified again. They were asked to send in engineering reports in 1971, 1972 and 1973. We requested that information because of our concern for the public safety. We did, in fact, get very little response from the municipalities. This year, in 1975 at least, at a meeting of PMLC, the municipalities suggested we send letters to the heads of all of the municipalities outlining the fact that we really were concerned and that there were certain requirements which had to be met under the Industrial Safety Act.

That Industrial Safety Act, I would remind my learned colleague, was changed last year in order to give the province the authority to close the arenas, should this situation arise. When we heard from the various municipalities, and they did submit engineering reports -- and those reports supported the fact that the arenas were not worthy of being kept open under snow loads and wind loads -- we simply sent out letters requesting that they close the arenas in the interest of safety.

My friend across the way knows very well, because I have had many discussions with him, that many of the arenas that have an engineers’ report, saying they are capable of withstanding a certain wind stress, may remain open until Oct. 15 of this year in order to accommodate certain summer activities which apparently are going on. We are not being heavy-handed. We are certainly trying to be charitable, but it’s a little difficult to be excessively charitable when human safety is involved.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Since I can cite an example to the minister of an arena that was built only two years ago and is supported entirely by steel trusses, which seems to me to be a pretty safe construction, and still doesn’t meet the standards of the National Building Code of 75 lb per square foot, I believe, does the minister not consider it somewhat unfair to apply the standards of the National Building Code retroactively?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have great difficulty in being less concerned about the safety of the children who might play hockey in that arena than I am about the children who might play hockey in another arena. I would think that if, in fact, that building has been built within such a short span of time, it would not take much in the way of extra trussing to support that roof so that it would be safe and I am wondering if the engineer, whose report we must have within the ministry about this, has not suggested such a move.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary?

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: I think the member for Grey was on his feet first for a supplementary.

Mr. McKessock: In view of the fact that we do take a lot of chances in this life and we know that if we reduced the speed limit to 20 miles an hour we would do away with traffic deaths, and in view of the fact that we are in a time of restraint and it’s a long shot that any of these arenas will ever fall down -- if there are no other alternatives -- would the minister consider giving them at least five years to replace these buildings before she closes their doors?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: And pay all the damages?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We have had examples in which arenas have collapsed in this province and unfortunately we have had some examples where buildings such as arenas collapsed with loss of life. We really do not wish to repeat this when it is possible to prevent it. The Ministry of Labour has a committee set up with the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, and we will be very happy to work with any of the municipal elected representatives who would like to discuss the possibility of supportive funding for repair or modification of their arenas, or replacement thereof.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary on this. They seem to be repetitive. They seem to be the same questions in different words, getting the same answers. I will allow a supplementary by the member for Wilson Heights. Perhaps he has a new thought.

Mr. Singer: I wonder if the minister would consider, as her inspectors make these reports, making available to the municipalities the corrections that would be necessary to bring them within the required standards? I would expect the local municipality often might not know what it has to do, and if it had the information from the ministry, it would be easier to go about the task of making the buildings safe.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The decisions made by the Ministry of Labour are based upon reports of engineers in the local area hired by the municipalities themselves to report on the safety of the structure. If the municipalities don’t know what the reports are, I would be very much surprised, but we will most certainly ensure that they are aware of the way in which these structures do not comply with the Building Code --

Mr. Singer: And what they have to do to bring them up -- that’s different.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and what might have to be done in order to bring the up to standard.

BENDED ELBOW II

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Attorney General. I have a copy here of “Bended Elbow,

Part II,” which I obtained on my recent visit to Kenora with the Leader of the Opposition. I don’t know whether this has been brought to the Attorney General’s attention, but in view of his comments this weekend around his desire to try to deal with the growth of racial bigotry in this province, may I ask him to study this book with a view to making recommendations to his federal counterpart and, secondly, to discuss with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, the need for a Human Rights Commission investigation into the sale and distribution of this scurrilous and racist book through tourist establishments in the Kenora area?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have not yet seen “Bended Elbow II.” I have asked that a copy be obtained. I agree with the hon. member for Bellwoods that “Bended Elbow I” can be described as scurrilous and racist material, and I share his concern in relation to what can be a similar characterization of “Bended Elbow II”. I certainly appreciate him sending us his copy and we will be reviewing it very carefully.

Mr. Lewis: No. 1 was moderate by comparison.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I’d ask the Attorney General -- because it bothers me somewhat that he’s going around making all these statements about what is racist and what is prejudiced and what isn’t -- can he give the House a set of guidelines or the guidelines he gave the federal people as to how he would define what is racist and biased? He’s setting himself up as a judge and jury and I’d like to know what guidelines he’s using.

Mr. Conway: Speak to some of the eastern Ontario members.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I gather the member for Rainy River obviously doesn’t consider this a problem and obviously doesn’t consider this as a matter over which to be concerned.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Let him ask a sensible question and he’ll get an answer but I consider --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: If that isn’t the very kind of attitude that the people you’re talking about --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think a more specific question would be better than a general one, during our question period. The member for --

An hon. member: Ask the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Morrow); he’s got specific ideas.

Mr. Reid: I will ask him the guidelines.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: Does he decide every day on what’s racist and what isn’t?

OHC RENT INCREASES

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, the gist of my question, I think, might cover both the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Ministry of Housing and they’ll have to decide who’s to take it. Is the appropriate minister aware that up to 30,000 tenants of OHC housing have been asked to make rebates in their rents and that, given the economic conditions these people find themselves in, it’s a pretty precarious situation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation the hon. member’s referring to, in particular the story which originated from his area of Kitchener. The position of OHC is that certainly no one will be placed in the position of having the rent inflated in order to make up any back payments. All the rents which have been or will be charged in Ontario Housing Corp. units will be on the rent-geared-to-income basis and only on that basis. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the structure as it has been established.

Mr. Sweeney: The point I’m trying to make is that what was done on May 21 was not the fault of these people; they had no idea they were going to have to make payments back to Jan. 1. Can the minister not change the ruling of the ministry so that this thing becomes effective on May 21 and not Jan. 1? One constituent of mine has to pay back $63 a month for the next six months; he simply can’t afford it because he’s a low income earner. I don’t think the members of this House were aware of that.

Mr. Warner: Why did you vote for it anyway?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The particular case the hon. member is referring to would indicate that this individual’s income had increased to the point where he would have been expected to pay an extra $63 a month, based upon the geared-to-income formula. That’s the only possible way his rent could have been increased by that amount. There’s no other way because from the very beginning, even with rent control on the building and on the units, we’ve indicated that the rents would not be increased beyond the regular rent-geared-to-income formula.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, it is the retroactive clause I am talking about. That’s what’s wrong.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the rent- geared-to-income formula was in effect during the period of retroactivity as well and they knew it.

