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

November 9, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

ANNIVERSARY OF SOLIDARITY

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT REFERENDUM

CLOSURE OF FACILITIES FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

COLOURED FUEL PROGRAM

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

eXPORT SEMINARS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO PLANT EMISSIONS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

JOB CREATION

ARK EDEN NURSING HOME

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE PRACTICES

ONTARIO RENTER-BUY PROGRAM

DEATH OF JOHN JOSEPH ROYAL

MEDICAL TECHNOLOGISTS

CLOSURE OF FACILITIES FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

KIM ANNE POPEN

PETITIONS

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION REPORT CARDS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ANNIVERSARY OF SOLIDARITY

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, Canadians of Polish origin will be marking tomorrow, November 10, the first anniversary of the official recognition of the historic free trade union movement in eastern Europe, namely Solidarity.

I would like to join Canadians of Polish origin in highlighting the historic moment which, after a brief period of hope, unfortunately ended in tragedy on December 13 of last year.

The symbol of Solidarity and of the freedom of workers to be able to voice their concerns and defend their rights in a free trade union was a light of hope to many workers in eastern Europe and throughout the world. I ask the members to join tomorrow with Canadians of Polish origin who will be marking that anniversary in their respective communities.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as one whose father came from that land which has been oppressed for years I would like, on behalf of the Liberal Party, to associate ourselves with the comments made by the previous speaker.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I rise to echo in some sense the remarks of the member for High Park-Swansea for two reasons. In my own community of Thunder Bay there is a thriving and vigorous Polish community. Through my personal association with many members of that community, I know how strongly they feel about the symbol of freedom and liberty the trade union movement in Poland represents for them.

The trade union movement the world over suggests that symbol of freedom and liberty. The right of free association is a right that has been won dearly and at very great cost by members of the trade union movement. Unfortunately, it has been won briefly at very dear cost by the members of the trade union movement in Poland. However, because of the spirit of liberty and freedom the Polish people themselves and the people in the trade union movement have, I am confident that flame of freedom will be relit in Poland.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT REFERENDUM

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Yesterday was election day in municipalities in Ontario. Of the over 800 municipalities that held elections, 79 had referendums on nuclear disarmament. Of those 79, there was a 76 per cent support in Ontario for nuclear disarmament.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of this Legislature on both sides of the House for their support of my private member's bill which I introduced last June and which was supported on second reading. I think that in itself helped many municipalities which had the nuclear referendum.

Mr. Speaker: I must rule that was hardly a point of order, but it was interesting.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, given the overwhelming response to that referendum, I would ask the House leader of the governing party and the House leaders of the other two parties whether this might not be an appropriate time for this House to pass a unanimous resolution in support and endorsement of the referendum at the municipal level to put extra pressure on our federal government to act.

CLOSURE OF FACILITIES FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In reply to a question I asked yesterday of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), I believe she was factually incorrect when she indicated to the House that consultation had gone on between her government and the associations for the mentally retarded in Ontario with regard to the closure of six different institutions. We have consulted with all associations and that is not the case.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must point out to the honourable member, as I have pointed out before, that first of all you are out of order, and second, you can rise to correct any statements you have made but you must not correct statements other people have made, although you can request that somebody else rise to correct a statement during question period.

2:10 p.m.

COLOURED FUEL PROGRAM

Mr. Riddell: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Would the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) then correct the statement he made in the House when I raised the question of coloured fuel?

Mr. Speaker: I just dealt with that. This must be brought up during question period.

Mr. Riddell: He inadvertently misled the House, and I think he has to correct it.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is your opinion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the member for Huron-Middlesex will want to withdraw that statement.

Mr. Riddell: He did. The minister told the farmers they were wrong, and they are right. They are having trouble with coloured fuel in their filters --

Mr. Speaker: If the member for Huron-Middlesex would just listen to what I am going to say, I am going to have to ask you to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Riddell: I just said "inadvertently misled." If there is something wrong with that, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have been given to understand that the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) would like to make a statement at this time.

Mr. Speaker: I doubt that.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think I would be interested in that statement.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

EXPORT SEMINARS

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise members of a major campaign being launched by my ministry to increase the export of Ontario manufactured goods to world markets.

This campaign has two aspects. The first involves seminars in 30 communities throughout the province to demonstrate how small and medium-sized manufacturers can increase their sales and profits by exporting. These seminars are already under way and will be completed early next year.

Each seminar involves federal and provincial trade experts and business consultants sitting down with local manufacturers to discuss such matters as developing an export marketing plan, financing, market research and analysis, and federal and provincial assistance programs.

This is the first time we have had so many how-to-export seminars in such a short period of time. The intensity of this joint federal-provincial effort reflects our commitment to reaching as many firms as possible with hard-nosed guidance on how they can sell their products by thinking of the world as their marketplace.

We expect to assist 20 or 30 firms at each seminar. In most cases the seminars will last about a day. However, our specialists will remain in any city for as long as it takes to ensure that every interested firm receives practical help.

In addition to the seminars, a second aspect of our trade push involves export forums in five key regional centres for a wide variety of manufacturers who have good potential for achieving rapid gains in export sales. These firms already have exporting experience and are keen to tackle new markets or are ready to make a credible first foray into the international arena.

Under the theme Export: Your Route to Profit, more than 500 hand-picked firms will participate in these export forums, scheduled to take place in London and Windsor this week and Kingston, Hamilton and North Bay next week.

Perhaps I could note a few significant points about these export forums.

First, each forum will offer five workshops dealing with market opportunities in five trading areas: the United States, Africa and the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific Rim, Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Second, while the forums have been arranged by my ministry, federal officials will chair the workshops and provide advice. We appreciate that federal participation.

Third, the senior representatives from the foreign offices of the Ministry of Industry and Trade have all been called home to provide manufacturers with current data on sales leads in their marketing areas, whether it be Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt, Tokyo or Hong Kong.

In this respect, the foreign representatives and the directors of our 15 regional offices throughout the province provide Ontario industries with an extraordinary network of information and advice. These operations will be integrated and co-ordinated and will represent a focal point for our overall efforts to expand Ontario's export position.

Fourth, manufacturers will be able to sit down with our experts for one-on-one consultations on such matters as product distribution, joint ventures, licensing arrangements and overseas investment opportunities.

Thus, in total, manufacturers attending the forums will be able to pick the brains, if I can use that cliché, of federal and provincial experts who have firsthand knowledge of specific world markets. I attach great importance to the success of these five regional export forums and I will attend each of them personally to discuss Ontario's trade strategy with participants.

Finally, I would like to stress that these seminars and forums for manufacturers are but one phase of a new trade strategy that I will be reviewing with business and industry in the coming weeks. We have selected small and medium-sized manufacturers as a priority for immediate attention, because our international competitive position and the expansion of trade are crucial to the creation of jobs in Ontario and to our economic recovery.

As I reported to members of this House on a previous occasion, we have established for Ontario a goal to double our exports to $60 billion by 1987. While I will elaborate on this in the weeks to come, the major campaign on which we are now embarking to help Ontario manufacturers to be aggressive and successful in the export market is a substantive step in achieving that goal.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO PLANT EMISSIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy with respect to the scrubber program for Ontario Hydro.

I just want to take the minister through a little of the chronology. On January 26, 1981, at a press conference, Mr. Macaulay said: "The most significant component in our program will be the design and construction of two sulphur dioxide scrubbers by 1987. It will be a first for Canada, I might add."

Speaking to the Ontario Municipal Electric Association, he said: "Scrubbers are a valuable control device. In fact, Ontario Hydro will be building two of them."

The throne speech of March 9, 1982, said, "These steps will include designing and retrofitting scrubbers."

Now we find that his scrubber program has been scrubbed or postponed indefinitely. Why is the minister giving up on this major commitment to environmental cleanup?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfair for the Leader of the Opposition to attempt to cloud this particular issue. The issue is with respect to emissions. The commitment of Hydro is to reduce them by 50 per cent according to the timetable that we have already enunciated in this House.

The chairman of Hydro has made it quite clear that Hydro will meet that commitment; and indeed, as to when it may be necessary to construct whatever has to be done in order to comply with that. In the meantime, there could well be a combination of matters. It is important to assure the people of this province and of the North American continent that Ontario Hydro, as a responsible utility, will meet its objective with respect to acid rain emissions.

Mr. Peterson: If what the minister is saying is the case, he is telling me that Mr. Macaulay is telling a lie. That is what he is telling me. That is not what Mr. Macaulay has said. He and the minister have promised scrubbers as part of their commitment to the environment.

The minister's hypocrisy on the matter has had an impact not only here but in the United States. Now he stands and bold-facedly changes his government's position again. Our colleagues in the United States are very concerned about our lack of credibility in this issue.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister aware that Congressman Rahall of the House of Representatives in the United States was quoted in a Congressional Record as saying: "Earlier this week, Ontario Hydro announced that it is going to shelve plans to install acid rain controls on its plants in Ontario. This information, in my mind, undermines the concerns of the Canadians over the impact of acid rain."

Does the minister not think his conduct is going to further deteriorate our relationship with the United States in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The statement the Leader of the Opposition quoted did not use the word scrubbers. It talked about controls. I invite him to reread that. I would also point out that I would hardly feel that people from the United States of America are very pure on this particular subject in view of articles that have been in the papers recently as to how they are going to settle the General Public Utilities matter.

2:20 p.m.

The question remains that Hydro will meet its commitment; it is a matter of timing. Whatever has to be done for it to meet its commitments will be done. The member knows this, and that is the way the matter rests.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, are the minister and Mr. Macaulay not simply playing with words and weaseling out of a commitment they gave to the people of Ontario to substantially reduce acid rain fallout in this province by government actions? What is the minister going to do to initiate action in this province so that Ontario Hydro does not remain one of the largest polluters in acid rain in this province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all suggesting that we are attempting to renege on any commitments. The commitment stands. I say to the member, show me a public utility on this continent that has voluntarily subjected itself to such stringent controls as Ontario Hydro has with respect to acid rain. That commitment stands. To suggest otherwise is to mislead the people.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware of the fact that in this House the expression often used, having to do with many subjects such as this, is that justice not only has to be done but also must be seen to be done.

