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

November 7, 1983

32nd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

REMARKS BY MEMBER

MINISTER'S RETURN TO HOUSE

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

ORAL QUESTIONS

FAMILY BENEFITS

GRAY COACH EMPLOYEES

DISABLED PERSONS' GUARANTEED INCOME

BALLYCLIFFE LODGE LAYOFFS

DAY CARE

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

ASSESSMENT REVIEW

USE OF DEREGISTERED PESTICIDE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL PROPOSAL

MINIMUM WAGE

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION CONTRACT

PETITIONS

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE OF THE ASSEMBLY (CONCLUDED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

REMARKS BY MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I would like to refer all honour- able members to the allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) on Friday last. I am sure he is aware that it is out of order to accuse another member of deliberately misleading the House or of not telling the truth, and such an accusation cannot be made as a matter of privilege. I refer all members to standing order 19(d)(10).

Moreover, it is a basic rule of parliamentary practice that members must accept the word of other members. To quote Lewis's Parliamentary Procedure in Ontario at page 24, "The conduct of members in the House is based on an etiquette of mutual consideration." The Speaker must not be placed in the position of judging who or who is not telling the truth.

It follows that the allegation of the Leader of the Opposition was, as I stated at the time, not a matter of privilege and was, of course, out of order and unparliamentary, and I would ask the honourable member to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of parliamentary niceties, while I am not anxious to develop a procedural debate here, I want to take you back to that conversation on Friday, if I may, for your own attention, because it was your handling of that situation that precipitated the crisis that developed in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: If I may, just on a point of privilege, address that matter --

Mr. Speaker: No. There is no way that --

Mr. Peterson: Sir, I stood in this House on a point of privilege, a point of clarification or whatever you want to call it, to correct deliberate suggestions -- perhaps they were not deliberate but they were factually incorrect -- by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman). Now I ask you, what is my remedy when the minister stands in his place and says things that are not correct?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: I am not interested in having an ethical debate here, but I am interested in getting at the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I would refer you once again to what I said earlier. The Speaker must not and indeed cannot be placed in a position of judging who is or who is not telling the truth. That is a matter for members of the House to decide, and that may or may not be your only remedy. I am not sure.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: In the excitement and emotion of the moment, and to refresh my memory, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition if he in fact did withdraw the statement he made on Friday.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Will you, then?

Mr. Peterson: I think I did, Mr. Speaker, but if you would like it in writing, I would be happy to send it over to you.

MINISTER'S RETURN TO HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to draw to the attention of the House, and I am sure we all share the delight in seeing him, the return of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). We would want him to know that he has been missed. The House has not been the same without him. Indeed, we wish now that he is following and, we hope, will continue to follow the instructions of his doctor, that he will enjoy good health for many more years. Welcome back.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join personally with the words of the Deputy Premier and welcome our esteemed colleague back to the House. For all of his sins we very much miss him in a personal way, and for those who feel this place has been a little dull over the past two or three weeks or month or so, I am sure that situation will be rectified immediately today. Welcome back.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in the light of this rare display of unanimity I thought I would at least express very welcome words to the Minister of Community and Social Services. We are delighted that he is here today and we are looking forward to having him around for a very long time.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, may I just respond to that totally unexpected welcome? No one has ever welcomed me to anything in my life. I do appreciate the sentiments of the House and I do also appreciate the many cards, letters, books and visits from members of the House. I will be responding to those in a more formal way.

I also want to say today that I do appreciate particularly the undertaking of a very onerous task by my friend and colleague the honourable Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. McCaffrey). I understand how onerous it is to take on the responsibilities of another minister while maintaining one's own portfolio. I have done it myself from time to time. It is a very difficult task.

2:10 p.m.

At my personal request, the minister accepted the responsibility and has been a great strength and a great resource to me since September 22. The people of the province have been very well served by him in assuming the administrative and some other responsibilities in a very large and very significant portfolio.

I regret that he is going to have to do it for a few more days, but I did want to draw the attention of the House to the excellent manner in which he has carried out those functions, and I express my gratitude and thanks to him for doing it in such an exemplary manner.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, here in Ontario we have a social assistance system that is truly second to none in Canada, and that is a fact that every resident of Ontario should be proud of. In spite of difficult economic times, Ontario has continued to fulfil its commitment to look after the people in this province who cannot fully provide for themselves: disabled people, elderly people, single parents and people without jobs for one reason or another.

I say with pride that while other jurisdictions are cutting back in social assistance, this province has not cut a single social benefit or program. Instead, as a result of the prudent management of the resources available to us, both human and financial, we have been able to enhance, expand and make improvements in our social assistance programs.

The members of this House will recall that last October I announced a basic five per cent increase across the board in social assistance as well as a number of enrichments to the family benefits and general welfare programs. This included an increase in the maximum shelter subsidy paid, and special increases to single employable people receiving general welfare and permanently unemployable people receiving family benefits. We intend to continue to make improvements in our social assistance program here in Ontario.

Today I am pleased to announce a package of new improvements that will become effective January 1, 1984. The total provincial cost of the improvements I am announcing today will amount to $61.2 million for the 1984-85 fiscal year and $15.5 million for the last quarter of this fiscal year. Let me point out that this will bring my ministry's estimated spending for social assistance in 1983-84 up to $1.2 billion. We estimate that our total spending for all social services this year will be about $2.4 billion. That includes our estimates, our forecast supplementary estimates and administration costs.

As members know, these costs are shared with the federal government under the Canada assistance plan.

Let me run through the four main items in that improvement package, Mr. Speaker.

First, we will be introducing a five per cent across-the-board increase in basic allowances for the approximately one quarter of a million recipients of family benefits and general welfare allowances.

Second, we will be bringing in a special increase for single employable people on general welfare assistance. Instead of the five per cent across-the-board increase, people in this category will receive a 7.6 per cent increase. This initiative is aimed at helping those who are truly the new victims of the recession, people who can work and want to work but cannot find jobs because of the economy.