Mr. Lewis: And during the debate the Liberals supported you.

KELSON SPRING PRODUCTS LTD.

Mr. Lupusella: A question of the Minister of the Environment: In view of the fact that in May, 1976, the divisional court ruled that the control order issued by the Minister of the Environment was valid and denied the attack made upon it by counsel for Kelson Spring Products Ltd., how does the minister propose to implement the control order of his ministry now?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; I assume the member mentioned some company and I didn’t get the name of the company.

Mr. Lupusella: Kelson Spring Products Ltd., which is located in Dovercourt.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I believe, asked a question about this before and I indicated that the ministry was appealing a decision of a lower court to the division court and the date is set sometime this month for that appeal. In the meantime, efforts are being made --

[3:00]

Mr. Lupusella: As a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I stated in my statement that the divisional court ruled that the control order issued by the Minister of the Environment was in fact valid and denied the attack made upon it by Kelson Spring Products Ltd.

Now what is the minister going to do with regard to this particular programme?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: If the divisional court, which is the appeal court in this instance, has ruled that the control order is valid -- is that what the hon. member said? -- then we will enforce the control order.

Mr. Lupusella: By way of a supplementary: Can the minister assure the House that prompt action will be taken in this regard, so that the area residents can be assured of not enduring another noisy summer when the plant opens its windows for ventilation with the warm weather ahead?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, if the divisional court has upheld the control order it will be enforced. I assure the hon. member that it will be enforced.

AMUSEMENT PARK SAFETY INSPECTIONS

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware of the accident on Bob-Lo Island on Saturday of last week in which two young ladies were hurt as a result of an amusement ride -- a ride called the Galaxy -- and that the fact the municipality does not have inspectors who are capable of assessing the safety of these rides may be the reason why the amusement ride failed and the young ladies were injured?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the circumstances of the accident. I’ll look into it and report back, but I don’t want to assume the reasons for the accident before I’ve looked into it.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, if I may. In the light of what emerged today from the statement of the Solicitor General, is it possible for the Minister of Natural Resources (

a) to withdraw his remark about apparently deliberate sabotage, which was directed against an entire reserve in the northwest; and (

b) indicate to the House whether -- when he made his statement on May 31; a matter of privilege that he made involving statements attributed to me -- he knew of the condemned fish as of May 18? In the two-week interim, was he aware of any problem when he made his statement?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the comments in the police report about the fish being contaminated on May 18 and certainly the other statement awaits further study.

Mr. MacDonald: Do some better research. The research is a little faulty.

Mr. McClellan: What about the other part? What about the sabotage?

Mr. Lewis: What about sabotage?

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have a short statement to make in connection with the report I intend to table. I wonder if we could go back to statements.

Mr. Lewis: What about a statement dealing with the sabotage at Grassy Narrows?

Mr. McClellan: Aren’t you going to apologize?

Mr. Lewis: You made one statement of privilege -- how about another?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. the hon. minister is presenting a report.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I intend in a few moments to table the first annual report of the Provincial Parks Council. This is part of the requirement stipulated in order-in-council 3236-74 by which the council was established and the members appointed. The members represent the public viewpoint, which is so essential in the present day park administration. These people were selected from widely separated parts of the province. They have a diversity of backgrounds and experience and they have demonstrated to me that they are able to examine objectively and impartially matters directed to them.

I believe that they are able to meet with people in public meetings and discuss problems and viewpoints which might not otherwise be given adequate consideration.

The report will afford you, sir, and the members of this Legislature an opportunity to look briefly into the matters of business which came before the council during its first year of activity. I will say, also, that this group has approached the assignments with a measure of enthusiasm and dedication which is a credit not only to my Ministry of Natural Resources and to this Legislature, but also to the people of the Province of Ontario. I am very grateful to them for giving me the benefit of their wisdom.

I am pleased to inform you that some members of the council are present in the gallery today. Dr. George Priddle, the chairman, and the other members of the council have provided my ministry with recommendations and advice regarding parks and recreation which is of great value in the planning and management of one of the largest and most progressive park systems to be found anywhere.

Mr. Lewis: How about an inquiry into the two-week lapse before you were informed?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier presented the first annual report of the Ontario Provincial Parks Council and the 89th annual report of the Niagara Parks Commission.

Mr. McClellan: Let’s hope it is your last report.

Mr. Lewis: Where is your interest now that was so high on May 21? You were so concerned.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It will be there long after yours is gone. It won’t be for political purposes either.

Mr. Lewis: Why don’t you apologize now?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is out of order.

Mr. Lewis: Why don’t you ask someone who knew when no one was told?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Cut it, Steve, you are losing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AMENDMENT ACT

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

An Act to amend the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, briefly, in

section 1 amending subsection 4 of the bill, the effect of the amendment is to provide that a council member who is the member of a board, commission or other body does not have an indirect pecuniary interest by reason of that fact only, provided he is a member of such board or commission as an appointee of any council.

Subsection 2 of the amended statute governs the situation where several members of a council may be employees of a person or body with whom the council is dealing. Such members are deemed to have an indirect pecuniary interest and may not participate in the proceedings. Where the number of members so affected is such that the remainder of a council does not constitute a quorum, the subsection provides that the remaining number of members, provided it is not less than two, is deemed to constitute a quorum.

The new subsections 5(

a) and 5(

b) will permit a council in the case where all, or all but one, of the members of the council are employees of a person or body to apply to a judge for an order permitting the council to deal with such employer in any specific matter coming before the council as though the indirect pecuniary interest does not exist.

section 2, the amending

section permits a judge to relieve a council member of the penalties imposed by the Act where he finds that the interest of a member who failed to disclose it was so remote or insignificant as not reasonably to be likely to influence the member in his consideration or voting on the subject matter.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 22nd order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (CONTINUED)

On vote 2902:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I gather when the committee rose we had completed

section 1 of vote 2902. We will deal with

section 2.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I understand that we’re on the

section dealing with curriculum development. I would like to make a few comments on it.

First of all, I would like to support the statement made by the minister which, I believe, paraphrasing it, was something to the effect that the curriculum is the heart of the educational system. I also note that the recent publication of the ministry, entitled “Education in the Primary and Junior Divisions”, says on page 3, “The Ministry of Education views curriculum as all of those experiences of the child for which the school is responsible.”

That’s a pretty wide-ranging definition and I think it will give us the opportunity to touch a few bases. I would like to begin by saying that the Minister of Education certainly has demonstrated that he is a man of ability and concern and conscientiousness as far as education in this province is concerned.

On the other hand, whenever we speak in terms of curriculum or basics or standards or norms, this minister seems to take on a somewhat defensive attitude. Perhaps, given the amount of personal effort and time and attention he has put into his ministry, that is somewhat understandable.