Does the minister not think in this instance, when we promised the people in the United States, at seminars in Chicago and in Buffalo, at every place where we met our friends who were as concerned about acid rain as we were, that scrubbers were going to be installed on a specific station, that they have good reason to lose faith in his whole program the minute that was not done?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend the member for Niagara Falls that the goal or the end is the important consideration with respect to the promise. The honourable member gets preoccupied with the means to accomplish that goal. The promise or commitment made to the people of this province, and indeed to anyone who would pay attention, was the reduction of those emissions by 50 per cent. That is exactly what we will do, and the rest is a matter of timetable.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the minister in charge of freedom of information and protection of privacy.

The minister's predecessor in that office asked the Management Board of Cabinet to review some of the Williams commission recommendations concerning the protection of individual privacy to determine which recommendations were practical regarding data collection and storage practices and various other practices of this government. His predecessor said at the time that the object was to provide even greater protection of personal information collected by government about an individual.

Can the minister tell us what recommendations have been adopted by his government in the past two years?

Mr. Laughren: Tell him it's classified, Norm.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It's a secret; that's secret information.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, in a more serious tone, because this is a very serious subject, the recommendations about the confidentiality of individuals' records as they relate to our government are contained in the package that is currently being considered by the cabinet. In terms of what the policy proposal actually is, we will have to wait for cabinet approval.

Mr. Peterson: If the minister is concerned about greater protection of privacy and personal information, and I gather he is, can he please tell me whether the Ministry of Health is still doing today as it did in June, maintaining its files on venereal disease for the 80,000 or so patients affected until their 80th birthday or until one year after their death?

Can he also tell me whether the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture is still doing today as it was doing in June, collecting data such as character, reputation, family details, income, assets, liabilities, tax information and personal references on the 2,000 or so individuals who have donated to the Ontario Heritage Foundation?

Can the minister tell me if it is still the practice of the Solicitor General, as it was in June, to put the name of a person who registers a complaint against the Ontario Provincial Police into a computer tape and disc data bank which includes information about that person's medical history, aptitudes, attitudes, character and mode of living? Are those practices still going on?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I am extremely surprised this question has not arisen in this House for a period of about 11 months. I produced in this Legislature on, I believe, December 16 of last year a record of all the personal data banks held by this government. That document described the three personal data banks the Leader of the Opposition has outlined.

I contacted each of the ministers in relation to each of those three data banks. I believe each one has altered its method of collecting information, and the requirement for that information. As I am not responsible for those data banks, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition he refer each of those questions to each of those ministers because they are responsible for them. I am told by each of those ministers that --

Mr. Bradley: You're the guy in charge overall.

Mr. Swart: Do you speak for the government?

Mr. Peterson: You're the superminister, aren't you?

Mr. Nixon: I thought you were a superminister.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The people of Carleton-Grenville think that anyway and that is where it counts.

I am absolutely amazed it has taken the member this long to be that sensitive to these very important records. My other ministers are very aware of these records and they have changed some of their requirements in these areas. If the member would like to ask those other ministers questions about those records, he may do so because they have already indicated to me there has been some alteration in the data banks he has mentioned today.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, does the minister responsible for bringing in a freedom of information act agree with sessional paper 215 introduced in this House by his predecessor, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), wherein he quoted a set of guidelines laid down by the Premier (Mr. Davis) to all the ministries saying that, pending a freedom of information act, the disposition of this government will be for freedom of information and openness of government, particularly as it affects or invokes dealing with the public, the press and members of the Legislative Assembly?

If he remembers those things, if he agrees with them and if the Premier's word is still good, why is he not bringing in

an act covering the guidelines laid down by the Premier over two years ago?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem agreeing with my predecessor's paper. As I have indicated to this Legislature on many other occasions, the policy in terms of the freedom of information and privacy law is before the cabinet to decide on a few final issues. The interest by the public and the interest by the opposition has been less than desirable from my point of view. I have heard few questions from the members on that aspect. I wonder how important it is to them. It is very important to me.

Mr. Stokes: That is not so.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The member's interim leader said to me that I lost my greatest friend in Donald MacDonald when he resigned from this Legislature.

I do not know if there is any interest in us bringing forward an access to information law at this point. I have an interest in it and the cabinet has an interest in it. It is an extremely difficult subject and I am attempting in every way to meet that objective. I believe our government at this point is very open; much information is free.

Mr. Stokes: Tell MacAlpine that.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I point to the leadoff question of the Leader of the Opposition to me in relation to the personal data index, which I produced last December. It has taken 11 months from the time I produced the information and tabled it here in the Legislature for us to receive a question on that personal index data bank. Maybe we are providing too much information for them to consume.

I hope to be able to produce a piece of legislation, as I have indicated before and as the Premier has indicated, before this session terminates.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, since I was able to produce a bill even though the minister seems to be unable to do so, can we be assured that by December 17, the first anniversary of the tabling of that index, he will be able to answer the question as to which of the ministries has attended to those areas as he has suggested we should ask each of the ministers now? This becomes more important when we are told that the government cannot even answer the rather simple questions that are on the Order Paper; so there is certainly no point in putting on another 50 or 60.

Will the minister make a statement at least on the anniversary date of December 17, if not before, to tell us what progress has been made? We then could be assured that not only the recommendations by the Williams commission but also the other areas of interest that have been clearly shown over this past year finally will he honoured by his government.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member will clarify what information he is seeking, I will make every effort I can to provide that information by December 17. Is it information relating to his leader's question as to those three data banks? Exactly what information is he seeking? I will be pleased to try to provide that for him.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer if I can interrupt his discussion with his latest economic consultant.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The page is giving him the first good advice he's had.

Mr. Foulds: It is the first good advice he has had in many months.

Does the Treasurer realize that if he is to meet the projection in his budget that there would be a net gain of 12,000 new jobs over the level at budget time, he needs to create 261,000 jobs between now and the end of December? Is he going to meet that target, and how is he going to meet it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, before answering the honourable member and since he drew attention to the source of my economic advice, I want to point out that I find the intelligence of the advice I get from the younger people sitting around here a refreshing change from the noise I get from the opposition over there.

Mr. Martel: You understand them at that level.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes. I understand them at that level. They understand me at that level. But somehow the member peaked and went downhill after that age.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

Mr. Foulds: Frank, their answers are better than yours.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Their questions are better than those of the member too.

Mr. Stokes: What are they asking about? The seven per cent sales tax?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was getting a lesson in geography when the interruption came along and disturbed my otherwise pleasant afternoon.

The answer is no. I am not going to.

Mr. Foulds: As the Treasurer now admits that he is not going to meet the target projected in his budget and as there have been 142,000 jobs lost since his budget -- 11,000 in the agricultural sector, 10,000 in other primary sectors, 47,000 in manufacturing, 6,000 in construction, 7,000 in transportation and communications, 9,000 in the wholesale and retail sector, 17,000 in finance, insurance and real estate, and 3,000 in the service sector -- does he plan to bring in some kind of economic budget, some concrete proposals, between now and Christmas? Or does he simply plan to let unemployment take its toll on Ontario citizens this winter?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The question had two alternatives. The answer to one of them would be no. I do not plan to bring in a budget. To the second part, as to whether I intend to take any measures before Christmas, I think the answer would be yes. It would depend to some degree on the speed with which we resolve the discussions with Mr. Axworthy --

An hon. member: Pass the buck.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just a second. The members opposite do not like to see two levels of government working together to solve a common problem, do they? They do not like to believe that we should work together as Canadians to try to solve Canadian problems when they are as grave as they are.

In my budget, this province has done more to create jobs than any other government around us. The members opposite do not ever like to admit to that. Sure, things are bad. The fact is that the measures we took have created jobs this year. They have had 7,900 people send in applications for interest-free loans on new houses. They have seen work with

section 35 of the Unemployment Insurance Act through northern Ontario, some 4,000 jobs. They have seen jobs on the highways and in the schools and universities in this province because of the $170 million we have spent in the budget.

We did all those things. We say they are not enough. We expect to know within a day or so how much the federal government is giving us. I do not know whether it will be $100 million, $125 million or the $200 million I think is fair. Once I know that, I will be able to respond.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, in his conversation with Mr. Axworthy, where he said they were going to talk with some of the top economists across the country, did the Treasurer possibly make the suggestion that they should incorporate people from business, the trade unions and other sectors who might well give a great deal of input into providing jobs in Ontario and in Canada?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to think what Mr. Axworthy's comments were at his meeting. There were three meetings on the economic front: the one with Mr. Lalonde, the one with Mr. Johnston and the one with Mr. Axworthy. Mr. Axworthy's comments were designed mainly to deal with the problems of the unemployed whose benefits either have expired or are about to expire. I do not recall Mr. Axworthy having mentioned economic advisors; I recall Mr. Lalonde requiring some economic advisers, but I stand to be corrected.

I suggest to the honourable member that, sure, you should have that mix. In our case in Ontario, starting in 1977 or 1975, the Premier (Mr. Davis) formed a committee much like the one the member is talking about. It meets about every three months and is made up of about 40 or 50 members almost equally divided among industry, unions and academics.

I think it has been a very useful committee, and I would suggest to the federal government that the model we have used for these five years has worked, even if all it does at times is to allow us to hear each other's problems freely expressed in a room where no one is lobbying for press. From that we have got guidance and advice that have been useful to us.

Mr. Foulds: I want to yank the Treasurer back to the problem of creating jobs now before Christmas and before winter unemployment takes its toll.

Is he saying that he is entirely dependent on the federal government for any initiatives he might take? If so, does he not remember saying in his budget, "Since the federal government has failed to respond with a decisive and comprehensive set of programs, the government of Ontario has decided to implement new job creation initiatives of its own"?

Does the Treasurer not think this still applies in that, even if he gets the maximum amount of money that he is hoping to get from the federal government, he will be able to create only 1,333 short-term jobs a month, when the number of exhaustees alone coming off the unemployment insurance rolls will be something between 10,000 and 17,000? What kind of job creation program is that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member loves to play with figures and to be precise. One thousand, three hundred and thirty-three: that is total baloney.

First of all, there is not enough money in any government treasury to put all the people back to work, and we have consistently said that. All we can do is attack parts of the problem, and the only way back is restoration --

Mr. Foulds: How about housing?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am glad the member brought up housing. We have done more --

Mr. Foulds: How about municipal public works?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: How about food processing?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member should just sit still and be quiet. I sit through his perorations here when he is allegedly asking a question. It is diarrhoea when he stands up to ask a question.