Third, we will be increasing the maximum shelter subsidy by $15 across the board for all family sizes. This is a program that provides additional assistance on top of the basic allowance to recipients who have high shelter costs. The increase I am announcing today means the maximum shelter subsidies will range from $90 to $140, depending on family size.

Finally, we will be introducing special enhancements and improvements for physically and mentally handicapped recipients. Let me outline those enhancements and improvements for handicapped people. I want to stress that these are improvements that handicapped people will receive in addition to the increases in basic allowance and shelter subsidy I have just outlined.

Under our income maintenance system here in Ontario, handicapped people receive an enriched level of income under the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled program, which is delivered by the province under the Family Benefits Act. Gains-D recipients with home heating fuel costs have always had these costs included as part of their special needs allowance. However, effective January 1, 1984, we will begin reimbursing clients for fuel in addition to the basic disabled allowance.

This change will have an immediate effect on about 5,100 recipients who are paying their own heating costs. We estimate these recipients will benefit by an average of about $30 a month; some could be lower and some could be much higher, depending on fuel costs.

Second, we will be introducing a new special payment of up to $350 for people who are leaving institutions and need help getting established in the community. Under this new initiative, the general welfare recipient will be provided with funds to cover such items as the deposit on monthly rent, buying utensils for setting up a kitchen and the like. Our aim, of course, is to ensure these people receive the help they need to begin their new independent living with as much ease as possible. Family benefits recipients at present receive a discharge benefit.

Third, we will raise the maximum monthly relocation benefits for disabled clients. This benefit is available in cases where a disabled client must move temporarily to another community to take a vocational training course and so has the extra cost of paying for accommodation in two communities.

Finally, the maximum monthly benefit under the handicapped children's benefits program will be increased by 11 per cent. Effective January 1, 1984, parents looking after their severely handicapped child at home will be able to receive a maximum of $250 a month under this program, up from $225 a month.

There will be a number of other adjustments to benefits as well, but I have covered the highlights today. I think it is important at this point that I put these improvements in the context of the overall benefits that recipients receive. I want to emphasize that one cannot get an accurate picture of our recipients' total income by simply adding together the basic allowance and shelter subsidy. Accordingly, let me outline today the total benefits a recipient will receive as of January 1, 1984. I will use as an example a mother of two on family benefits, one of our typical examples.

First of all, that family will receive a cheque for $716 per month for its basic allowance and shelter subsidy. In addition, the family will receive monthly family allowance cheques, the child tax credit, Ontario tax credit and a back-to-school allowance. If we prorate the tax credits and the back-to-school allowance over 12 months, those additional cash benefits will raise the monthly figure to $872 a month, or $10,457 a year.

Let me go further, though. The family receives more benefits as well. When we count in benefits most people must pay for, such as Ontario health insurance plan coverage, prescription drugs and basic dental care, eye glasses, hearing aids and the like, on an average, this family receives a total package with a dollar value of about $11,400.

Recipients are also allowed to earn certain amounts through part-time employment without affecting their basic allowance. In fact, a single mother whose children are in school, for example, could add up to an additional $190 per month to her income through part-time earnings.

I have included some examples in the sheets attached to the information package. If members study those sheets, they will see that the total income picture is considerably higher than most people realize and, in fact, provides for the basic needs of all Ontario recipients. They may pick out one specific area and say in this area that Ontario's rates are behind such-and-such other provinces. The fact is, in terms of total benefits, Ontario's social assistance system ranks among the best on this continent.

I believe that as a government we have a responsibility to provide as much help as possible to those in our society who, through no fault of their own, need our support. I am talking now not only about those who are blind or disabled or unable to work, but also about those who have worked for years and find that because of the economic climate they are now unemployed, in many cases for the first time in their adult lives.

In some cases, that may involve providing more than just financial help. One of our most recent initiatives which we are particularly proud of is our program to provide assistance to sole-support parents who want to get off social assistance and become self-sufficient.

The members of the House will recall we introduced a range of employment support initiatives in nine test communities in Ontario. To date, we have been overwhelmed by the amount of interest single parents have shown in this program. The extent of the response at all levels has exceeded all our expectations. Through this program, I believe we have established once and for all that the employment supports we have put in place are not only needed by our recipients, they are also wanted by our recipients.

2:20 p.m.

Certainly, there are some people who try to abuse our income maintenance system, those who attempt to obtain benefits for which they are not eligible; but they are relatively few, and we have safeguards in place to make sure those few are discovered and dealt with.

The fact that we have not cut a single social benefit or program, as so many other jurisdictions have done during this period of recession, is hard evidence, I believe, of our commitment to ensure help is available to all those in need. This year my ministry will be backing up that commitment with a budget that will approach $2.4 billion. That is a substantial expenditure in anybody's books.

Here in Ontario we have a tradition of helping those people who are physically, emotionally and socially disadvantaged and who are unable to provide for themselves. I am confident the improvements I have outlined today will serve to continue that tradition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FAMILY BENEFITS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to his statement. Referring to page 4, I understand there will be a five per cent across-the-board increase in basic allowances for one quarter of a million recipients of family benefits and general welfare assistance, as well as a special category of 7.6 per cent for certain employable people who are not working at the present time.

The minister will be aware that the last increase of five per cent was a year or so ago. Inflation over the past two years has been 15.8 per cent. The combined effect of these two increases has been about 10 per cent. These recipients are still falling behind the rate of inflation. The minister will also be aware that it was his government that was persuaded a year ago that doctors deserved some catch-up because they had fallen behind inflation over a period of years. Why would that same logic not apply to family benefit recipients or welfare recipients who have also fallen behind inflation over the past two years?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will dispute with the Leader of the Opposition that the inflation rate over the last two years has been 15 per cent.

Mr. Ruprecht: Give us the correct figure.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: We have not been universal in our increases. I made it plain when I became minister that we would be selective. In many cases, we have far exceeded any type of inflation. I can talk about the women who are 60 to 64 years of age and about the people who are permanently unemployable who were raised up to the disabled level. These were very substantial increases, well over 30 and 35 per cent.