It does make it a little bit difficult to debate the issue in this House because the point I think we have tried to make several times, and I am going to speak to again very briefly this afternoon, is that although we have the basis of a fine educational system in this province there are places where change needs to be made, where emphasis needs to be re-examined. At the risk of repeating comments I have made earlier, I believe these things need to be said once again.

Your ministry certainly cannot be faulted for what it has attempted to do in this province over the last number of years. They have poured many millions -- indeed, billions -- of dollars into the educational structure and establishment and systems of this province. As a matter of fact, if we take the $1.9 billion in the budget this year and add to that approximately another $1.3 billion, which is raised at the local municipal level, we have a total somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3.2 billion of public tax money being used to support elementary and secondary education in this province.

We have also been talking of in excess of another billion for post-secondary education so we are certainly talking of a very expensive structure.

The minister himself pointed out to us the last time we met that a recent world-wide study indicated that Ontario spends as much, if not more, money per capita on education as any other jurisdiction in the world. We know there is a lot of money put into it.

Secondly, we know that the minister has put a great deal of resource people in the ministry and a great deal of resource personnel into the educational system of this province, both at the central level here in Toronto and in the various regional offices. Therefore, if money and people could solve all the problems the ministry has made some attempt to do so.

The ministry has also come out over the last few years with many curriculum guides of one type or another in some attempt to give direction to the teachers and the school boards across this province. Once again, if money and people and printed matter would solve the problems certainly we should have a system which has no difficulties whatsoever. But we don’t have that kind of system because I would suggest there are a few basic flaws in this whole approach. That is, perhaps, what we have to take a look at.

First of all, again going back to the minister’s own words in his opening statement, I think money will not solve this problem. Simply pouring more and more dollars into it is not the answer because some of the problems we are facing today are the same problems we faced three, four, five or six years ago, and many more dollars have been poured in in that interval. They didn’t meet the problem.

Secondly, I think this ministry has an idea that bigness -- big schools, big school systems, big school boards -- all the way down the line and a very large Ministry of Education somehow was going to help solve these problems. I believe it has been amply demonstrated that that is not the solution either.

We certainly have to give credit, however, and I think this ministry has taken a very enlightened direction toward the children of this province. It said very clearly that we have an obligation to provide an educational opportunity for every child at the level of ability that he or she possesses and can take advantage of.

[3:15]

We have said that this should be a child-centred educational structure right across this whole province. These are basically good ideals. They are certainly goals that are worth aiming for. They are certainly goals that are worth achieving. But contained within these are certain flaws as well, because ideas and activities have flowed from them that I believe are coming under question today.

For example, I believe we have to question the basic assumption that the individual needs of a child and his ability to learn at a certain rate should be our primary guide. I think we’re beginning to see through advanced study in child psychology and the way in which children learn that that itself can be a limitation, that if we just use what the child believes or what the teacher perceives is the distance that a child can go, the rate at which he can learn, then we may be putting inherent limitations on it.

I’m becoming less and less convinced in my own mind, both from prior education experience and the experience of being in this Legislature, that we shouldn’t take another hard look at that. We know that that was the central theme running through the “Living and Learning” report that was presented to this government and upon which much of the educational structure of this province is based today. But I believe there are some of those underlying themes we have to look at again.

I think also that we have failed to introduce into our system, albeit maybe not intentionally, but it’s there anyway, the whole concept of hard work as a factor in learning, the whole concept of being pushed a little bit as a factor in learning, the whole concept of being able to accept failure from time to time. Not the student as a failure but the failure to be able to do something as an important component. Yet within many of our school systems today it would seem as if these are being downplayed. I’m suggesting that maybe that’s part of the total malaise that we have to address ourselves to once again.

There are parents, employers and university teachers who are saying to us that the students coming out of our schools display and put forward this kind of an attitude; “I can’t fail. I’m not really prepared to work hard to achieve something.” We’ve got to take a look at that. I’m lumping it in at this particular point in time, because what I’m trying to get at is that perhaps the underlying philosophy of many of the things we are doing in our schools today may not be correct, or perhaps we’ve given too much attention to that philosophy and maybe we have to take a look at them once again.

One of the things I would like to make very clear in my following remarks -- and I think this was suggested the last time I spoke on this matter -- is that I am not suggesting we go back to the so-called good old days. I’m not suggesting we go back 20, 25 or 30 years and repeat the same kinds of concerns we had then. We know the educational structure at that time was not a perfect one. We know those of us who were involved in it at that time were not satisfied with it. We know it was too rigid and that it was too inflexible. We know there was an overemphasis on content and not enough emphasis on understanding.

We know there was an overemphasis on the group, on the class, on the grade, if you will, and not enough emphasis on the individual. We know those particular situations existed, and I am not recommending we go back to that point.

At the same time we have also recognized that many good things have flowed from the changes in the educational system in this province over the last 15, 20 and 25 years. We know our children today, the graduates of our schools today, have a deeper social awareness. We know they can discuss many of the social problems more intelligently and sometimes more articulately than former graduates can. We know the whole system has improved in many ways. That’s basically the point I’m trying to make. But, as has so often happened in education, not only in this province but all over the world -- and I think maybe this is what many people are speaking to -- perhaps the pendulum has swung too far.

If I can quote from The Educational Courier of 1975, which I think is a respected teacher educational journal of this province, maybe the point I’m trying to make is made even more clearly there. I’m looking at the November, 1975 edition, and there is this paragraph in it:

“As the 1960s gave way to the 1970s, our financial resources dwindled, our progressive visions dimmed and we discovered that university students couldn’t add and subtract accurately, used ‘like’ and ‘you know’ too frequently, and could barely write legibly. We realized that something had gone wrong somewhere.”

That’s one point. I would suggest that something has gone wrong somewhere and we must address ourselves to it. Farther along there’s a note of hope and optimism, and I would like to address that as well.

“The majority of people do not doubt the tremendous value that the life skills are to the child. They just want a little more substance behind them. [And further on:] The pendulum has swung in both directions, from the rigid to the lax. With the experience of the two systems, we can begin to construct an educational system that combines the best of both.”

That’s what I’m trying to suggest to the minister, Mr. Chairman.

Let us look at the two places we’ve been, the two swings of the pendulum, if you will, and try to address ourselves to the question: What can we do at this point in time to get as close as we can to the best of those two worlds? In doing so we have to appreciate the kind of insecurity and uncertainty of the world that we live in now, and insecurity and uncertainty that doesn’t just affect the educational establishment, but all social groups.

It’s affecting our governments, it’s affecting business, it’s affecting our churches -- and it’s certainly affecting our schools, where people are taking a hard look at the situation. This is nothing to be wary of; it’s nothing to be ashamed of. It’s just simply recognizing the situation we find ourselves in and asking where do we go from here. Okay.