Mr. Foulds: I think that's unparliamentary.

Mr. Nixon: Why? That's a good word.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Verbal diarrhoea.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the question, please.

Interjection.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Now that the members have brought up the housing side, last month we had the seventh best sales volume of houses in the history --

Mr. Foulds: How much new construction?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Look, the member cannot listen and talk. The seventh --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to hear the Treasurer even if the man who asked the question would not. I am getting tired of his rudeness in not listening to the answer.

Mr. Speaker: That was a very good point indeed.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would hate to say it takes one to catch one, but I thank the honourable member. They have put me off my track.

That seventh best month in sales history, which we and the industry believe will be repeated in November and with some luck in December, was the result of two programs: our program of the $5,000 interest-free loan for 10 years on new houses and the federal government's $3,000 grant on existing or new houses as the case may be for first-time home owners --

Mr. Bradley: Let's do some fed-bashing.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not doing any fed-bashing. I do not want to do any. I am trying very hard now to say that even though the members opposite love to bash the federal Liberals --

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- even though they love to say they are a millstone around their necks, even though they say no Liberal in Canada could win an election anywhere right now as long as Pierre Trudeau is the leader -- I know members have said all those things on that side of the House --

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: With all this noise, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) cannot hear. Would the Treasurer continue?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We have estimated that each new home created has some 3.2 years of employment in it. The last figure I saw was that we had received just about 8,000 of the predicted 15,000 applications for new homes. We believe we will see an acceleration on those. We believe we are going to see housing starts pick up, because the existing stock is running down quickly and we will see jobs in those houses through the winter. Therefore, this will be reflected to some degree in all the supply industries for houses.

I do not have the same kind of optimism in terms of base metals. I think it would be unrealistic for me to say anything is going to help with the sale of Inco's nickel until perhaps some of the nations of the world who practise socialist philosophies stop dumping nickel at any price on the market.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there were already signed contracts.

ARK EDEN NURSING HOME

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Does he believe that arbitrators should be taking Bill 179 into account in the awards they make, having had those disputes submitted to them substantially before the introduction of Bill 179, let alone before final passage?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the honourable member is referring to a letter from the Ontario Nurses' Association. Is that the matter?

Mr. Foulds: I do not have it. Maybe the minister does. We will take a copy of that one.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: All right. I am not aware of the context in which the question is being asked.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister aware of the decision made by the arbitrator in the dispute on the Ark Eden Nursing Home? Is he aware that when questioned about it and about similar kinds of contracts in the past, he said he did not expect the people would be able to live on the wages they were receiving under those previous agreements? It is obvious that the arbitration award has taken Bill 179 into account. Did he send any instructions to the effect that they should? Does he not think the arbitrators should consider the dispute that is before them rather than any legislation that might or might not be passed?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I did not send in any instructions whatsoever to the arbitrators.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister send instructions through his ministry that arbitrators are to consider only the dispute that is before them and not to take into account any legislation that is currently before the House?

Even with the award that has been granted, does he not think that as Minister of Labour he would have to agree with the dissenting opinion of Stan De Jong: "It would be ludicrous now to suggest that the effect or likely effect of Bill 179 is to undo to a great extent all that has been laboriously accomplished, and to end up with wages that not only show a one- to two-year gap with the prevailing rate" -- which is what the union had been asking: still a gap -- "but show a far greater disparity"?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In the case the member is referring to, it is my understanding they are going to be appealing that decision to the new board that is being set up under the restraint program.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE PRACTICES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of my friend the Attorney General. Understanding the wide publicity that is being received in the Proverbs trial and the serious allegations that have been made during the course of the evidence about a variety of individuals, including himself, whatever possessed him, as chief officer of the crown, to make public comments during the course of a jury trial about the evidence and the background of the accused?

Does he not feel, as chief officer of the crown, that he owes an explanation, and certainly an apology, to this House, to the courts and to the jury about this action, which could affect the outcome of due process in this case?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It is with some reluctance that I rise on a point of order related to this matter. It does appear to me, sir, that you should consider disallowing that question for two reasons, the first of which is that it offends the rule of the House with respect to the prejudice of matters in proceedings before the court.

Second, if any action is to be taken to discipline the Attorney General with respect to the unfortunate remarks that he made outside the House, that lies within the purview of the presiding judge of the Court of Appeal, should the case go that far.

I base my opinion on rule of the House 19 (d)(7), the relevant portion of which reads:

"In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he . . . refers to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding that is pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Speaker that further reference would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding."

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, if I may: In normal times the member for Riverdale may well have a good point of order based on what is commonly referred to as the sub judice rule. But in this particular case, I remind the Speaker, the Attorney General has repeatedly made comments outside the House. In fact, there was a discussion in the House yesterday between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the Premier (Mr. Davis) about this very issue, during which the Attorney General was present.

If the Speaker will recall, under the rule of sub judice there was a decision made by his predecessor in the chair at which time it was decided that this rule should be invoked by the minister himself and not necessarily by the chair. I think that ruling said that it was not the function of the chair to rule a question out of order on that principle but that it was up to the minister involved to invoke the rule if justified.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard briefly?

Mr. Speaker: Is this on the same point of order and not on the question?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes. I do not intend to pursue the matter. I agree to some extent with what the member for Riverdale has said. I am not going to debate today, in any event, whether I agree with the characterization of anything I have said outside the House as being an unfortunate remark. I am not going to get into that sort of debate today. If anybody owes an apology to the House and to the courts, it is the Leader of the Opposition for attempting to inject a partisan political controversy in the midst of a trial. That happens to be the fact.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Need I repeat the point that I raised --

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I understand a point of privilege takes precedence over a point of order, does it not?

Mr. Speaker: I do not believe it does.

Mr. Peterson: Check your rules, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Just half a second. May I ask you both to resume your seats?

Mr. Peterson: Would you like to take a moment to check?

Mr. Speaker: I will. If it is privilege, it does indeed take precedence.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a point of privilege. I understand the Attorney General has just said I owe this House an apology because I have interjected a partisan note. I want you to know that I reject that categorically. I believe the Attorney General, who has shown absolutely irresponsible behaviour in this matter, is trying to deflect that responsibility --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat, please.

Mr. Peterson: It is absolutely outrageous, Mr. Speaker. You allowed the Attorney General to stand up, the chief law officer of the crown, who knows less about the law --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat, please.

Mr. Ruston: The Attorney General should resign.

Mr. Peterson: He should resign.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, it was precisely to avoid what took place in the House that I asked you to consider under the rules of the House whether the question of the member for Ottawa East should be disallowed.

Whatever may have been the propriety of the Leader of the Opposition raising yesterday the question of what the Attorney General said outside the House at the end of last week, to pursue the matter further will prejudice the trial which is currently proceeding in the court. In addition to that, as a matter of the rules of procedure of the assembly, we cannot deal with the Attorney General in any way. The matter will be dealt with by the presiding judge in that proceeding should he see fit to do so, or by the Court of Appeal on appeal.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, surely the Attorney General is primarily responsible to this House before he is responsible to a court. The matter was already raised in the House yesterday. My colleague the member for Ottawa East is pursuing it, the Attorney General is in his place, and he often uses the defence of sub judice himself but he did not choose to do so. Surely he has the prime responsibility to respond in this House to a question properly put.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously the question before the House is whether it is in order or not. I thank the member for Riverdale for calling this to my attention. I direct the attention of all honourable members to standing order 19(d)(7), and I quote directly:

"In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he ... refers to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding (

i) that is pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination, or (ii) that is before any quasi-judicial body constituted by the House or by or under the authority of

an act of the Legislature."

I therefore must disallow --

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, just read on in the section; it goes on to say," ... where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Speaker that further" --

Ms. Copps: You have to read the whole thing.

Mr. Speaker: All right; that is fine:

" ... where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Speaker that further reference would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding."

Now, it is my judgement to make. I so make that judgement, and I disallow the question.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Please explain to those of us who have some difficulty understanding your ruling how it is, therefore, that the Attorney General is allowed to comment inside and outside the House on this very basis and, second, that you allowed questions yesterday to the --

Mr. Speaker: No, I did not.

Mr. Roy: There were questions yesterday to the Premier by the Leader of the Opposition on this very topic.

In making your ruling, I would like you to consider the comments that have been made on this very matter by the Attorney General going back to September 7, when the preliminary hearing had finished and the trial had not started. In fact, just last Thursday, November 4, the Attorney General apparently spoke outside the House to the press and commented publicly on these proceedings.

These circumstances are the reason. I do not want to get into the evidence any further; I just want an explanation and some reason from the chief officer of the crown why he would comment during the course of the trial.

Mr. Speaker: First of all, the question yesterday was not the same, with all respect.

Mr. Roy: It was.

Mr. Speaker: No, it was not.

Ms. Copps: What is the difference?

Mr. Speaker: There was a substantial difference. I am not going to go into that. Quite clearly the remarks made by the Attorney General outside this House are beyond my jurisdiction or authority. I am not persuaded to allow the question; therefore, I rule it out of order.

Mr. Roy: And you are going to allow this to continue without any explanation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp).

Mr. Nixon: It's our turn for a question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is exactly what I did. If everybody will just remain quiet, I will recognize the member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Martel: I thought they blew their question.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East is out of order.

[Later]

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised earlier about the sub judice rule. I thought I should bring to your attention a very important precedent of this assembly. I think you were a member of this assembly, so you will recall back in July 1977 when a full ruling and decision was made by your predecessor in discussion of the sub judice rule.

I bring to your attention that it was in the debates of July 8, 1977, pages 589 and 590 of Hansard. I want to read briefly from that ruling to assist the House. I am sorry the member for Riverdale is not here because he is the one who invoked that principle.

The ruling quotes a House of Commons report: '''Additionally, a member who calls for the suppression of discussion on a matter on grounds of sub judice should be obliged to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the chair that he has reasonable grounds for fearing that prejudice might result.'"

It is clear that, whoever invokes the principle, if it is a private member there is an obligation to convince the chair there is some real prejudice involved.