Last year, in addition to the basic increase, we went out to do something for the new class which is on social assistance, the people who simply could not find a job because of the recession. We also moved in our shelter areas to do something for those who had to purchase shelter, whether it was at a rooming house, boarding house or other type of dwelling in the private market rather than under subsidized housing. We recognized that need.

This year we have looked at the disabled, the handicapped and so forth. Last year we made it plain our particular thrust was for the employables and those bearing the brunt of the economic depression, particularly in terms of unemployment.

Overall, when one looks at last year, the cost last year at this time was about $52 million. This year we are bringing in a program of increases that costs more than $61 million. We have not cut a single program. We are dealing as fairly, as justly and as economically responsibly as any government on this continent with the victims of the depression as well as with long-term social assistance recipients.

Mr. Peterson: I certainly welcome the special programs the minister has brought in, targeted as they are, but the reality is that there is still the forgotten group in his program which is only going to go up by five per cent this year and which is consistently falling behind inflation. That is the reality.

The minister is part of a government that is discussing restraint. It is presumably going to introduce something in this House tomorrow. It is also the same government that allows Hydro increases of eight per cent. These same people have to pay Hydro increases. Certain groups in society have been exempted from these restraints, i.e., the doctors.

Does the minister not feel these people at the bottom end of the scale, the unemployables as opposed to the employables he wants to address, deserve a chance to catch up to inflation too? Surely he has missed a very important group in his program.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not follow the logic of the question. We concentrated on the employables last year. We are still concentrating on them. If the member will look at the statement in some depth. he will see that this year we also have a very significant thrust for the long-term handicapped or the unemployables. No government on this continent has worked harder than this one to keep the disadvantaged abreast of the recession and other economic factors in this country.

It is not a question of who got what kind of increase in terms of the private sector. In fact, the increases in social assistance of the last two years have exceeded the government restraint program. I do not think it is a question that certain people are being forgotten. If there is a category or person that is being forgotten or ignored in this province, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to tell me about it.

We have looked far and wide. We have done all kinds of things for particular groups, especially the most disadvantaged, people who were forgotten for a quarter of a century. The member may not like the rates, and that is fair criticism, but I object strongly to the suggestion we have forgotten anybody.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister said he challenged the figures with respect to the increase in the cost of living. I would like to ask the minister to consider the following facts, and if he disputes them, let him set out his own. There were increases announced in February 1981 and October 1982 and now these increases have been announced today. Since February 1981, the consumer price index has increased by more than 20 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Does the minister not agree that the income of the neediest citizens of this province should at least keep pace with the increase in the overall consumer price index and the overall increase in the cost of living, such as hydro, heat, fuel, rent, food and so on? How can he deny the fact that, all things considered, the rate of support for the neediest citizens of this province has fallen behind the increases in the cost of living?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, that is factually incorrect. A great many of the so-called neediest in the province whom the leader of the third party is talking about are outside the scope of increases in the cost of heating, rent and so forth. They are in subsidized housing where those costs are met. That is why we have asked him to compare the total package rather than the basic needs.

The point the Leader of the Opposition made about 15 per cent was for the last two years. The leader of the third party has gone back three years to go up to 20 per cent. There is no one on this continent, whether he is working at the most affluent job or is on unemployment insurance, who has kept pace with inflation since 1980 or 1981. including everybody in this House. Nobody has been able to keep pace with it. To suggest that one of the things that should be done is to start indexing everybody again so they can keep pace with inflation is the fastest way to recycle inflation and have it going again. We would wind up in the same recession we are now trying to recover from.

2:30 p.m.

Instead, we are targeting certain groups in the disadvantaged area. We have targeted those who are facing the full vicissitudes of market rent. We are talking about the single unemployed and the long-term disabled. Over a period of two years we have been very selective in dealing with those who face particular problems because of economic circumstances. In addition to enhancing and increasing the individual benefits, I remind members that not a single program has been cut and no other jurisdiction can say that.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that doctors have managed to keep up very nicely with inflation.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: Had the doctors been included in the restraint program, this government would have had $82 million of additional money to help these people with. In Toronto, for example, the minister will be aware of the following increases since 1980 in inflation: transportation, 44.7 per cent; health care, 33.2 per cent; shelter, 28.6 per cent; water, fuel and electricity, 50.4 per cent; and food, 26.1 per cent. Given these past increases, how can the minister stand in his place and justify a five per cent increase today?

Hon. Mr. Drea: With a lot more confidence than someone who would make silly statements like that.

Mr. Bradley: And now for the answer.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I did not hear that. What did the member say?

Mr. Bradley: And now for the answer.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not you; him.

Mr. Wrye: Try to answer.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Do you have to have him do your thinking?

Mr. Foulds: Absence has not improved the minister.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I really fail to see what the salary or the professional fee adjustments of the doctors have to do with the particular enhancements and improvements I am announcing. I do not understand the thrust of the member's question except that he obviously wants more. As a representative of a party that wants to balance the budget, that fought the Treasurer last year on any of his increased expenditures and that preaches thrift, how much does the member suggest?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Does he want 10 per cent or 20 per cent?

GRAY COACH EMPLOYEES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Labour. This morning I met with the leadership of Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union in this province. The minister will be aware that there are now discussions under way and a recommendation from the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority to adopt a recommendation that would jeopardize the jobs of some 230 drivers now employed by Gray Coach but who are working for GO Transit. I am sure the minister is aware of this situation.

What is the minister doing to protect the jobs of those 230 people who have worked through Gray Coach for GO for a long period of time, who have earned their seniority, whose average seniority is between 15 and 20 years, and who have demonstrated competence and loyalty to their work situation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the first comment I might make is that I am disappointed those people did not see fit to come in and talk to me or even request the opportunity to come in and talk to me. Instead, they have gone to the Leader of the Opposition so that he would be able to raise it here in this Legislature. Certainly, we are concerned about the circumstances and we are taking a good look at the situation.