The last time I spoke I suggested to the minister that there was a feeling out there that things were not as good as they should be. At that time, and several times in the interval, you have spoken as if this was just a figment of the imagination of the people of this side of the House, that there was no substance to support them. It has been suggested the basics were being done well, that there was no real problem out there, that our students are better today than they’ve ever been before -- and, therefore, why were we all upset.

I would like to draw your attention to several sources that I’m sure the minister has come across as well. But I think, cumulatively, they make their point. The first one is the recent brief of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation. The very first recommendation they make under curriculum is that there will be the “creation of a course curriculum, including instruction in the basic skills and the study of our Canadian heritage.”

If the teachers of this province believed that it was already there, then they wouldn’t make this as one of their first recommendations. The very fact that they say that is an indication that they don’t believe it’s there; they don’t perceive it’s there. You say that it is. You’re saying to the rest of us, “Believe that it is.” But here are the teachers in the classrooms themselves who are suggesting that perhaps it isn’t.

I’ll just make one other reference in making a point in this same document. On page 13 it says that:

“The OTF developed and published curriculum guidelines for the junior kindergarten, now widely used throughout the province, because no such guidelines were available and they were needed by the teachers of Ontario.”

The ministry didn’t provide it. The teachers of Ontario felt it was needed, and they provided it.

There is another more recent document that the minister, himself, has referred to. “At What Price?” is a brief prepared by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation.

Mr. Foulds: “At What Cost?”

Once again, a teaching group that’s asking as its first recommendation that we establish a core curriculum. They obviously don’t believe that it’s there -- at least to their satisfaction.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What do you think they mean by that statement?

Mr. Sweeney: I think they mean a clear statement of what is expected of them from the ministry. We will get into this whole business of autonomy in a few minutes, because I know the minister will address himself to that --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Do you think they mean that pupils should take those programmes or that there should be a common core in the programmes given across the province?

Mr. Sweeney: I believe they mean -- this is what I mean, and I believe that’s what they mean -- that there is a common core that every student should take. Those students who are not able to take it -- and I would underline those words -- should by far be the exception, but everyone else should take it. I think that’s what they mean, that every student in this province should be asked and should be expected to take a common core curriculum. Now, whether I or you would agree with what they would include in the core curriculum is open to debate. I respect that, Mr. Minister.

Again, I am looking at page 18 of the report, and in italics it says: “We propose therefore a core curriculum, especially in years 1 and 2 of the secondary school.” Going over to the next column of the same page -- they are talking here of examinations, which I would like to refer to in a few minutes -- the report states: “Thus many features of the examination were alien to the changing philosophy” -- and I think this is the key phrase -- “but the remedy was to kill off the entire system rather than to cut out the offending parts.” I would suggest that that has taken place in more situations than this, that in fact there has been a killing-off rather than a basic change.

In a report that the minister is well aware of, I am sure, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, “Report on the Basic Educational Skills.” What we have had first of all were reports from teachers. Now we are talking of a report that was commissioned, supported and distributed by the businessmen of this province; as a matter of fact, of all of Canada. On page 7, under the “Nature of Deterioration,” it says: “There has been a deterioration of the basic communication and computational skills. The opinion that this has come about is almost unanimous.” That’s what the businessmen of the province say.

Mr. Foulds: You will notice they said “opinion.”

Mr. Sweeney: Granted, granted.

Mr. Foulds: They didn’t have any research in support, in fact.

Mr. Sweeney: We are looking now at the Ontario Economic Council, a council which I understand the Treasurer of this province has praised fairly highly in the last few days. I don’t think he agrees with all of their recommendations, but nevertheless he has drawn it to their attention. On page 12 they talk about basic skills in this province: “There is evidence that students leaving the secondary education system are not adequately equipped with basic arithmetic and communication skills.” There are several other references of the same type. I won’t read them all, Mr. Minister. You are familiar with them.

We have referred in this House several times to OISE. As a matter of fact, Mr. Minister, very recently in the debate I understood you to be praising OISE fairly highly, to be accepting the kind of research work that’s done there, to believe that that kind of research work is necessary. Yet in 1972 and 1973 there was a report from OISE that said very clearly that parents and teachers were uneasy and disturbed about what they saw happening in this province. That was 1972 and 1973.

Here we have the teacher report in 1975; this was a survey, and the respondents were teachers, parents and students -- a complete cross-section. The same thing is there, only it’s intensified; the words “frustrated,” “disappointed” and “disturbed” are in this report. So we see the same thing happening.

Recently OISE was commissioned -- and I don’t know by whom -- to do an overall comparison of the norms or standards of the Dominion Test of Basic Skills over the last 10 years. The report, which has been made public, says very clearly that there has been a definite deterioration of the skill acquisition of students in this province over that period of time. There has been some question as to exactly what they are testing, but we are talking of basic skills. Can the kids read and write and add and subtract the way they used to be able to? This report suggests that they cannot.

I am also looking at another report from OISE, by Prof. Holmes, which points out very clearly that one of the guiding lights for the thrust in this province -- one of them; not the only one -- was a book by Goodlad and Anderson, “The Non-Graded Elementary School,” from California I believe it was and many of the Ontario schools followed this particular form. Back in 1963 when the book was originally written everything was fine. Later on, it appeared as if things weren’t quite so fine and we read this, by Mr.

Goodlad himself, the same one who authored the original book: “The non-graded students will learn slightly less.” And farther on: “A good non-graded school will show a drop in achievement.”

[3:30]

This was 1968. We were warned even in 1968 that some of the thrusts that were taking place in the schools of this province could result in a lowering of achievement. Now perhaps at that time we weren’t concerned about that, but nevertheless we were warned.

I have an interesting press statement here, Mr. Chairman, from the former Minister of Colleges and Universities, the Hon. Mr. Auld. This was just about a year ago, April, 1975, and he says this:

“Ontario has limited revenue for education. When there is a financial pinch you can’t help but wonder whether standards are being relaxed more than they should be.”

That’s a minister of your own government.

A few days ago I referred to a report by President Fleck of the Ontario College of Art in which he refers to the remedial education courses now being set up in the universities. At that time the key phrase was, and I would like to repeat it again, “We are talking here of students who have come through the normal educational system and who are deficient in the basic writing skills which that system ought normally to teach them.” We are not talking of special education students. We are not talking of students who have particular problems. We are talking of the normal kids coming through the system who did not get the kinds of skills that they should be expected to get.