Second, it states: "'Should a question to a minister touch upon a matter of sub judice it is likely that the minister involved will have more information concerning the matter than the Speaker. The minister might be better able to judge whether answering the question might cause prejudice. In such a situation, the minister could refuse to answer the question on these grounds, bearing in mind that refusal to answer a question is his prerogative in any event.'"

It goes on to say, "'It is the view of our committee that the responsibility of the chair during the question period should be minimal as regards the sub judice convention and that the responsibility should principally rest upon the member who asked the question and the minister to whom it is addressed.'"

My point is that this minister has repeatedly made comment on that evidence outside the House and inside the House, as late as last Thursday, and now invokes the principle.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this is a point of personal privilege. I know everybody can get carried away on occasion, but for the member for Ottawa East to state continually that I have talked repeatedly in and outside the House about evidence that is the subject matter of this trial is just not accurate. He knows that.

As I said earlier, and maybe to assist you, Mr. Speaker, this trial hopefully will end in the not too distant future. I will welcome a very frank exchange with the member for Ottawa East, the leader of the Liberal Party or any other member of the assembly with respect to any comments I have made about this matter. There will be ample opportunity both in the House and in the Attorney General's estimates.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the member for Ottawa East that he does not really have a point of order. I must rule him out of order.

Ms. Copps: He does. It is a precedent.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute: first, my ruling is not debatable. Second, for the guidance of all honourable members, I was willing and, indeed, waiting for the person to whom the question was directed to take the action you suggested. However, in the intervening period the member for Riverdale rose on a point of order. He was absolutely right and drew it to my attention. I had no alternative --

Mr. Peterson: Why did you not do it yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: Because nobody objected. I am not going to debate this with you.

Mr. Nixon: You said you were going to do it --

Mr. Speaker: No, I did not. You were not listening.

However, it is not debatable. We will move on to the next order of business.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The Attorney General has alleged that I made statements that are not accurate. I would bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that on September 7, 1982 -- I have the quote here, but I do not intend to get into it -- the Attorney General said he reviewed the evidence. That was between the preliminary hearing and the trial. He said that the allegations by Neil Proverbs of illegal actions by police and of corruption in high places are totally without substance. Then on November 4, just last Thursday, he is quoted in the press as having made comments outside this assembly --

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, it is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Roy: He said I was inaccurate, and I have facts to the contrary right here.

Mr. Speaker: You know as well as I do what constitutes a point of privilege.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is deteriorating into a debate between two members, and it just cannot be tolerated.

Mr. Epp: Isn't this where you debate, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: At the proper time.

ONTARIO RENTER-BUY PROGRAM

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Given the fact that on October 26 only 7,037 loan applications had been made to his ministry; given that only 3,502 of those were renters; given that, with less than two months remaining in the program that was announced earlier this year, only 23 per cent of the 15,000 rental units he had promised were actually available to the people of Ontario; and since the federal government has announced an extension of its assistance to home owners until April 30, will the minister extend the present program at least another four months unti1 April 30 so that new units can be made available to renters in the province, since there is such a great backlog of applications for affordable units in this province?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, let us get some of the facts correct. First of all, at this point more than 8,000 applications have been submitted to the ministry for the loan programs announced some time ago. At that time I said we were heading for and expected we could get 15,000 applications for new units in the province.

I have said over the past number of months that, as a result of the fluctuation of interest rates, the uncertainty of employment and other things in the economy today, it did not appear that we were going to achieve the 15,000. We modified it, and indeed we modified it with the assistance of the building industry itself, to somewhere around 12,000.

3 p.m.

The member spoke about the number of applications that have been approved. I hope members of this House realize that approval and the payout come only upon the completion of the deal and the moving into the premises. As I said last week in this House, it will be some time in 1983 before all the applications are approved and a cash-flow position takes place in this province because the cash flow only takes place upon occupancy of the unit. With that understood, I recognize the fact that out of the 8,000 applications, roughly 3,900 of them are renters. To some degree, that has freed up 3,900 units for other people in the marketplace.

The fact remains that the federal government announced a week or two ago that they were going to extend -- and I underline the word "extend" -- the period of construction exactly as the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, the Urban Development Institute and the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies had asked of the federal government. There was a clause in the federal agreement which said that the construction of a unit must commence by December 31 of the current year. That has now been extended to allow construction of units to commence up until the end of April 1983.

When one looks at our program in Ontario, we have said that we want the deals finalized -- that is, the commitment to purchase -- by December 31, 1982. The date of occupancy of that unit can be until the end of August 1983 and, for a condominium unit, until the end of October 1983. Our moving the date will do very little, if anything, to stimulate further construction. Indeed, what the contractors want is the opportunity to lock in sales and not to get into speculative construction.

We find that in the marketplace today there are very few people, if any, in the housing construction industry who will go into speculative building at this time. With a date of December 31, we are trying to finalize those deals so the contractors and developers will know exactly what they have sold and can commence construction some time between the end of December -- indeed at this time they might be under construction, but they will have until the end of April next year to get the unit under way.

I think the two programs and their dates are very compatible and workable and will stimulate further activity -- I hope a great deal of activity -- between now and the closing date of December 31.

Mr. Epp: In view of the fact that the Ontario rental construction loan program only produced 41 units in the city of Toronto in 1981 and given the fact that there is a vacancy rate of less than 0.4 per cent in Toronto, what will the minister promise to the people of Ontario, particularly those desiring some rental units at affordable prices? What program is the minister prepared to institute so those people wishing to have rental units can have some place to live?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I do not see that to be a supplementary question, but I am prepared to answer it.

Because we are dealing now out of the renter-buy program into what we call a rental construction program, members will recall a year ago we had the Ontario rental construction loan program which was implemented by this government and allowed a certain sum of money per unit as an interest-free mortgage on those units. We have something close to 17,000 units committed in Ontario -- not only in Metropolitan Toronto, but there are other jurisdictions of this great province that require rental units as well.

As I have said before in this Legislature, I realize the problem when one starts talking about the downtown core area of Toronto in trying to get medium- and lesser-priced units available to the marketplace. It will not happen unless there are subsidies a great deal heavier than either the federal government under the Canada rental supply program or our ORCL program can afford. Members have been told that to get rental units into the marketplace in downtown Toronto under the CRSP program will take $20,000 or $25,000 interest-free mortgage money from either the federal or provincial governments.

To answer the second part of the member's question, which relates to what we are doing: I said in this Legislature last week and I repeat again this week, I received a letter this morning from Romeo LeBlanc, the new minister reporting for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. We had requested more allocations. The allocation of nonprofit units, both public and private nonprofit and co-ops, is by the federal ministry, not by the provincial ministry. That is applicable to all 10 provinces. The allocation is made by the federal governrnent.

I had indicated to Mr. LeBlanc that if we are to succeed in this province through the Ontario Housing Corp. and through the rent-subsidy program of CMHC and OHC, it would only be with a further allocation from the federal government. In his letter, Mr. LeBlanc said in the year 1982 he was not prepared to make any further commitments to Ontario. Indeed, he went on to say that he is not sure that in 1983, with the scarcity of resources at the federal level, and I gather that means this particular rental situation is not a priority subject with CMHC, he doubted very much whether the numbers of units allocated to the province in 1983 would be one bit higher than in 1982.

I suggest to the member for Waterloo North, indeed to my colleagues of this House, that I think it is incumbent upon all of us to put a little pressure on the federal government, particularly on those members we happen to know. Last weekend, when the member was in Ottawa, perhaps he could have attempted to get a further allocation for this province and its municipalities in the nonprofit housing sector to provide rental units for both the middle-income group and those that require subsidy. With that kind of co-operation we might achieve something further in this province.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, it is fairly evident that the minister's program has not created very many new units in the city of Toronto, and studies done at the University of Toronto indicate his program is giving subsidies to developers and providing very little in the way of new accommodation to tenants. Therefore, would the minister at least give a guarantee now that although he is not doing anything to create new rental accommodation in Toronto, he will do something to stop the demolition of existing rental accommodation in Toronto? Will he do the kinds of things that are being asked by the city of Toronto in Bill Pr13 and pass an antidemolition bill here in this House?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems we have in this province and this country is that there are far too many people who want to look upon life from a very negative and down-side position. Indeed, that party represents it in spades.

The member for Etobicoke sits there and denounces the fact that we have not created many units in the city or in Ontario under our program. One must balance it with the economics of the day. Government cannot do the whole job itself. There must be an interesting --

Mr. Foulds: It is not doing any job.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is what their lack of understanding is about the whole situation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How many units in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: With 8,000 units we are talking about the range --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Order. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) with a new question.

DEATH OF JOHN JOSEPH ROYAL

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney General.

The minister will be aware of the death of John Joseph Royal, an 18-year-old man who died of asphyxiation when he fell into a 250-gallon vat of drywall compound while working for Ontario Gypsum. He will also be aware that a protective grill was removed from the top of the vat because it was slowing down production.

Is the minister aware that the company was convicted and fined $1,500 and the owner was fined $500 for a total of $2,000? Is not that type of fine almost a licence to continue this sort of mayhem in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do recall reading in the press about this tragic case. It prompted me to ask some of my law officers to communicate with officials in the Ministry of Labour in relation to doing an overview as to what type of penalties are being imposed. It certainly was my impression, given the facts in that case, that the court indeed did levy an excessively lenient penalty.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Martel: In view of the fact that in the Kenneth Pearce case there was also a conviction and that fine was only $3,000, and being aware that both these cases have already been tried, is the Attorney General prepared to pursue this matter and lay charges under the Criminal Code in the death of John Joseph Royal?

If so, will he lay the charges under

section 202 for criminal negligence; under

section 201, "duties of master to servant"; under

section 231, "traps likely to cause bodily harm"; or under all three of them? I ask this particularly in view of the fact that his colleague, the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, bragged that he was able to reduce the number of people turning back odometers by instituting fines of some $10,000.

Does the minister not find it odd that, according to the fines levied by the courts in the two cases I have mentioned, apparently we place more value on an automobile than on a human being?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would have to verify this but my recollection is that the local crown attorney's office reviewed the matter to determine whether there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe there had been a breach of the Criminal Code. I believe that aspect of the matter was reviewed. I would like to cheek on that to make absolutely sure, because there have been other industrial accidents in which the provisions of the code have been considered. I will report back on that aspect of it.