Mr. Peterson: What kind of silly response is that, that these people cannot talk to members of the opposition of whatever party? Is he threatening them or what?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: It is ridiculous for the Minister of Labour to make that kind of response. They have made arrangements to talk to his deputy. He should be on top of this. It was in the Toronto Star and a variety of other places that an agency of his government is doing it. The minister has no right to make that kind of response in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Would the minister not agree that this is a very clear case where he has to apply his policies, if he has any, of preferential hiring? There are 230 people in jeopardy of losing their jobs to an agency of his colleague. What is the minister going to do? What is the current state of negotiations? Is he going to intervene to make sure these people have preference if that policy is adopted by GO Transit?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I would first give a word of clarification. I have no quarrel whatsoever with anybody speaking with the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the third party. In fact, I think it is very productive that they do so in many cases and not just come to members of the government. Sometimes it brings the problems out there in the work place to the attention of the opposition parties as well as of the government. I think that is a very positive thing and I would never suggest at any time that anyone should not follow that practice.

What I attempted to say earlier is that these people had not seen fit to come in to see me. I would like them to come in and there is an invitation for them to do so. We will sit down and try to find a resolution to the problem. That is the point I was trying to make.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from meetings, which are important, it has been reported that the cabinet is going to be discussing this matter on Wednesday. I would ask if the minister is aware of that and if he could confirm that for us?

Second, is the minister aware that part of the report that was apparently adopted by GO Transit on Friday is a chart showing savings from having a fresh start in business? This is where they come up with $4 million in savings, of which $620,000 comes from lower wage rates, $280,000 from lower vacation costs and nearly $200,000 from reduced out-of-pocket costs.

Would the minister be prepared to come back to the House tomorrow and report on any further information he has about the issues of job security, which is essential for these drivers? Could he also report anything further on the question of lower wages and lower living standards, which also appear to be part of the package being stuck to them by GO Transit?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: First, it has not been brought to my attention that there is to be any discussion of this at cabinet on Wednesday. There could well be, but at the moment I am not aware of it.

As to whether I would come back tomorrow with this information, I am not sure whether I can or not. I will certainly make a commitment to come back before the House adjourns on Wednesday of this week.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority could recommend that these 230 drivers be let go without an opportunity for them to be rehired. I am surprised they would do this without consultation with the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). Do these authorities operate on their own without any government intervention? Who is looking after the welfare of workers when these operating authorities can make such drastic decisions without coming to this minister or the Minister of Transportation and Communications?

Will the minister follow up on the suggestion of the president of Local 113, that if nothing can be resolved politically on this very important and serious matter, then the minister should appoint an arbitrator to try to resolve it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not going to make any commitments in this House until I have had a chance to talk to the principals involved. I just have not had that opportunity, but I want to do that at the earliest possible opportunity.

DISABLED PERSONS' GUARANTEED INCOME

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. We have raised in the House our concerns about what is happening to inflation. However, we are also concerned about the rate of support for people who are suffering from a long-term disability and who are receiving income assistance from the government under the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled.

Could the minister justify to the House why the rate of assistance paid by the government is so much lower for these people than for people who are over 65, who are also retired and who are out of the labour market? Why is there such a major discrepancy between the levels of support the government provides for those who are disabled and those who are over 65?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, first of all, this government is not providing the bulk of the support for those over 65. The honourable member is shaking his head.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, the basic pension that comes to everybody over 65 is their old age pension; that is paid for out of income taxes and is a federal government responsibility. Second, the Canada pension plan, the guaranteed income supplement and so forth are federal. The disability pension in this province, particularly for those who are unemployable rather than totally physically disabled, as in the past, has been raised enormously in the past year and a half. So we have done that.

It is probably not at a level that is commensurate with other levels of pensions that are paid to those who become disabled after being in the work force, because much of that is based upon the contributions they have made while in the work force. Many of the disability pensions we have pay only a portion of a person's true costs. For instance, the pensions that go to developmentally handicapped people who are in the community do not, in any way, shape or form, begin to pay the real costs of their being in the community.

I think the member has to look at the context of not just a flat amount but the particular person who is receiving the pension or the allowance and what other programs are available to them. Unlike employables, where we have made it a responsibility to try to get them back into the work force -- in fact, we are working very actively with the municipalities to do so -- the re-entry into the community of the disabled or the unemployables is through various programs that are funded, in almost every case, entirely by the province.

Mr. Rae: The fact remains that with the five per cent increase announced today, plus the maximum shelter subsidy, a single, disabled person receives $477.87 from the government of Ontario. That is the guaranteed income a single disabled person has to live on in this province -- less than $500 a month.

What I am asking the Minister of Community and Social Services is, why is the government not moving to provide a guaranteed income for that person that is at least on a par with the guaranteed income now being provided for people over 65? Why does the government not move to a guaranteed income in this province that ensures nobody is living in a condition of poverty? I hope the minister will agree that less than $500 a month for a single, disabled person is living in poverty in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Once again, and I hate to have to belabour this, it depends on where the person is living and which particular program the disabled person is in. One cannot make a blanket or universal statement that everybody who is a disabled person in this province and is receiving an allowance or pension from the Ontario government lives in poverty. I trust the leader of the third party will concede that.

This government has been making very steady progress over a number of years in addressing the problem of the congenitally disabled, if one wants to call them that, who have become disabled without ever having any access to being in the work force, or those who in middle age, because of health matters, become disabled. We have been moving towards a decent and fair basic series of allowances.

As I pointed out in the statement, there are also a number of programs that are paid for them. There are a number of other benefits that are available to them depending upon their situation. If we were to put out that amount of money and have no subsidized housing, then I would be the first to agree with the leader of the third party. But we have more subsidized housing than anywhere else in Canada, and a great deal of that subsidized housing goes to disabled people.

We have a great many vocational rehabilitation programs for disabled people to either get themselves back to full self-sufficiency or partial self-sufficiency. In this province, we are second to none in our total accomplishments in that field. If the member for York South (Mr. Rae) wants to carp and criticize, if he wants to whine and complain that it is not enough, then he can go ahead. He always does anyway.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the constant recommendation that has come forward from every pension committee, every group and every royal commission on the pension area on the whole question of the guaranteed annual income system for the aged is that the single rate should be brought up to higher than 50 per cent of the married rate for our senior citizens, a vast number of whom are living in poverty. Why does the minister choose not to address this question, and when will he?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is not my jurisdiction.