I have another report here, Mr. Chairman, which shows something unusual when we talk in terms of the autonomy of the board or some of the things that have happened since the ministry has withdrawn some of its own standards and norms. Mr. Minister, are you aware, for example, that in 1971 the number of grade 13 students in Ontario was a little over 56,600; in 1971 the number of Ontario Scholars was 6,900. By 1975, the number of grade 13 students had decreased to 56,300 and yet the number of Ontario Scholars, strangely enough, had increased to 9,100. There’s a rather interesting kind of thing happening there.

We have to really wonder what’s happened to the standards over those three or four years when you have a decrease in the number of students and a rather dramatic increase, I would suggest, over 30 per cent, in the number of Ontario Scholars. What’s the basis of the judgement? What are the criteria? What are the norms?

I am also sure you are aware of a statement, Mr. Minister, from the University of Waterloo which shows a -- and I guess the only word I can use is soaring -- soaring failure rate of first-year engineering students at that school. And I believe that that is the leading engineering school in the province at the present time.

In 1968, when there was a common standard in this province for mathematics, the failure rate was 5.8 per cent. It progressively increased over the next few years from 5.8 per cent up to 10.2 per cent. And then to 14.4 per cent. And then to 20.4 per cent. And finally to 23.1 per cent -- year after year after year.

We can go on and on and on, but the point I’m trying to make is that whether we are talking about teachers, whether we are talking about the businessmen of this province -- and I have a whole file of press clippings, and I am sure you do too, from all sources, from trustees, from teachers, from businessmen, from university teachers, from parents, from editorial writers, all the way down the scale. What I’m trying to suggest is that there is an overwhelming cross-section of opinion -- and I will underline the word “opinion;” I’ll underline it -- but the fact is, it’s there. That is the perception.

The point I’m trying to get at is that at the present time there is a very wide credibility gap in our society about the effectiveness of our schools to teach the basics, to provide for norms and standards. And I don’t think rhetoric is going to wipe it away.

Surely, we have one of two responsibilities: Either to demonstrate so clearly that all those people are wrong -- those parents are wrong, the teachers of the province are wrong, the businessmen are wrong, the university professors are wrong, the editorial writers are wrong; surely we have an obligation to demonstrate, to document, to show evidence that they’re all wrong -- or we have an obligation to find out whether or not they might be right and to do something about it?

By doing something about it, Mr. Minister, I mean very clearly a statement from the Ministry of Education that very clearly points out what the guidelines are for, if nothing else, the basics of this province; a very clear statement saying this is what we expect the children of this province, at the various division levels, to learn. Here’s what we expect them to have achieved by a certain point in time, and here is a testing, or evaluation guideline. I’m not talking about a very clear guideline as to how you evaluate. I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that what we have now does not provide that.

I have, for example, “The Formative Years.” I’m looking for the primary division. For the primary division, under the heading of arithmetic, we have half a page of a very small booklet which suggests to the teachers of this province what they should be teaching in arithmetic over a four-year period in primary division. I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that just simply isn’t enough. I’m not the one who is suggesting it. Ask the teachers in the province and they’ll tell you it isn’t enough either, especially when there are six points and one point reads something like this: “Acquire an understanding of the concepts of simple fractions” -- that’s clear enough -- “and decimals.”

Surely we need to say more than that? We can go through the whole book. Mr. Minister, this is a good statement but it simply isn’t enough. That’s the point I’m trying to make. We talk about evaluation. There’s nothing in this book on evaluation at all. It isn’t mentioned. It is mentioned in this one, “Education in the Primary and Junior Division.” As a matter of fact, it is mentioned five times, but let’s look at the way in which it’s mentioned. Let’s just take a look. For example, on page 57, this is one of the five references in the entire book to evaluation, testing or whatever you want to call it:

“It is often wise to refrain from immediately correcting errors in spelling and punctuation. For example, over-emphasis on correctness in spelling can inhibit the children’s experimentation with new words and ultimately may lead to the overuse of simple words that they know how to spell.”

That’s a fair statement. I’m not quarreling with it, but that doesn’t tell the teachers what to do. Let me read one more, and you can pick any one of the five if you wish, Mr. Minister. On page 51, under the heading of “Comprehension:”

“One of the teachers’ main concerns is to ascertain the degree to which the children have understood what they read. Paraphrasing is one of the best indicators of comprehension.”

It goes on to talk about paraphrasing. That’s one of the indicators, but it is not nearly enough. That’s the point I’m trying to make. In terms of the statement of what we expect children to learn and what we expect them to have accomplished by a given period of time, in terms of a statement of how you evaluate, what we have put out now is not nearly enough.

Mr. Warner: Describe local autonomy; let’s talk about local autonomy.

Mr. Sweeney: Okay. Mr. Minister, what I’m trying to get at is to suggest that we have basically a good educational system but it has flaws in it and part of those flaws are due to the philosophy of the system that we have to take another look at; part of the flaws are the procedures that we carry out, and part of the flaws are the directions and guidance that come from the ministry.

Okay, let’s go on one step further. Let’s go to the teachers. First of all, teacher education in terms of curriculum. Teacher education comes up later on in this vote, I know that. But Mr. Minister, are you aware of the fact that right now, with the optional programmes in our teachers’ colleges -- first of all we had the optional programmes in the secondary school and I guess it was only a matter of time before they’d be in the teachers’ colleges as well -- it’s possible for a teacher in a one-year programme to get through teachers’ college and get very little and perhaps no skills in such basic subjects as reading because of the way in which the programme is set up at the present time?

I was speaking very recently to a superintendent who was interviewing teachers in February. At the end of that interview, and we’re talking now about half way through the year, he was so frustrated trying to find out from the teacher what pedagogical learning had taken place, what teaching and learning skills they had acquired, that he finally said; “Well, you tell me what you’ve covered in school and then maybe I’ll know what to talk to you about.”

If we wonder what some of the problems are with the actual learning that’s taking place in the school maybe that’s where we have to start; maybe we have to take another hard look at the kinds of training our teachers are getting. I’d like to come back to that later on when we talk about teacher training.

I’d like to address myself very briefly, under the heading of curriculum to two areas specifically, Canadian studies and French. I would suggest to you we’re not doing a very good job in our schools under Canadian studies. I made this observation the last time I spoke on this and the minister very graciously -- and I thank him for it -- replied to the comments I made.

I would like to come back with just one sentence out of your comments. You said: “in connection with Canadian studies, I should point out that it was never our intention to focus narrowly on history and geography.” That’s a fair statement and I think it says something. The point I was trying to make at that time, and the point I would make again now, is that those two subject areas are so overwhelmingly important that we must focus on them much more strongly than we are at the present time.

Very recently the head of curriculum studies for the Etobicoke Board of Education made an observation, if I can quote it again. John Biddell, who is the curriculum superintendent -- and I checked with him on this -- told the Etobicoke Board of Education committee that the province’s definition of Canadian studies is too vague. He said the ministry has started to clarify it in the last few months but it is still inadequate.