In my opening response I said I hoped that the officials in both ministries, particularly those in the crown law office criminal and the appropriate officials in the Ministry of Labour, by working together would devise a strategy -- quite apart from any criminal prosecutions, which is our responsibility -- to impress upon the courts more effectively than by what apparently has happened in the past that these matters have to be treated very seriously.

MEDICAL TECHNOLOGISTS

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. I am sure the Minister of Health, along with all members of this assembly, received a letter from the Ontario Society of Medical Technologists, who are seeking regulation of the practice of medical laboratory technology in the form of a provincial act to ensure that the rights of the public and the profession are protected. This is a very important area in the delivery of our health care system. Is the minister therefore contemplating introducing such

an act?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Renfrew South asked the question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Is that your campaign manager?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I indicate to the member that I appreciate his asking about this important matter. I do have a copy of that letter. I am reviewing the status of that particular profession, along with others, by way of a formal and complete review of a number of disciplines which are currently practising in the health field. I hope to have a specific initiative to announce in the not too distant future.

CLOSURE OF FACILITIES FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Compounding the discrimination against the public sector by the government in its restraint program, the minister has chosen to discriminate against the developmentally handicapped people by closing their centres, their very communities, supposedly in order to save $23 million.

Does the minister not understand that centres such as the Bluewater Centre in Goderich are unique communities consisting of mentally retarded people and thousands of other people who are reaching out their hands to them?

Does he not understand that the residents of the Bluewater Centre are extremely happy and are most pleased to have access to facilities and activities that they would not have in any other community setting?

Does he not understand that the mentally retarded people at the Bluewater Centre are given a more meaningful life through the use of such facilities as the swimming pool, recreational areas of various kinds, a barn where livestock are kept for their pleasure, work areas and a lovely campsite on Lake Huron?

Does he not understand that the people working at these centres show a love for the mentally retarded people that could not be equalled in any ordinary community centre, and that he is coldly calculating the destruction of what residential counsellors and some thousands of others have been working towards; namely, providing the means for teaching the retarded they are persons of worth?

Why is the trust of the mentally retarded people of this province being destroyed after they have learned to trust, co-operate and interact with a specific group of persons, such as the staff and fellow residents, when it is known that moving retarded people out of this setting is a major setback and the damage done could be irreparable?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most repugnant questions ever asked in the House. The answer to it is no. In all fairness I really think the honourable member should withdraw his remarks about people being treated like livestock. He knows that is wrong.

If he wants to stand up and fight for jobs in his riding, so be it. But if he is going to sit over there or stand over there, along with the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), and say facilities and institutions are the only things to do, then let him say it right now.

KIM ANNE POPEN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: A notice has just come to my attention that I would like to read to the members. It says: "The Honourable Frank Drea, Minister of Community and Social Services, will hold a news conference tomorrow, Wednesday, November 10, at 9:45, in the Legislative Building media studio. The subject: the report of the judicial inquiry into the care of Kim Anne Popen."

You will recall, sir, that we have been looking for that report now for some years and it has been dragging for quite a long time. Obviously we are all anxious to see that report. But I do appeal to you, sir, as the chief presiding officer of this assembly. It shows at least a profound disrespect for this chamber not to bring that report into the chamber today at least by way of a statement. Those of us who care about the Legislature and the functioning of parliament, as I am sure all honourable members do, would want to make sure that was first released in this House.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the member is really something.

Some time ago, I believe it was in my estimates -- maybe the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) will recall -- or maybe it was in the House, there was some concern expressed about the length of time it had taken for that report to be written. I said that within 45 hours after I received it, it would be released publicly. For practical purposes, the printer delivered on Monday; tomorrow is Wednesday. If the honourable member wants me to stall the report even further, let him say so.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as somebody who has been asking for this report for some time, I would like to raise two matters that perhaps the minister can clear up.

First, I do not understand why it would not be possible for us to receive this in the House prior to the minister's releasing it as an open statement outside the House.

Second, it is my understanding that although he may just have got the final report from the printer on Monday, the report in some form has been in ministry hands for two weeks.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In fairness, various drafts of the report have been around. If I am going to hand out a report, I have to have some ability to distribute it to all. It has taken the ministry an amount of time to accumulate all the copies. Those copies will be out tomorrow. If the members want to postpone it, let them say so.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Bring it in tonight.

Mr. McClellan: We want it today.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is we would like it this afternoon, here in the House.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You are not going to get it this afternoon. You can get it at 9:45 tomorrow.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to know if the previous statement uttered by the Minister of Community and Social Services is not an abrogation of the rights of the members of the Legislature.

You will notice in the routine proceedings we have not yet reached the point called "Reports." The minister has admitted the report is in its final form, it is ready, it is in his office. He could table it today in this House under the routine proceeding called "Reports."

If he needs to send somebody back to his office to get it, I am sure he will get unanimous consent of this House to revert to reports later in the afternoon.

PETITIONS

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION REPORT CARDS

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that reads:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows." It is a Metro report card. It says, "It is only fitting that on Education Day, parents, teachers and students have an opportunity to grade the Ministry of Education on the service it provides to the citizens of Ontario."

An analysis of this petition shows that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and the Ministry of Education score 71 per cent Fs on public relations and 90 per cent Fs on willingness to admit mistakes. I would urge the members of the government from Metropolitan Toronto to put these report cards in the Legislature at this time or later this week.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a similar petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in the form of report cards from 112 persons in my riding grading the Ministry of Education on the services it provides to the citizens of Ontario. I would like to point out that about half of the --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Surely this is really an abuse of the privileges of the House and of the standing orders.

Mr. Speaker: I think not. I think the honourable member, with all respect, is in fact tabling a petition.

Ms. Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The honourable member to my right has tabled petitions of different kinds in the past.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It should be addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and deal with a matter before the assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is exactly the way it was addressed and what it does deal with.

Ms. Bryden: I would like to point out briefly that about half of the cards gave an F rating, which is the lowest one, on all 10 points listed on the petition, and about 50 per cent gave a D or an F rating, which are the two lowest ratings. Some of the comments on the petition indicate the reasons the petitioners are unwilling to give the ministry a passing grade.

3:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 127,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

section 1:

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was proceeding through the standing committee on general government we dealt with it on a clause-by-clause basis at that time. We had a discussion as to why we should not proceed with

section I and with a number of sections, I must say.

There were a number of amendments moved in favour of the deletion of certain sections of the bill because those of us in the opposition, in both parties, felt there should be complete deletions of sections of the bill because of the fact that we are adamantly opposed to everything within a

section of the bill.

It was ruled at that time by the chairman that deletions would not be the best way to proceed, and if anyone wanted not to proceed with a

section of the bill they would do so based on the fact that they would vote against the bill as opposed to coming forward with a deletion.

If members look at

section I they will see that it mentions all of the boards of education which would be affected by this. It is our view that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) should have withdrawn the entire bill, including

section 1, in order that there could be further discussion of the boards of education listed in

section I with the boards themselves on how they might resolve any of the problems they perceive in terms of negotiations or finance in Metropolitan Toronto.

The minister indicated at that time she was not prepared to accept a deletion of

section 1. This is a very key

section in that it is the one which names the boards of education, some of them dragged in kicking and screaming, which will be involved in this bill. The board of education of the city of Toronto has made representations against its inclusion in this bill, and when there is such overwhelming opposition and that opposition comes from --

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I hate to interrupt my honourable friend, but the minister has been waiting for weeks for this bill to proceed. We are just beginning and making very important points. I do not want to interrupt her conversation with my good friend from the north, but this is not the proper time to carry on a conversation with the minister.

Mr. Chairman: I will interrupt the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and the minister.

Mr. Grande: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: We are beginning with the clause-by-clause, but do we or do we not have an amendment on the floor?

Mr. Chairman: We have

section I on the floor.

Mr. Grande: Do we have an amendment?

Mr. Chairman: No, we do not have an amendment yet.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated to you in the package of amendments that I provided for you, I have an amendment on

section I of the bill.

Mr. Nixon: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman: The fact that the member has provided you with a package of amendments is very convenient for all of us, but may I bring to your attention that we called

section I and my colleague the Education critic for the Liberal Party has some comments to make on

section 1.

Actually, the motion presumably before us is, shall

section I carry. It may well be that the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) will have an amendment to make when his turn comes. Perhaps he can wait until the representative of the official opposition has completed his remarks on

section 1.

Mr. Chairman: Believe it or not, I was about to say the same thing. We are speaking to

section 1. We will go (a), (

b) and so on, or take the whole section; I have not quite worked that out yet. But at such time as we conclude here, we will move on to amendments to

section I from the member for Oakwood.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order with regard to some comments that were made by my friend the member for St. Catharines with regard to what happened in the committee.

Could the chair direct us here as to whether or not the chair is going to take the same position as was taken by the chairman in the committee -- that is, that a motion to delete was not in order? My understanding is that a motion to delete at least a subsection of a clause is quite in order because it is an amendment to that clause. I would hope the chair would consider that very carefully so that we do not run into problems when we do get motions to delete, which will be put.

Mr. Chairman: Speaking to that, and so that all honourable members are aware of what is in front of the committee of the whole House at the moment, I have had some information in terms of what took place in the committee. It is my understanding, and I will be making rulings on this basis, that if there is a motion to delete the whole section, that would be out of order, but if there is a motion to delete a subsection or part of a section, that would be in order.

While we are into this, I am going to try to help facilitate my work. Are you going to be speaking to the whole of

section 1, or can we approach it as subsection 1(a), 1(b), or --

Mr. Bradley: The whole of

section 1. Mr. Chairman, if one were to look down the list of boards of education and be reminded of those which made representations to the committee, one would look at the board of education of the city of Toronto and the very strong representations which were made against the bill.

I point out to members that it was not one particular group on the board of education. It was something that transcended the partisan lines that might exist on that board. It was something that transcended the philosophies of members of the board of education and policies that they might advocate in another area.

There was unanimous support, as I recall, from the membership of the last Toronto Board of Education in opposition to Bill 127, and I have seen nothing in the results of yesterday's election that would indicate the strength of the opposition to that particular bill has been sapped by the voters in the city of Toronto.

Therefore, to drag a major board of education of this province, and certainly of Metropolitan Toronto, into a bill kicking and screaming with such vehement opposition would be wrong on the part of the government. That is one of the reasons we think

section I of the bill should not carry.