Mr. Rae: I just want to go back to this point to try to get the minister to address the unfairness that is built into the current system, where there are people who are unable to get a job because of a long-term physical disability and who, if they are reliant solely on the provincial government, are receiving much less than $500 a month.

I am trying to get the minister to address the unfairness of that system. Would he not agree it is time this province moved towards a system of guaranteed income, an income maintenance, to ensure that no one in this province who has to rely on the provincial government for support is living in poverty and that no one who is working is living in poverty?

Will he not address this problem? What is holding him back from looking at attacking a very real problem for literally thousands of people in this province who rely on the provincial government, and the provincial government alone, as their entire source of income support?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have been addressing that question ever since I have been the Minister of Community and Social Services. As a matter of fact, prior to my time, there were two classes of disabled people. One of them was a class called permanently unemployable; they did not get the full rate of a disabled person. The New Democratic Party sat in here for 12 or 14 years demanding that be equalized. It took me 24 hours to equalize it. So the member should not tell me I have not been addressing the problem.

If he is going to criticize what I have done today, then I sincerely suggest that he will have to do better than to whip out the old saw about needing a guaranteed annual income in Ontario. If that is the best way he can criticize what I am doing, then obviously this government is to he commended for its progress, its foresight, its prudence and its ability to do things no other government in this country or on this continent has done or is able to do today.

That is a very proud accomplishment of this government. It is a great tribute to the former Treasurer and present Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller). It is a great tribute to the present Treasurer (Mr. Grossman). Above all, it is a tremendous credit to the Premier (Mr. Davis).

BALLYCLIFFE LODGE LAYOFFS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Minister of Labour. It also concerns a contracting-out situation and a job loss situation. It deals with job losses in the health care system that have already been commented on by the minister's seatmate, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe).

As the minister may be aware, I am referring to the fact that the Ballycliffe Lodge Nursing Home, within the public sector, is laying off 32 health care aides, effective November 30, 1983. These 32 employees are being fired by this home, and the positions are being contracted out to Medox health services, which is a division of Drake International.

I want to ask the minister whether he is aware that these layoffs are taking place. Is he aware that the replacement employees, who will be hired by the subcontractor, will be receiving, according to the statements by Medox, somewhere around $4.25 to $4.50 an hour maximum,

whereas nurses' aides are now earning $8.19 an hour at the nursing home? Is the minister aware of those facts, and what does he intend to do about them?

What does he intend to do about the fact that people making $8 an hour are being laid off and tend to be replaced by entirely new employees through a subcontractor, making as much as $3.50 or maybe even $4 an hour less than the employees who are working there today?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the circumstances. This is not the first time this has occurred over the past number of months. Various establishments in the health care field and otherwise are struggling to maintain their operations in a period of recession and restraint. It is a very complex matter of successor rights, and there is no simple solution to the problem. It is something our ministry is wrestling with at present.

Mr. Rae: This is a nursing home that relies on public funds for its support. It is a private-profit home, but it relies extensively on public funds. The minister will be aware that in 1980, Ballycliffe Lodge added a new 70-bed retirement home, which is now 93 per cent full and which brings in a minimum of about $653,000 annually. The 100-bed nursing home is full, bringing in about $1.5 million. Has the minister or any of his officials seen the books of this company? If they have not, will they examine the books of this company?

Will the minister explain why a company that has met with a union, had a contract with a union and negotiated with a union and with its employees, and come up with an agreement, is now out to destroy the collective bargaining rights of the union at this nursing home as well as the rights of 32 employees whose seniority is being totally neglected and forgotten, who are being put on the street and who are going to be replaced by people making close to the minimum wage? Will he at least look at this situation and see what he can do?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It must be borne in mind that there was a contracting-out clause in that collective agreement. Therefore, the nursing home is acting within its rights to exercise that clause. I am sorry. What was the honourable member's last point?

Mr. Rae: Is the minister going to look at the books? What is he going to do?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No, I have not seen the books and I do not intend to look at them.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the same kind of thing is happening at the Brantwood Manor in Burlington and at the Willson Nursing Home in St. Thomas. They are closing down and transferring the patients out to another licensee, Caressent. All those people will lose their jobs.

Is the minister not concerned that there are a lot of labour violations -- at least that is what one would assume they are, at first look -- with respect to the granting of those licences? Will he undertake to talk to his colleague who grants those licences to make sure the rights of employees are protected when there is a transfer of a nursing home licence?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to talk with my colleague as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, but again, if I may repeat myself, this is a matter for collective bargaining. When these contracts are signed, they should be attempting to eliminate these contracting-out clauses. They are in certain of these collective agreements at present and therefore the nursing homes or other establishments, whether we like it or not, happen to be within their rights.

Mr. Rae: The Minister of Labour is part of a government that has destroyed the ability of this union to bargain for its employees. It took away the right to bargain a contract that would protect against contracting out. How can the minister have the blatant hypocrisy to stand up in this House and say they have the right to protect something when he brought in Bill 179 and took that right away from those workers?

Mr. Speaker: I have to remind the member for York South that the use of the word "hypocrisy" is unparliamentary and not acceptable in this chamber. I ask him to withdraw it, please.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it and I ask the minister to answer the question. How can he have a double standard which tells workers to go out and bargain for collective agreements that protect them, and then take away those collective bargaining rights and spend four months emasculating the trade unions of the public sector? He can he possibly live with himself with that kind of double standard?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not sure whether there was a question there or just an address by the member. I do not have any problem living with myself.

DAY CARE

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. We have been saving them up while he has been away. I would like to welcome him back.

The minister will be aware that, in Metropolitan Toronto particularly, those who were eligible to receive subsidized day care far exceed the supply of spaces available. As a result, many municipalities, Metro in particular, are revising their day care priorities so that only those most desperately in need will receive priority. Metro is now forced to revise its list, and the minister includes such discriminatory factors as family size and child age.