We also had a statement made at the Canadian Teachers’ Federation very recently, on May 18 of this year, in which much the same thing was said. We had a recent study across this country, including this province, by Mel Hurtig, which demonstrates in several different ways the woeful lack of knowledge of our students as far as their own country and their own geography are concerned.

I just don’t think we’re doing a job here. I don’t think we can leave that up to chance. By the minister’s own definition, Canadian studies in our secondary schools and at the grade 7 and 8 level -- let’s stick with the secondary schools -- does not necessarily imply a study of Canadian history or geography. We can have a student who would go through the system without taking Canadian history and geography, and I don’t think that should happen. I would have to question if there is any jurisdiction, anywhere, that is as lax with the demands made upon its students for knowledge of the history and geography of their country.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let me ask a question. Are you saying that students in this province can go through without taking any Canadian history or geography?

Mr. Sweeney: I’m talking of secondary schools; and the answer is yes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But they do get Canadian history and geography in the elementary schools.

Mr. Sweeney: My understanding of the curriculum is that they get it at grades 7 and 8; but I would draw your attention to the comment I made earlier about the superintendent of curriculum of a large board in this province that even there the direction from the ministry is perceived to be vague and inadequate, even at that level.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would dispute that. But let me just say that if such is taking place, and it can be demonstrated that it’s taking place in the secondary school, we will change the requirement for Canadian studies to make it mandatory that they be Canadian history and Canadian geography, because I feel just as strongly as you do about it. If the schools are watering down what I feel is a mandate to take things like that, which are really of basic concern to Canadians, we’ll change it, believe me.

[3:45]

Mr. Sweeney: Thank you. I would certainly argue favourably that a student should not go through our secondary schools -- I just don’t think they should be able to -- without that background. I’m glad to hear the minister make that statement because it is happening at the present time.

Maybe that’s enough for history and geography. Something has been happening very recently, for the last year or so, which concerns me a little bit and I think perhaps this is the appropriate time, under curriculums, to draw it to your attention. If I could refer to a very recent piece of legislation, an amendment to the Act, whereby the minister said they would encourage -- that isn’t the word I want; permit, I guess, is the word -- permit school boards to set up immersion programmes or make it easier for school boards to set up immersion programmes in French. We know the boards have been doing it lately.

The thing that concerns me is if the ministry goes on record as making it easier for these things to happen, it may be perceived as also encouraging it to happen; whether that is a fact or not, I’m suggesting it may be perceived to do that.

I wonder if any serious research has been done by the ministry as to the effects on a large segment of our students if immersion programmes were put in by the bulk of the boards of this province. Once again, I’m referring to a report which was done by a primary consultant of one of the larger local boards, It’s a report, by the way, which was commissioned by the board and is part of its overall study. It says, “This forced immersion programme could damage a child’s social and academic development.”

It goes on -- and I have a couple of other clippings to the same effect -- to point out there is a significant number of students, in the primary grades particularly, who may be harmed if they are enrolled in such a programme. If it’s made to appear too appealing or if it’s made to appear too socially acceptable, the thing to do, and therefore parents are encouraged to enrol their children in it, whether or not they should be enrolled in it, we may be doing considerable harm to some students.

The point I’m trying to get at is that I’m not in any way objecting to immersion programmes in our schools but I am concerned that an action by the ministry, past, present or future, may have an effect in some of our school systems which could be damaging to our students. Before that is encouraged -- before it appears to be encouraged -- maybe more and careful study needs to be done by this ministry, if it has not already been done, to be sure we know exactly what the effect is.

I would like to close with one more quote from the “Courier” I referred to earlier and I think it sums up what I’m trying to say. The very last paragraph is, “Wouldn’t parents be surprised if their kids could not only add and spell but also come home from school with an awareness of themselves as individuals in this world?”

That’s what I’m arguing for -- a little bit of both: A good dose of the basics and a good dose of humaneness and individual understanding. I don’t think that at the present time the balance in our schools is as clear and as well-defined as it should be.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think some of the other members wish to speak.

Mr. Foulds: My colleague from Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) had hoped to participate in the debate with some specific questions about native education and he will be up in 90 seconds, I’m sure.

I have a couple of specific questions on curriculum development that I’d like to ask the minister. First of all, I would like to ask him at what stage of development are the units, I guess, being developed for labour studies in high school? I think there is some research material which the OFL is developing and about which it has had contacts, I believe, with the ministry. I think they’re getting a fairly good contact there. I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on that -- on the acceptability to the ministry of the labour curriculum studies which have been developed by the OFL?

I believe they have one publication, Morden Lazarus’ book, accepted as a research document. I believe they are now working on actually developing units of study and I would like to know what the ministry view is of those and where they are in their communication with the OFL on that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Morden Lazarus book is published now and I think there was a grant from the ministry of $20,000 to help them with the publishing of that book. I am not aware of any other things that are happening at the minute, except, perhaps, that the Federation of Labour are coming in to see us very shortly to talk about some further things and I think that may be what the hon. member is talking about. But I think that is to be the subject of a meeting we are having in the very near future -- some further curriculum things they wish to suggest.

Mr. Foulds: Could I make a couple of positive suggestions with regard to this? I think there are two ways in which we can get a more realistic and objective view of labour in the schools. In the past I think it is fair to say that, by and large, the text references have been only to violent strikes, which is not the whole history or even contribution of labour.

We look to, if you like, a two-pronged approach -- perhaps developing a specific optional course in labour history that could be offered as one of the options in history departments throughout the province, or the development as well of units within a whole range of courses from man in society, to politics, to history. I think that we should look at both approaches and not merely for four-year students in science, technology and trades or in commercial and business.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, if I may just make reference to the subject the hon. member has raised. I had an opportunity to look at an excellent course outline that was presented at least in part by the Federation of Labour. The reason I was particularly interested in it is a former teacher from Paris, a Mr. Murtaugh, was one of the people who had worked on it. I felt that it was an excellent course outline. I am rather surprised that the minister hasn’t had a chance to have a look at it since it was already presented to the Brant county board, I believe, for their approval. I would hope that it would be supported by the ministry in each occasion where their opinion is asked.

Mr. Foulds: I think they have completed the outline and have the first two units fully developed.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is, of course, quite possible that the Brant county board is offering it as an experimental course. This is something that our programme of flexibility allows. If the guideline is there and certain teachers have a greater interest in these particular subject areas than others they may, having that course available, develop that as an experimental course in their own schools and it could be it is being offered there.

As I say, at the Ontario Federation of Labour meeting with the cabinet a few weeks ago some of the members of the federation and myself had a brief discussion afterwards. They and their education committee are coming in for another meeting with us to talk more about these matters. Our people don’t have any contact or anything in the way of a guideline at the present time.