One could also look at the borough of York and recall that in the first instance it was stated in the committee that the borough of York was wholeheartedly supporting Bill 127. Then we had an appearance by the chairman of the board of education and we got a slightly different slant about the kind of unanimous support or overwhelming support that was supposedly forthcoming from the borough of York board. We found out there was somewhat less enthusiasm than might have been the case prior to that. Second, when we investigated through the cross-examination of the witness, the chairman of the board of education, we found that she was less than enthusiastic about certain provisions of this bill.

Therefore, to say that all of the boards of education listed in

section I are in favour of the bill would be incorrect. We know that Toronto is adamantly opposed. We know that York has some concerns, and we know that other boards of education may have been uneasy about certain sections of the bill, albeit some of them felt that amendments would be preferable to withdrawal.

3:40 p.m.

When we look at all the boards of education listed in

section I of this bill, and reflect on the viewpoint expressed by voters in the boroughs and municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto, we have to wonder whether there is still the kind of support the minister thinks there is for Bill 127. To proceed with

section I of Bill 127 at a time when we have a newly elected board of education in each of these municipalities and boroughs I think is an incorrect move.

Naturally, we hope the minister will withdraw the entire bill and go back to the drawing board, but if she does not want to take that particular course, another suggestion would be to wait for the deliberations of the new boards of education which will reflect the voice of the others. As well, some new members may have a contribution to make. The minister would then be better able to determine the level of support among the new members of the boards of education and, therefore, could say she has some indication from the electorate of their support or opposition to the bill through the people who were elected to the various boards of education.

A reasonable stand, and one which would be supported by me, is that the minister withdraw the bill temporarily. I would hope I could persuade her later on to withdraw it on a permanent basis.

There is opposition by the city of Toronto to being included in

section 1. Perhaps it would be unrealistic for the minister to include just those boards of education that want to be included, but because the city of Toronto is specifically mentioned in

section 1, we feel further consultation is necessary in order to discuss that board's concerns with this bill.

They are concerned because they know if they are included in this bill they will be forced into a position of negotiating on a Metro-wide basis two very important items which they hope would be negotiated at the local level, which is where they want the power to remain. They are concerned about that aspect of the bill and I am certain they do not want to be included in

section 1.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Did you ask them?

Mr. Bradley: Second, we all know they are concerned about the aspect of the bill that deals with the surplus and deficit situation. They were relatively pleased with the existing situation. Certainly they were not the worst of those which the minister indicates have been offenders in the surplus and deficit situation that exists. North York, for instance, incurred more deficits in the years that were looked at in the committee. So we have the second aspect of opposition to this bill by the Toronto Board of Education, which does not want to be included in

section I of this bill.

The third aspect dealt with the discretionary levy and whether the board would feel the bill was more acceptable if the discretionary levy had been uncapped or allowed to go to two mills without the sleight of hand the minister used in the committee. She appeared to be making a concession on one

section of this bill, but when we looked at actual dollars down the line, it was not much of a concession --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, yes, it is.

Mr. Bradley: -- because of the freezing at the 1981 level of assessment.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You just cannot add.

Mr. Bradley: That is why the city of Toronto would be particularly opposed to being specifically named in

section I of this bill.

L'Association des enseignants franco-ontariens and the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, which are listed in

section 1, and the Ontario Public School Men Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, would not want to be included in

section 1. Any one of them might want to be exempted from that section, and we can certainly understand their reasons.

They have expressed their concerns about the deficit-surplus policy to be included in this bill. They are concerned about the discretionary levy, which the minister has not budged very much on. When she first introduced the bill, we know she wanted to reduce that portion at least in the elementary area to one mill which could be used for the purposes of hiring teachers. There was a concession made that the full mill and a half would be permitted to be used, but a freeze would be placed at 1981 on the assessment that would be used as the base for that.

It really was not the kind of major concession people were looking for. Therefore, it is not the kind of concession which would suggest that those listed in

section I of the bill among the teachers' federations would be prepared to accept their inclusion in

section 1.

Also, and of primary concern, being included in

section I of this bill, these federations would be very much opposed to the changes the minister has suggested in the collective bargaining process at the Metro level. They feel, and rightly so, their inclusion will mean there will be less of an opportunity to negotiate the kind of local options within contracts than has been the case in the past.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why do you stand there and mouth this?

Mr. Bradley: We know it's true.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it's not true.

Mr. Bradley: The minister interjects and says it is not true, but of course she is not correct in assuming that.

If we look at the situation as to why the teachers' federations within Metropolitan Toronto would not want to be included in

section 1, we know they happened to negotiate a rather interesting contract a couple of years ago where they were prepared to have more teachers in the system at a lower rate of compensation than would have been the case in certain other boards of education within Metropolitan Toronto. I think it was called "bodies for bucks," which is a rather uncomplimentary term to be using. Nevertheless that was an innovative item that was included in terms of a contract.

Therefore, when these people look at

section I of Bill 12 and see their federation listed as being forced to participate in the provisions of this bill, being included in

section 1, they are going to be very concerned that if they want to negotiate a contract with the kind of special provision which will ultimately benefit the children in Metropolitan Toronto, or specifically in the city of Toronto, by having more teachers available to teach those children, they would not be able to do so by being included in

section 1.

Rather than including them, we are saying that there be a renegotiation with them, some meaningful consultation with the teachers' federations on how they might feel they could be included in a bill of this kind, how it might be acceptable to be specifically named in

section I of a bill of this kind. The best way would be to discuss with them changes to Bill 100 if those are the areas where the minister is concerned. They are very familiar with Bill 100, in which they do not mind being included. They know they would be included there and that is fine with them. Their objection is to being included in a bill such as this and being specifically named in

section I of the bill.

I urge the minister to withdraw

section 1, which means withdrawing the entire bill, of course, in order that she can look at the whole matter of negotiations in Metropolitan Toronto again, look at the surplus and deficit situation in Toronto with a better viewpoint and go back to the drawing board in terms of the discretionary levy.

When people look at the board of education being named -- for instance, the Toronto Board of Education or any of the boards -- and when the parents affected by this board come before the committee and talk about the possible destruction of programs that could flow from that board of education being included in

section I of this bill, then they would endorse the position that I am taking of asking the minister to go back and begin the consultative process anew in an attempt to solve any problems that might exist.

3:50 p.m.

I suggest the problems simply do not exist. By including all these organizations and these boards of education,

section I is unnecessary because we are fixing something that is not broken. No substantial problems exist except in the minds of a few people. Any problems of that nature can be discussed on a long-term basis.

We do not agree with

section I and we will be voting against it. I moved an amendment in committee which would have deleted many sections of this bill and that is the way we wish to proceed. But I understand amendments to delete an entire

section will not be accepted. We feel the whole

section is defective and therefore we will be voting against

section I and will be supporting any amendments that would include deletion of even part of

section 1.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Liberal member got the idea you will not allow any deletions or amendments to this bill.

Mr. Chairman: He did not say that.

Mr. Grande: Or particular clauses of this bill.

Mr. Chairman: He recognized the fact they are not going to bother with deletion of particular clauses; they are just going to vote against the whole section. That is what he said.

Mr. Grande: Exactly. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move, as per page 2 of the material I have provided for you, that

section I of Bill 127,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, be deleted.

Mr. Chairman: The honourable member has moved -- dispense with the reading? Dispense.

Mr. Grande: There are some basic reasons I moved deletion of

section I of the bill.

The first reason is basically because we are here today, approximately five months after the introduction of this bill in the Legislature, and clearly the Minister of Education has failed miserably in terms of explaining to anyone in this province or in Metropolitan Toronto the need for this legislation.

The minister has made some noises, noises that people simply do not believe, noises about which 5,000 people in front of this Legislature, parents, teachers and students, have said: "No, we do not believe the noises you are making. You have to withdraw the bill." The minister's own trustees, knocking on doors in Metro Toronto, did not believe what the minister was saying because they were walking around with "Stop Bill 127" buttons on their lapels.

Basically they were saying to people: "I am opposed to Bill 127. Vote for me. Forget about my Tory leanings."

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order --

Mr. Chairman: Just before the point of order.

I was trying to get the honourable member's attention. I need a bit of clarification. Maybe I should have read it. It is my understanding you moved, "That the Board of Education for the City of Toronto and the Board of Education for the Borough of York be struck out from

section 1." Is that correct?

Mr. Grande: No. Mr. Chairman, on page 2 which I have given you it says, "Section I of Bill 127,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, be deleted."

As a second amendment, I move that both the Board of Education for the City of Toronto and the Board of Education for the Borough of York be struck out from

section 1.

There are two amendments.

Mr. Chairman: Then we have a problem because on the documentation you gave me, your page 2 is the page that refers to your second amendment. You pointed out to me that your first amendment, of course, is to delete all of

section 1. Is that correct?

Mr. Grande: That is correct.

Mr. Chairman: I am going to have to rule that amendment out of order.

Mr. Grande: That is fine if you rule that way. In other words, you are ruling that amendment out of order and you are accepting the amendment to strike the Toronto Board of Education and the Board of Education for the Borough of York from

section 1?

Mr. Chairman: That is right. I will accept that, although I am not overly happy with the way it is worded. For me, if you had referred to subsection 1(b), etc., it would have been better, but that being as it may.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, the point of order I was going to make was precisely the point of order you have now brought to the member's attention.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. I am glad you were watching and hearing.

Mr. Grande: Speaking to the

section deleting the Toronto Board of Education and the Board of Education for the Borough of York from

section 1, I referred to yesterday as municipal election day in all of Ontario; it was also election day in the borough of York and in the city of Toronto. The electorate last night and yesterday spoke clearly to the Minister of Education and to this government in terms of the disposition of Bill 127.

Basically, the people of Toronto not only decided to return to the board that particular group of trustees the minister called a partisan group of people, but decided to increase the number of those particular people on the board. By the way, in the city of Toronto, some of the trustees who ordinarily wear blue collars and wear the "Stop Bill 127" buttons were also re-elected. Therefore, virtually 100 per cent of the trustees of the city of Toronto say "No" to Bill 127.

Because of that, the city of Toronto should not be part of this bill. The electors of the city of Toronto last night said: "We want direct accountability between our trustees and ourselves. We don't want Bette Stephenson and government to take away that direct link to our trustees in the city of Toronto." Therefore, they voted to signal that particular point to you.