Metro is proposing: "To utilize scarce resources more effectively and to provide the service to those most in need, the following order of service priority based on child age is suggested: (1) preschoolers, (2) infants, (3) school age children."

Is the minister satisfied with the fairness and justness of such criteria for receiving subsidized day care in this province, or will he endeavour to provide the funding necessary to municipalities such as Metro so that such measures as a child's age are not used as factors in assessing the need for subsidized day care?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, let us make it very clear what is going on in Metropolitan Toronto. I think everybody in this House will agree, and I am sure the honourable member knows this, that in Metropolitan Toronto the priority goes to those who are trying to get off social assistance and who are in the process of either getting a job, being retrained for a job or actually in a job.

Until now, one of the problems had been that the sole-support mother had to compete with the woman who already had a job and who had another wage earner at home. Granted, they were in a low-income category, but it was very difficult for sole-support mothers, when trying to get a job and when day care was an absolute necessity, to compete in that market. We have provided a large number of spaces for those people.

In terms of Metropolitan Toronto's day care, it has the right to set its criteria. We have been very flexible in what we have allowed it to do. I draw to the member's attention, although I do not have details with me, that by far the preponderance of subsidized day care spaces in Ontario are in Metropolitan Toronto. It is not a question of Metropolitan Toronto not being properly funded.

It is the view of the ministry at this time that there had to be a particular thrust on those who were trying to get off social assistance. That is where the new day care spaces are going. I hope the member is not suggesting I take that away from those women and turn it back to somebody else.

Mr. Wrye: Let me tell the minister a new problem he is potentially going to give Metro and a number of other municipalities. This year the ministry issued new guidelines and a new form called Determination of Available Income, form 0726, for defining a person in need who seeks subsidized day care facilities.

The minister may be aware of the concerns some municipalities have raised with respect to these guidelines and the new form. For example, under the government's guidelines, registered retirement savings plans are included as an asset for those persons who do not even have access to a company pension plan. Could the minister tell the House why, in his determination of a person in need, group pension plans are not considered an asset but individual RRSPs are? Will he assure the House that he will revise these guidelines so this discriminatory aspect is eliminated?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I believe a member with such close ties to his federal party, which he likes so much, might want to talk to the federal people, because they are the ones who pulled the plug. They are the ones who put in the new eligibility. They are the ones who stopped the subsidy in many of the communities, particularly in western Ontario. If we have any fault, it is that we have been far too lenient. The member had better go and ask them, because they did it.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that there are more than 1,000 people waiting for day care subsidies in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The municipality itself is coming to him, asking for additional spaces to try to meet the needs of those people on the waiting list. Has the minister met with the municipality and if so, is he prepared to increase the number of spaces in Metropolitan Toronto to meet this need?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, obviously it does not take very much to know that I have not met with them. Second, I have seen some of the things they have said. I want to study in some depth what they are saying and when they say it.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General pertaining to Mr. James Gayder, the newly-appointed but unsworn replacement for the Niagara Regional Police chief. Under the minister's order, an investigation into the dealings of gun dealer Mark DeMarco and the relationship between him and officers of the force, including James Gayder, is continuing.

Recognizing this, is the minister going to prevent the swearing in of James Gayder as the new chief until the investigation is complete and until any charges flowing from that investigation and from the internal criminal one on the same issue have been dealt with? At this time, can I have a straight "yes" or "no" answer to that question?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on many occasions I would be delighted to give a straight "yes" or "no" as an answer to many of the questions asked in this chamber. However, I am sure that would provide great difficulty to any of the government members who have to answer questions from time to time. I am going to disappoint the member for Welland-Thorold. I will not give a "yes" or a "no" to that question because it is not as simplistic as he likes to see it.

This is what will take place. As I have indicated to the member before in this matter -- and I have heard from this member during the amendments to the Police Act, amendments that are being debated currently and questions he has put to me before -- it is under investigation. I have heard his comments in here and I have not been pleased with those comments. In the atmosphere of this House, he is able to make certain statements while a matter is still under investigation. The member has ridiculed and debased some aspects of the honourable police force in the Niagara region and I would suggest that gentleman owes an apology to that force.

While there is an ongoing investigation, he has made certain statements about that police force to which I take exception. When he makes these allegations and statements in the comfort of the atmosphere in here, he does a dishonour to that fine police force in the Niagara region which, by the way, we are investigating.

We are investigating partly as a result of that member's open letter, which is another aspect of bringing attention to certain features. Here we have an ongoing investigation which has been set up as independently as possible to deal with these allegations which have been made by individuals. It is not unusual for allegations to be made against police officers who try to perform their duties under the most trying conditions.

While there is an investigation ongoing, one should conduct oneself accordingly and at least wait until that investigation is completed before making any further accusations.

Mr. Swart: It is simply preposterous that the Solicitor General is not concerned that this new chief may be sworn in before the investigations are completed.

Is it not true that Mr. Gayder, who is the senior person in charge of the registration of firearms in the Niagara region, himself has a very large collection of handguns? Would the minister ensure that the investigators examine the vendor permits connected to his acquisition of every one of those guns? Further, because Mr. Gayder is no longer just a private citizen but is slated to be the new chief of the Niagara regional force, would the minister table in this House copies of those vendor permits so it is public knowledge as to how and from whom he acquired those guns?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: There is a very thorough ongoing investigation at this time, for which an adequate number of investigating officers from the Ontario Police Commission have been provided. Where it concerns other forces, they have independent assistance from other forces to investigate a particular police force.

Two proceedings are ongoing at the present time, two prongs to the investigation. One is the procedural aspect of that police force, and the other is allegations of a criminal nature. Those are ongoing. I can only say that it is a very thorough investigation. Many people have come forward to the investigating officers and said they would like to give information. I think it is only fair that when that is completed, an assessment will be made at that time of the evidence and what will flow from that evidence and investigation. I think at this time it is premature to be putting forth certain pieces of information.