Mr. Wildman: I wanted to follow up with some of the comments made last week by the member from Oakwood (Mr. Grande) about multiculturalism. I wanted to speak specifically about native education, which is very important in my riding and throughout the north as well as in parts of southern Ontario, and what appears to be really a complete failure of the ministry to come to grips with the problems of native education. We can go back right to the point where, when we had the resident schools, people were punished for speaking their own languages. At least we’ve come away from that and we now have some Ojibway and Cree classes.

I think it is up to the particular board to decide whether they are going to have them as sort of an extracurricular thing to try to maintain some of the native culture, but there isn’t really very much being done to try to stop the phenomenal dropout rate of native children from our educational system. I don’t think the comment made earlier about the need for standards really has much to do with this particular problem, in that obviously our education, our standards and what we’re doing in education has very little relevance to the native children because very few of them are staying in school.

There have been recent comments in the press about teachers in the Kenora area, for instance, who feel that the Ministry of Education has done nothing to deal with things like the fact that the time for trapping, to go out on the trap lines, has no connection whatever with school holidays in the north.

I see one of your officials leafing through the booklet, which I’ve read, on native culture and so on, and I’m happy that the ministry is doing that. I’m concerned in the wider aspect of the fact that very few native children ever make it out of high school. As a matter of fact, the dropout rate between grade 9 and 10 is just terrible.

If a student has other interests and other skills, what are we doing to try to develop those? What are we doing in the north to try to give the native person the kind of skills that he might use when he finishes school, rather than teaching him about the kind of things that are useful to an urban-oriented child but really have very little relevance to him? What skills do we want to develop for our native people in the north in their education system? What relevance are we giving the north?

I’m not just talking about native study programmes -- I think they’re useful and good because they can teach not only native people but also white students the value of native culture -- but, overall, what are we doing in education to make it more relevant to native children? What counselling are we giving native children to try to keep them in schools, to deal with their home problems or their personal problems that may contribute to the dropout rate?

Recently, I wrote to the Ministry of Education regarding a particular community in my riding, and I asked about counselling for native people, not just the students but the families as well, to keep students in school and help them make it through to high school and to graduate out of high school. This was in response to a request I had from a Mrs. Madieros, who herself is a native person in Hornepayne. I got a reply from a Mr. Maudsley in Sudbury. His letter was basically just a covering statement.

Obviously he had followed up on my request and had written the Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa and asked them about this. He writes back saying, “I believe the attached letter represents a satisfactory response to a request for a native attendance counsellor.” I was talking about attendance but I was talking about a wider problem too, of the whole thing of dropouts, of course. I just want to read a short portion from this letter that Mr. Maudsley received from a Mr. Gibbs, district superintendent of education, Nakina district, Department of Indian Affairs. He says:

A member of our staff has now visited Hornepayne schools and talked to the principals and teachers. The enrolment of those children who are ethnically Indian is broken down as follows: Holy Name Separate School 10; Hornepayne Public School 13; Hornepayne High School 0; for a total of 23.”

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Hornepayne High School zero. There’s a significant population of native people in this town, but there are absolutely no native children in the high school. He goes on to say:

“Of the 23 pupils noted above, we have been able to identify 15 as being registered band members. The remaining eight are not carried on our records and we, therefore, presume they are non-status.”

This is something that’s important, because I anticipate the answer we might get from the minister is that treaty Indians are the responsibility of the federal government. I agree with that, that’s certainly true, but I’m not just talking about treaty Indians, I’m talking about native people, which includes a large number of non-status people, people who are not the responsibility of the federal government, and the Minister without Portfolio sitting behind you, Mr. Wells, certainly knows and understands the difference. The importance here is not legal terms like status and non-status but education of native people.

[4:00]

What is this government doing either to prod the Ministry of Indian Affairs to do more for status people, for treaty Indians, or what is it doing itself to ensure that non-status people are getting the kind of education which has some relevance to their experience? If we continue to have education which, as was recently quoted in the press, talks about the dangerous Indian massacres in Canadian or American history, what on earth is that doing to encourage native people to stay in our schools? If we continue to have education systems geared for the technology and the society of an urban-oriented community, what on earth is that doing for people living in northwestern Ontario?

I’d like to know what is being done here. I’d like to know what’s being done to deal with things like trapping and hunting seasons as regards holidays. I’d like to know what is being done in the studies of Canadian history to give a more honest view but, perhaps, an uncomfortable one for the white community, of our Canadian history.

What are we doing about native studies in particular? What are we doing to expand that into the whole realm of education in general, to encourage more and more native people to stay in school? I’d like to know how many native people are in your ministry. I’d like to know how many specialists in native education are in your ministry. I’d like to know how much money you are spending to ensure that we clean up this mess.

Hon. Mr. Wells: To answer that, of course, it’s very easy to criticize. It’s much more difficult to be actually in there, trying to cope with what is not an easy problem but one which I think people in my ministry, working with others, have been dealing with very effectively -- certainly not to arrive at the utopian point my friend sees perhaps but certainly we are aware of the problems. We have people from the ministers down who are sincerely trying to cope with those particular problems.

First of all, as my friend notes, there is a split responsibility for education as far as native peoples in this province are concerned. We would be far better off if we didn’t have that split responsibility as far as I am concerned. It would be far better if education were the responsibility of the province as it is for all the other children in this community.

However, I say that as a personal opinion because I think if that decision is to be made it must be made by the native people themselves. While we may say that is what should be done, when you go and ask them, they don’t always agree that that’s what should be done.

Far be it from me to say that that’s how we think it should be handled until they themselves come to some determination on this matter and the federal government also comes to some determination on this matter and doesn’t just say “Fine, We’ll wash our hands of it; you take it over” without, in some way, entering into agreements to compensate for what is basically its responsibility -- in other words the whole problem of the federal responsibility for native people vis-à-vis the provincial and the ministerial responsibility.

Living with that, of course, we have to try to do those things which can make our system as effective as possible and to guarantee to the children of those native peoples an advancement in the educational system in keeping with what other children are able to receive. We have two people in our ministry who might be classified as native people. They are doing an excellent job. They are working with many people around this province to develop programmes which can help attack this problem.

You have already commented on the resource guide for native studies which, of course, is not just for native education but is in order to help all children in the schools on the whole subject of the native peoples in this country.

We also embarked upon a programme two years ago to make it possible for native peoples to become teachers in the north. I think about 96 people enrolled in that programme and 82 graduated from that programme.

Mr. Grande: How many have jobs?

Hon. Mr. Wells: All of them except those who went to university.

Mr. Shore: Give us a straight answer.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What you want to know now is how many went to university.