In their way, the people in the borough of York made changes as well -- not perhaps on the setup of the board of education, but certainly in the setup of other bodies in the borough of York.

The fact remains this bill is not required. This bill is not needed. The Minister of Education has not one shred of evidence to put forth which shows to anybody that Bill 127 is required in Metropolitan Toronto. The Toronto Teachers' Federation and other federations in Metropolitan Toronto have come before us on the general government committee with one simple message for the Minister of Education and her government: Withdraw this legislation; get rid of it. The parents have a very simple message: Withdraw this legislation; it is not needed.

4 p.m.

No report that I am aware of in the past three to four years has indicated to this government or to this minister that this legislation should be brought in -- none whatsoever. We are then left to speculate why the bill is here. Perhaps we should not be talking about some of the weaker moments of some cabinet ministers or some Tory back-benchers; perhaps we should leave that to the private domain.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Grande: I certainly am.

Mr. Chairman: Well, many are not.

Mr. Grande: The fact is that there is not one shred of evidence to indicate to the Minister of Education or to the government that they should move in this direction.

The Chairman is aware, I am sure, that last year the Minister of Education and the government circulated amendments to another education bill, which is often referred to as Bill 100. Bill 100 deals with labour relations in the education sector, and if the minister wanted to change labour relations in the education sector in Metropolitan Toronto properly, she should have brought forth the changes in the labour relations legislation that exists. That particular labour relations legislation happens to be the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, 1975.

The minister decided: "No, I will not go that route. I will change the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, because I do not want all the people in Ontario to be opposed to this legislation." The minister, as has been normal and usual ever since she became Minister of Education, was wrong once again: because every one, with the possible exception of about 12 groups that came before the general government committee, has indicated, whether from Metropolitan Toronto or from outside of Metropolitan Toronto, that the bill should not exist, that the bill should be withdrawn, that the bill should be ripped up, basically.

I just want to bring to the minister's attention a couple of things that really upset me about the consultation process this minister has involved herself in with regard to Bill 12.

Mr. Chairman: And that is why you are moving your amendment to

section 1.

Mr. Grande: Exactly, sir: dealing with the city of Toronto. The Minister of Education has received a letter, dated November 1, 1982, from one Robert G. Spencer, chairman of the Toronto Board of Education, who was re-elected yesterday. I want to read this letter, because it speaks to the consultation process that this government involves itself in. It says --

Mr. Chairman: I do not want to get into a big fight here, but does it pertain to your amendment?

Mr. Grande: It certainly does, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I'll tell you what I'll do. This will be a gimme, because I trust your judgement on it, but because I am having difficulty in trying to establish how the consultation process concerns your amendment --

Mr. Grande: I am suggesting --

Mr. Wildman: They are forcing this bill on those two boards.

Mr. Chairman: The honourable member has the floor.

Mr. Grande: That is right. I am suggesting to you that the city of Toronto and the borough of York should be taken out of that first section. I am giving you a reason why it should be taken out of that section. This happens to be regarding the city of Toronto.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, could you possibly clarify the amendment the honourable member proposes to make?

Mr. Chairman: Yes. I would be delighted to do that. If you have a copy of the bill in front of you, we are dealing with --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, I have. I must say that I sat throughout the hearings on that particular bill so I am somewhat acquainted with its contents.

There has been a considerable tardiness, as you know, in processing this particular piece of legislation. I am not fully acquainted with the substance of the amendment in connection with

section 1. Will you read the amendment? I do not think it deals with the consultative process.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I am answering the point of order of the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) in terms of reading the amendment again. The amendment is to

section I of Bill 127: "Mr. Grande moves that the Board of Education for the City of Toronto and the Board of Education for the Borough of York be struck out from

section 1."

I indicated earlier that as far as draftsmanship goes I would have been happier if the amendment had read something in the nature of "Mr. Grande moves that paragraph 1(1)(b)(b)5 and paragraph 1(1)(b)(b)6 he struck out." However, under the circumstances I have allowed the amendment to stand. Again, that refers more specifically to paragraphs 1(1)(b)(b)5 and 6. Are you clear on that?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Algoma had a point of order.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Surely all members of the House will realize that the reason my colleague's amendment strikes out those two particular boards is for the very fact that the ministry has ignored the positions taken by those boards on this legislation and is forcing the legislation upon them.

Mr. Grande: The letter is addressed "Dear Dr. Stephenson" and reads:

"The board of education in its meeting of Thursday, October 21, 1982, was unanimous in its vote that I, as chairman, express its disappointment and anger at your apparent undemocratic and closed method of operation with respect to a meeting held on October 15.

"It had been brought to my attention that on Friday, October 1, at 3:30 p.m., you convened a meeting of the chairmen of the other area boards of education in Metro Toronto, along with the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, to discuss Bill 127 and related matters.

"I was available to attend such a meeting but, because no invitation was extended to me, knew nothing about it. I was quite surprised when asked by one of those present why I had not attended since all present were aware of Toronto's position and must have wondered why it was not represented at the meeting.

"While it is common for political parties to caucus in private, it is uncommon for public, democratic institutions to exclude fellow representatives.

"The board views this as a deliberate slight to the 600,000 people of the city of Toronto, many of whom have very strong feelings about this particular piece of legislation.

"I hope I have made my point on behalf of all the trustees in the city of Toronto and, I believe, on behalf of the majority of the residents of the city. It appears that 'equality of education' does not include even such a basic democratic right as equal access to dialogue."

The reason I read that letter in full was that it does speak to the consultation process, where the minister says, "I will consult with those people who agree with me and exclude those who disagree with me." The whole process of Bill 127 has been dealt with completely and totally in that manner by this minister and this government.

4:10 p.m.

The minister consulted at one point with the Ontario Teachers' Federation but when those people said, "Show us what you are attempting to amend," the minister answered: "I am not going to show you the amendments; I will be asking if you have amendments." The minister was aware the OTF's position was that the bill should be withdrawn. If the minister calls that consultation, it is a very hollow definition of the word.

In Toronto's ward 11 last night, a lady named Marjorie Manley was elected. She has been one of the many outspoken critics of Bill 127. This is the lady who, at the Holiday Inn in Toronto some time ago, said of the Minister of Education: "I accuse Stephenson of using my children as political pawns in this venture. Parents have the right to fulfil their responsibilities to their children by electing their own trustees." This lady, Marjorie Manley, yesterday was elected as one of the trustees for the city of Toronto. I am sure the Minister of Education will be hearing a lot more from Marjorie Manley in the future.

I want to end the discussion on this, the first of the 50-odd amendments I have for introduction in this Legislature, by saying to the Minister of Education that the people in Metropolitan Toronto spoke loud and clear yesterday. They said, "We want our trustees to be responsible to us, the electorate." They said to the Minister of Education: "Leave that alone. Do not tamper with our democratic rights. Withdraw this objectionable and punitive legislation which you have before the House." I hope the minister has her ears open.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a few comments: I think the substance of the amendment is to create permissive legislation which means that a board of education not supportive of the legislation would have the right to opt out of the legislation. In my humble submission that would undermine the very principle of the bill itself. It would be ludicrous to suggest that one could lift from the bill any single board of education. I wanted to make that comment.

Furthermore, I do not think one can interpret the events of yesterday and the results of last evening as having any particular bearing on the legitimacy or otherwise of this bill.

Mr. Wildman: That shows how out of touch you are.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I do not want to respond to comments that are ill-advised and not considered. We are dealing with

section I of the bill. It is important to ensure that if there is a bill, the integrity of that

section remains. I therefore offer my support for that section.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox is correct in his assessment that the net effect of this amendment would be to create permissive legislation. In that regard I support it.

As one who favours the concept of local autonomy, I find it somewhat regrettable that a school board would be dragged kicking and screaming into this legislation when it has been clearly demonstrated, not only by the duly elected representatives of the school board, but also, and even more appropriately, by a great plethora of citizens' groups, teachers' groups and home and school associations, that with very few exceptions, as indicated to the members of the committee, they had overwhelming opposition to the legislation in general and specifically to

section 1.

I can reflect on the time we spent during the course of the hearings. Some tremendous presentations were made, including one by the chairman of the Ottawa Board of Education, who took the time to come to Toronto to make her presentation and who was a treat to listen to. I do not know what her political preference would be, if she has one, but she made a great deal of common sense, something that may be missing in the legislation.

I was impressed by the submission made by Mr. Rogers, who I believe has some passing acquaintance with a local cable TV outfit, who was representing the home and school association, if my memory serves me well, for the John Robinson Public --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: John Ross Robertson.

Mr. Cunningham: The John Ross Robertson Public School, which I believe may be situated in the riding of Eglinton. It is understandable that the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry) may have some second thoughts about the legislation, given the well-expressed concern by Mr. Rogers about this piece of legislation.

Frankly, it disturbs me for a number of reasons. I think the surplus and deficit situation is one --

The Deputy Chairman: Is the member speaking to the amendment? I am concerned that he might be wandering off. We are talking about the amendment. "I move that the Board of Education for the City of Toronto and the Board of Education for the Borough of York be struck from

section 1."

Mr. Philip: He is talking about the city of Toronto.

The Deputy Chairman: I am asking about the amendment. We are talking to an amendment.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what I have done to provoke you to yell at me.

The Deputy Chairman: I really disapprove: I think the chair is trying to do a job. All we have to do is make sure we deal with the subject at hand. The interjections make it difficult for the chair to appreciate why they come.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, since I had the floor, I did not think I was interjecting.

The Deputy Chairman: The member does have the floor, but on the motion.

Mr. Cunningham: I really do not know what I have done.

The Deputy Chairman: I am listening to you. I am just asking you to speak to the amendment, which I do not think this is.

Mr. Cunningham: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I accept your apology. The thrust of my remarks reflected the amendment before us. The thrust of that amendment would be to recognize the right of the city of Toronto and the borough of York, those two municipalities as a minimum, to be removed from this item of legislation.

Reflecting on the events that occurred during the course of the committee, the amendment itself reflects some concerns I expressed in committee, and I did make that motion during the course of the committee. Unfortunately, it did not receive the favour of the members of the Legislature who were attending the committee, the members of the government part. Unfortunately, I do not see many of those who participated in the committee here today, but that is another matter and not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.