I tell the honourable member to visit the investigating officers if he has any information that is of any assistance to them and provide them with the information so that they can follow it up and complete the investigation, instead of making accusations in the comfort and protection of this House as to a person whom an independent police force has decided should be the chief after a very thorough analysis and investigation of that person's assets and benefit to that police force as being their police chief.

I think before he continues to make these comments the member should at least give those investigating officers and the investigation a chance to be completed and make the decision at that time.

ASSESSMENT REVIEW

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Deputy Premier in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis). The Deputy Premier may be aware that the Assessment Review Board has recently decided to lower the assessment in the case of the Hawkesbury Canadian International Paper Co. mill by some $2.5 million, thereby reducing the taxes collected by the town of Hawkesbury by some $309,000. This is a grave economic situation in eastern Ontario, particularly in Hawkesbury.

The government has given $125,000 a year for two years to the town of Hawkesbury to make up for a potential loss before this judgement came down. In view of the fact that the loss of revenue is far greater than anyone in the town or even his government anticipated, would the minister indicate to us whether he would support obtaining additional grants for the town of Hawkesbury because of this very difficult situation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think the member will understand that we would want to have that matter investigated very carefully. I will draw his question and his concern to the attention of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Boudria: Further to that, the taxes lost to Hawkesbury, as I mentioned, were $309,000, but the two school boards and the united counties of Prescott and Russell also lost a considerable portion of their assessment. The town of Hawkesbury, as I said, lost 20 per cent of its assessment in one day. The total loss is $826,000.

Would the minister take to cabinet the concerns of the united counties of Prescott and Russell and the school boards as well, because the repercussions extend far beyond the town of Hawkesbury and it is indeed a very grave situation.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

USE OF DEREGISTERED PESTICIDE

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister is aware, no doubt, that there are serious concerns in Tiny township by a number of residents about pesticide spraying on the Hostess properties. Perhaps he could tell us why it is that in the summer of 1982 his ministry approved for use the spraying of Du-Ter. This is a fungicide that was at one point registered for use in this country but deregistered by Environment Canada in December 1981, and some six months later his ministry approved it for use yet again. Can he tell us why that happened?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to share with the member exactly what did happen. In October 1981, I believe it was, the federal government deregistered the use of Du-Ter, the particular chemical he is mentioning that was used, I believe, by the Hostess potato chip company in that area. For some reason that was not shared either with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) or with me or my ministry. The federal government did not advise Ontario that it was deregistering that pesticide.

It was not brought to our attention, so we found ourselves in the embarrassing position of having a pesticide on the market that we had understood was registered and was appropriate for use in the particular circumstances in Tiny township.

Subsequent to that, we are advised it was deregistered. To the best of my knowledge there is still a limited amount of Du-Ter on the market. However, no further production of that pesticide is allowed, nor it is coming into the market in any additional volumes. Apparently the use of the pesticide has been stopped.

3:10 p.m.

The only thing I can say is that I am as amazed as the honourable member that the federal government would not advise us of the removal of that pesticide. It came as a surprise to us that it would take them something like two years to bring to our attention that they were making that move.

Mr. Charlton: I appreciate the minister's comments, but there seems to be a serious communication problem here. As the minister says, it may be a fault that is occurring in Ottawa, but it is interesting to notice that in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's 1983 vegetable production recommendations the ministry is still touting Du-Ter as one of the pesticides to use with potatoes. Perhaps the minister can look into the communications networks that exist among the various ministries involved with the use of these very dangerous chemicals so that we can get the situation straightened out.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Again, the problem is certainly one of communications but not in terms of receiving information at our end. I want to assure the member that it is a problem of the registering authority, namely the federal government, not advising us that it had deregistered the pesticide in question.

Furthermore, the publicity on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food would in all probability have been printed, and I believe it was, long before the deregistering of this pesticide was brought to our attention. That is why one would find it in a publication. That might be a question that could be redirected to that minister.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, they did publish this material, and it was the responsibility of the Ontario government to understand that and pick up those conventional publications. They did not. That said, at this point it is not productive to cast blame on this government or the other.

The question now is, how tight a communications system does this ministry have so that this kind of situation will never happen again? The minister is aware of some of the testing irregularities in the United States and the potential ramifications. I would like to hear in the House now the minister's assurances that this kind of miscommunication can never happen again in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the honourable member that assurance because the initiative has to be taken by the federal government to advise us of what it is going to do. They are the registering authority and they are responsible for deregistering a pesticide or herbicide.

The only thing I can tell the Leader of the Opposition is that I intend raising this question with my counterpart in Ottawa. I share the same concerns the member has. I would hope to improve on the line of communications. There have been some apologies registered from the Ottawa side of things to advise us that they intend to improve on communications as well. I too would hope it would never happen again. Certainly, I will be looking for it now that this situation has arisen.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL PROPOSAL

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs. He may be aware of the proposal of the Northeastern Ontario Chamber of Commerce working group on economic development which was --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was drawn to my attention that I missed the member who stood up on this side, the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy).

Mr. Foulds: You cannot take the floor away from a member once you recognize him.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I know, but I had --

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, you acknowledged the other member first and he is the gentleman who got the attention of the Speaker. Under the rules we work by it is the member who gets the attention of the Speaker who has the floor.

Mr. Speaker: That is --

Mr. Peterson: Correct; of course it is correct.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is. That is quite right. You recognize the first person who is standing --

Mr. Peterson: You just did that. That was the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. Speaker: -- and I just did that, but it was drawn to my attention that the member for Fort William --

Mr. Peterson: By whom?

Mr. Speaker: By the table.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: That is not historically how we have operated in question period.

Mr. Speaker: If it is the wish of the House, I will go back to the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs. The minister will be aware of the proposal of the northeastern Ontario chambers of commerce working group on economic development which was recently released at a meeting at which I believe the minister was present. The proposal will also be contained in the final report.

It recommends forming an economic development council with an operational centre for all of northeastern Ontario to promote a regional approach to economic development. Many of the smaller and rural communities are not able to support their own economic development organizations. For that reason, a regional council would provide valuable assistance to those municipalities.