Mr. Samis: You don’t need us.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Off-hand, about eight. That programme hasn’t been repeated. The point is that we were under strong opposition at the time from the Ontario Teachers’ Federation for even implementing that programme because it was an attempt to take in people who did not have university degrees, which is the requirement for entrance to teachers’ colleges or teacher training institutions in this province. It was an attempt to bring native peoples into this programme because, as you have rightly said, there are very few who have university degrees.

If we were to wait until we had enough who had university degrees to institute a special teacher training programme or put them in the regular programme, we wouldn’t have any of these people. The outreach of that particular programme is being evaluated and there is no reason why it can’t be repeated if it is proving effective. My staff says we are likely going to get a recommendation to repeat it and that will probably mean another hassle with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation over it.

Mr. Foulds: You won’t default on it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: But I must say in this particular area we have to be firm in saying that in the schools where native people are attending, the over-riding concern is to have native teachers there, Therefore, we will look with favour on that. However, we will listen to the comments of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation about it and that will come.

We also had been encouraging the use, and there has been a pilot project going on in Thunder Bay, of counsellors to try to encourage young people to move from the elementary system into the secondary system. There is no question that it is a problem. They are not motivated and they are not oriented toward secondary education. I am hopeful that the new James Bay Secondary School will encourage more in that particular area to take secondary education.

There are presently those attending schools on a resident basis in a lot of areas across the north. I don’t have the complete number in secondary schools. It is a difficult situation for a lot of them, being uprooted completely from their homes and having to board or stay with someone in a strange community and go to school, perhaps with some of their friends and perhaps not. That’s not perhaps the best situation but it does offer an opportunity for these people to be students in a secondary school and they receive grants for their transportation and for their living accommodation.

We have been also seconded a number of people of native ancestry to work with our regional offices in the implementation of our curriculum programme, Resource Guide on People of Native Ancestry, and these are working out at the regions now.

I was hopeful to have a resource package that was prepared in the Sudbury area but it has not arrived yet. I think it is an excellent resource package that has been prepared. Again probably it is more helpful for use in school generally rather than just for children of native ancestry.

We’ve given $105,000 to OISE who are working with the Ojibway Tribal Education group; they’re doing a research study at the present time. We’ve also given money to the Canadian Association in Support of Native Peoples for the development of curriculum material. Those are a few of the things that are happening.

I want to assure my friend that we haven’t arrived at perfection, and I think we all know the problems are there, but I just don’t want him to think there isn’t a lot of activity going on. There’s money being spent in this area, although money isn’t the complete answer, as is also true in a lot of areas, but there are a lot of things going on to try to come to grips with the kinds of problems that the hon. member has been talking about in the area of native education.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you. I’d just like to ask a couple of questions. First, I appreciate the work that’s being done by teachers and by the ministry to try to develop native studies programmes, but again my question was a bit wider than that in that I wanted to talk about how we might change the overall approach in schools where there is a significant native population, so that we don’t just have native studies programmes for native people and other students. I think that’s important, because perhaps then we’ll have mare understanding and we won’t get tripe like “Bended Elbow.”

But it’s more than that; it’s changing the whole atmosphere and attitude in the school to be more relevant to native persons. As you mentioned, there are people in Sault Ste. Marie that I’ve taught who’ve come from Moosonee to go to school. They’re brought into a completely new environment. They may go home for a Christmas holiday or a summer holiday, so after five years in that environment, they’re somewhere in the middle. They don’t fit into the urban environment and they don’t fit into their home environment. They’re completely in limbo. The kids don’t have much in common with their parents, and yet they don’t feel completely at home with their white friends.

I know it’s not an easy question, and I’m not criticizing the ministry. I didn’t try to give the impression of criticizing the ministry. I know it’s a very difficult question. I know also that there’s a split jurisdiction with the federal government. But specifically I’m talking more about non-status people for whom the federal government does not take responsibility, who live in communities outside of reserves, usually in the poorer areas of those communities, with a tremendous amount of unemployment and a lot of social problems. It’s very difficult to deal with the children of those families and to try to get them into a position where they can excel in school.

I think counselling is very important, and one reason I got a little bit upset was when Mr. Maudsley said that he thought this was a satisfactory answer. Basically what the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said was that because there are no students in the high school, it doesn’t appear that counselling is necessary. That’s the whole problem. There are no students in the high schools. What are they doing to change it?

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief on this particular vote as I have expressed my opinions on it several times, but as one who left the school system not that long ago, Mr. Minister, I would like to leave with you my sincere feelings about what I consider to be a situation that is getting possibly increasingly worse.

As I’m sure all the members in the House do, I have a number of young people who come to me on a continuing basis who I guess are obviously very poorly prepared to participate in industry or in the business community in Ontario. In spending some time with them, you find that they are quite seriously lacking in basic skills -- reading, writing and mathematics. I think that the time has come possibly where we, on a nonpartisan basis, must recognize --

Mr. McClellan: Non-partisan?

Mr. Cunningham: Certainly on a non-partisan basis, because we’re all concerned about the future of the children in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. McClellan: The little red school house is all yours.

Mr. Mancini: Aren’t you concerned?

[4:15]

Mr. Cunningham: I think the time may have come when we really should seriously consider having a task force of some form to look into, not just the curriculum as it exists today, but also the whole administration of a student’s time in school.

In travelling to the various schools and speaking at them, you really see kind of a country club type of existence. I began to see the advent of this during the last few years of my time at high school, and it seemingly appears to be even more prevalent today. I have a younger brother who is in his last year or second last year, and he really only requires about four or five classes a day. That is the total of his participation at the school.

From my point of view, I don’t think we are maximizing either our facilities, our teachers, or the abilities of our students through that kind of system. The free time possibly is good for the superior student, but for that student who needs greater direction, I think more time and more direction are required.

Strictly on a curriculum basis, I am very concerned about the basic ignorance of so many of our students about Canadian studies and, as I have said before, about the study of our own heritage here in Ontario -- one that I know very many of us feel to be an extremely rich one. It is one that could compete with that of other countries, and certainly that of the United States with very little difficulty, if it was brought forth to the students. Possibly the difficulty that we have there, the reluctance by teachers to teach Ontario history, is a lack of interest, maybe the lack of a compulsory incentive -- and, as well, maybe a lack of training by our teachers in that particular area.

In any event, I think you could say, without being excessively general in your comments, that the inability or the reluctance of our teachers to teach Ontario and Canadian studies is somewhat like a cycle in the nature of poverty -- we are poor because we are poor. When our teachers aren’t being trained in this particular area, it is a self-perpetuating type of problem.

Those of us who live in areas close to the United States and are served by American television should have cause to be very concerned about this, because it’s the kind of trend I thin