As I reflect on paragraphs 5 and 6, I am of course mindful of the presentations made by groups from the city of Toronto and the borough of York.

More specifically, as a member of the Legislature from outside the city of Toronto and from outside the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, I must say it was a great education for me in so far as I was apprised by the representatives not only of the boards of education but also, more appropriately, by the home and school associations, the citizens' groups and the neighbourhood community associations, of the necessity for them not to be included in this bill.

Interjection.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Cunningham: I am sorry; I missed the interjection from the minister.

As one who studied at the University of Western Ontario and learned the doctrine of "cheap smart" and "cheap stupid" very well, I was convinced that if we put money into our system to accommodate the special needs of these children at an early age, it would be far cheaper and far more humane and realistic than to deal with these people in a remedial fashion ex post facto, or after the fact. I think it was the desire to establish a system of education that would reflect local autonomy and local concerns that prompted not only elected representatives of the city of Toronto and the borough of York but also their constituent groups to oppose the bill in its present form.

Frankly, I do not know whether the bill should be thrown out in its entirety. That probably would be my personal preference, something I would like to see for many reasons. If the duly elected members of the Scarborough Board of Education, for example, choose in their wisdom to adopt or reject a certain program, that is their responsibility to do so.

Interjection.

Mr. Cunningham: The minister interjects again.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: For the second time.

Mr. Cunningham: I appreciate her interjections because, unlike some members, I hold her in very high regard. My regard for her was enhanced during the course of the committee hearings.

I must say that my opinion is in variance with her statement. If in the funding process the ability to establish the number of teachers who are required to implement these programs is undermined in any way, it naturally follows that these programs will be undermined. That, in my view, would be very regrettable.

We heard from representatives of people who live in the city of Toronto and in the borough of York, and even from people who live in other jurisdictions, that while this very complex and large Metro board was not perfect, it was working; that while some minor problems have occurred over the last couple of years, the situation was not beyond repair.

I think it was a prominent Conservative member of this Legislature who once said, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." I would not suggest everything is perfect in Metro, but I was impressed that with a little bit of common sense and a renewed effort to work together, what could be a very fine system also could be maintained.

It bothers me, as we approach consideration of the first

section with a view to passing this bill, that possibly we are not considering the current views and feelings of the constituent parts of the Metro board with regard to the events of yesterday. I refer specifically to the election.

It would be very remiss of us to consider passage of this section, and the act as a whole, without regard to the overwhelming opposition that exists among the elected trustees and among the neighbourhood groups to which I have already referred at some length. I think that would be regrettable.

If members would reflect for a moment, they would see that removal of local autonomy undermines the ability of a school board even to control effectively the amount of money that will be spent. With local autonomy in mind, my suggestion would be --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: But that is there now. There is nothing new.

Mr. Cunningham: The minister interjects again.

My suggestion would be to defer this legislation for a period of time and consult with several other constituent boards in the hope that there could be some generally recognized understanding and meeting of the minds on subjects such as the surplus and deficit situation. Frankly, I do not think that is as extreme a problem as many would have us believe.

The passage of this legislation will be a very regressive step, particularly this clause, which will mandate the participation of the city of Toronto and the borough of York in the bill. In speaking to this

section and the amendment, I implore the minister to rethink her government's position on the legislation.

Many of us have had an opportunity to read an

article in the November issue of Toronto Life. On the surface it looked like a feature on the minister by a Miss Maggie Singings, but in reality it was a commentary on Bill 127.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Quite inaccurate.

Mr. Cunningham: It may well be. One part of the

article I did not regard as inaccurate was the comment that the minister "was a tough, hard-working, extremely clever person. She was expected to be an exceptional minister, a possible candidate for the party leadership should Bill Davis ever depart." I underline that comment, because it jumped off the page at me.

The minister was elected in the same year that I was, and I have always regarded her to be very clever and perceptive. The only thing that causes me to rethink my position in that regard and to question the efficacy of what Miss Singings has written is the truculence the minister brings to the discussion of Bill 127.

Not only is it politically wrong for the minister to pursue this, and to do it at her personal expense and that of her government, but also I think it is inherently unfair to force a mandate, against their will, on the two boards of education, out of six, that represent a very large percentage of the Metro population.

Given the election yesterday and the overwhelming feeling against the inclusion of these boroughs in this bill, it would be prudent to reflect on the concerns of members of the opposition as well as those of the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shimkus) and the member for St. George (Miss Fish), who unfortunately are not in their seats. There are even rumours of some cabinet dissension represented by the member for Eglinton and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman).

I ask the minister to reflect upon the amendment before her and to consider standing down this item of legislation for a period of six months or so, so that she may more accurately gauge the sentiments that exist in Metro. The presentations that were made to us were indeed impressive. Nothing has transpired in the past month or six weeks that would cause me to think the delegations' feelings on Bill 127 have changed. As a democratically elected Legislature, we have an obligation to reflect upon their feelings and to give great consideration to them.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment largely because it attempts to restore the remaining bit of local autonomy that is now being taken away from the two particular boards mentioned. We have heard a lot of discussion throughout the second-reading and committee stages about local autonomy with regard to this legislation. There have been arguments as to whether the bill, as now drafted, removes local autonomy or protects it.

4:30 p.m.

The discussion is quite simple. The chairman and other representatives of the Toronto Board of Education appeared before the committee and told us their board was overwhelmingly opposed to this legislation. It is beyond my understanding that members of the government party can then argue that they are somehow protecting local autonomy by forcing that board, which is opposed to this legislation, to come under it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Who is arguing that?

Mr. Wildman: Other members of the committee will remember that during the committee stage, time and again the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) argued that this bill was designed to protect local autonomy. What a lot of bunkum.

Two boards, including especially the Toronto board, came before us to say they were opposed to this legislation and gave a number of reasons; then a large group of parents representing parent-teacher and staffing organizations for schools within their jurisdiction came before us and supported the position taken by the elected members of the Toronto board and said they also were opposed to this legislation. How then can any member of the government argue the government is restoring or maintaining local autonomy by forcing that board, against its will, to come under this legislation? What a joke.

I submit the member for Prince Edward-Lennox has not been directly involved with this issue. If he were, he would know that Bill 12 was one of the central issues in the recent municipal school board elections in Metropolitan Toronto. Many candidates in those elections ran either in support of or in opposition to Bill 12 and it was a central issue. For the member to argue that it was not and that yesterday's election did not in any way comment on the legislation is a complete misunderstanding of what happened here in this election.

Just as the by-election on November 4 was a referendum on the lack of job creation and the failure by this government to deal with the economic problems we face, so in many way the municipal school board elections in Metropolitan Toronto were referendums on Bill 127.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You are fantasizing.

Mr. Wildman: The minister says that is right and I agree with her. She would probably argue that in many of the boards the vote was a referendum on Bill 127, saying, "We favour it." I suppose that is the position she has taken.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Five of the six.

Mr. Wildman: Five of the six.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You are saying that because Toronto did not think it should be delayed; they are part of Metro.

Mr. Wildman: I will accept the minister's position that there was a referendum and that in five of the six jurisdictions the people chose to support Bill 127. So, basically what she is saying is that at least one out of the six chose to oppose it. The elected members of that board who had expressed opposition to Bill 127 did very well.

How can we then say we should force that board to accept this legislation and should force those parents and ratepayers who voted against Bill 127 to accept it? It is beyond me.

During the hearings we heard time and again the reasons the Toronto board did not wish this legislation to pass as it is drafted or, if it were to pass, that changes be made in the bill so it would be permissive and that board could choose to be within or outside joint bargaining.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They can do that now.

Mr. Wildman: Exactly; they can do that now, and we wish they could continue to do it, but they will not when this legislation is passed, and that shows how little the member knows about it. We would like the situation we have right now to continue.

Unfortunately, this bill stops that from happening. This bill prevents a board from opting out of the bargaining as it can do now. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox was not a member of the committee so I do not really blame him for not knowing what the bill is about, but I wish he would read it before he starts to interject or participate in the debate.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, he was. He said you weren't a member of the committee.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Intellectual arrogance: that's all you display over there.

Mr. Wildman: He was a member of the committee all right, but he spent most of his time sleeping, as many members of the government did when they were there.

The Deputy Chairman: I would ask the members to end the interjections and that we deal with the specific amendments before the House.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: I do not think it is becoming for a fellow parliamentarian to make those types of personal comments. I do not think it adds anything to the debate in this sense.

Mr. Wildman: I agree and I withdraw the comment. It was not the member for Prince Edward-Lennox who was sleeping; it was the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy).

The Deputy Chairman: I appreciate we are having such a high level of debate here that it is nice to receive that at all times.

Mr. Wildman: One of the major reasons the Toronto board was opposed to this legislation and wished not to be forced into it was the problem it perceived would result because of the changes in what it can now do in terms of staffing.

The argument was made that, unless the board were allowed to continue what it is now doing, it would have to cut the numbers of staff and in so doing threaten programs that were central to the education of the children, as we were told by parents' groups, one after another, who came before the committee.

These parents' groups appeared before us and said that unless their schools and the Toronto board were able to maintain the flexibility they now have with regard to staffing formula, those programs might be threatened.

The minister moved somewhat during clause-by-clause debate to deal with that problem. I admit that; she did. Unfortunately, she did not move nearly far enough in my view. We still face the problem, if not this year, then perhaps next year or the year after.

I know most members of the House support local autonomy with regard to municipal elected bodies and would not want to force this legislation on a jurisdiction where the ratepayers have stated overwhelmingly they are against it.

Some people might ask, "Why is this party introducing amendments in the House that have already been dealt with in committee and been defeated by the government majority?" There was a sort of six and five program in the committee where the six government members automatically voted against any amendment put forward by either of the opposition parties, and the five members of the opposition were not able to carry the amendment.

4:40 p.m.

It was amusing at one point, if you will allow me to digress for a moment, Mr. Chairman. When one amendment was proposed and we were voting on it, the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) voted in opposition to the member for St. Catharines and then discovered afterwards that the member for St. Catharines had actually been voting with the government.

The Deputy Chairman: You did digress. Deal with the amendment, and then we can digress to the next amendment.

Mr. Wildman: I was going to suggest that the reason w