Would the minister tell this House if he has read the proposal? If he has, will he give favourable consideration and assist in the funding necessary to get this project off the ground?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the honour- able member is correct. I did meet with the northeastern Ontario chambers of Commerce several weeks back and we discussed that proposal in detail.

I outlined to that group what we were doing with regard to economic development, referring to the statement I made here in the Legislature last June 12. I outlined that they and their municipalities could get involved in a broad, all-encompassing program for which funding was available.

I also indicated to them I was prepared to sit down with them and discuss the possibility of setting up something similar to what we have in the northwest, like Commerce Northwest, a Commerce Northeast which would look at import substitution into that vast region of northeastern Ontario. I think it is fair to say there is some general acceptance of my proposal and we are discussing this further with them.

I am going to take the liberty of sending the member a copy of my remarks to the group, in which I reviewed in detail all the various thrusts we in the Ministry of Northern Affairs are making on behalf of those single-industry communities in all areas of northern Ontario. I know he will find it of interest.

Mr. Eakins: Does the minister have any further comments today on some of the specific recommendations contained in the report such as establishing an economic development council centre which would collect information on regional, national and international economic opportunities suited to the area and act as a referral service for information and contacts in tourism, business and government? Could this centre and Commerce Northwest both be tied in to the efforts of InfoNorth to achieve these goals and more?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As I pointed out earlier, the ministry and the northeastern Ontario chambers of commerce are continuing their discussions. I think it is fair to say that after some discussion with them they agreed the proposal presented to us was not really what they would like to achieve and they are looking for some other direction.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour, especially in view of the comments made today by his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea).

Can the minister confirm reports that the increase in the minimum wage will be delayed until March 1984, which means 28 months without an increase, and that there will not be a second increase until October 1984?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, there will be a full statement by myself in this Legislature, I hope within the next week, which will answer all the questions the honourable member has asked. I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment before then. There has been a lot of speculation in the media. Speculation is exactly what it is, because final decisions have not been reached as yet.

Mr. Samis: Could the minister at least confirm that he has been heavily lobbied by the tourist industry to delay the timing and the extent of the increase? Would he not agree that the working poor have not had any increase compared to the unemployables and the disadvantaged who are receiving welfare and family benefits? Would the minister not acknowledge that discrepancy?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It is true I have been lobbied by the tourist industry and other industries. I have also been lobbied by various groups on the other side of the coin. I have been lobbied by members of my caucus who feel the suggestions I have made are not generous enough, and by others who feel they are too generous. We are trying to reach common ground.

I want to make one point abundantly clear. The delay in making the announcement is not a result of lobbying by any group. It is just a matter of indecision by members of the caucus.

3:20 p.m.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION CONTRACT

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I think I will have to stand on the desk to be recognized one of these days.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In October the minister said the awarding of a contract involving Can-Car of Thunder Bay that was being looked at by Ian Sinclair for the Toronto Transit Commission would be announced in November. It now being the month of November, has the minister anything further to say on this matter?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First, Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to recall what I did say. I do not believe I said there would be a contract awarded in the month of November; I will have to check Hansard to be sure. However, I did say the word I had from the TTC general manager was that he expected the report from staff, including Mr. Sinclair's report, would be put before the TTC in the first week of November.

I have been trying to find out whether that has taken place or not. I understand from the information I can get via the telephone that report has not yet been put before the TTC, but they hope it will be during the month of November.

PETITIONS

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that has a covering letter from the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario over the president's signature, Susan Hildreth. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

The petition is signed by teachers from Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Fonthill, Fort Erie, Thorold, Virgil, Hay, Welland, Stevensville, Port Colborne, Wainfleet, Whitby, Scarborough, Pelham, Queenston, Crystal Beach, Ridgeway and Sherkston; and further, from teachers representing Victoria Public School, F.J. Rutland Public School, Greendale Public School, Battlefield Public School, Prince Philip Public School, John Marshall Public School, Martha Cullimore Public School, Steele Street Public School, Oakwood Public School, Caroline M. Thompson Public School, A. K. Wigg Public School, Aldon Public School, Glynn A. Green Public School and Plymouth Public School.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, one from G.H. Ferguson Public School and the other Commando Senior Public School, both of Cochrane:

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

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

G. H. Ferguson Public School has 20 signatures and Commando Senior Public School has 11.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

This petition is signed by teachers from the great ridings of Windsor-Sandwich, Windsor-Riverside, Windsor-Walkerville and, I think, a few even from Essex North and Essex South, and we are pleased to have them as well.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions similar to those introduced by my colleagues the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) and the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye). These petitions also deal with the government's restraint program.

The petitions I wish to present to the House have been signed by teachers from the Queen Elizabeth Public School, Leamington; Anderdon Central Public School, Anderdon township; Colchester North Central Public School; a group of teachers from different constituencies in the Windsor and Essex county area; and also by teachers at Amherstburg Public School, Harrow District Senior Public School, Jack Miner Public School, Mill Street Centennial Senior Public School in Leamington and Kingsville Public School.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

This is signed by a number of elementary school teachers from the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario who happen to reside in the ridings of Port Arthur and Fort William.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

This is signed by a number of teachers from Rousseau Public School in Hamilton.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

It is signed by teachers on the staff of William G. Miller Junior Public School.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition signed by 33 teachers from Gosfield North Central Unit Public School.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition, which reads as follows:

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

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

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

It is signed by the teachers of the following schools: Vance Chapman Elementary School; Fourway Elementary School; Cornwall Elementary School; Drew Street Elementary School and Crestview Elementary School.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have some comments related to this concurrence. I would like the minister to respond to our critic's concern about the promise that was made to extend the Belleville-Peterborough TVOntario scope by some time in 1983 or 1984.

It seems there has been some backtracking in the estimates. I hope such is not the case and that the minister may give us some assurance that those areas will be covered. I appreciate that to give the service everywhere it is needed is somewhat difficult, but the government took it on itself to do this and made the promise. Once it started off on this particular area of TV coverage, I feel that for those areas that have been promised the promise should be kept.

That is one area of concern. Another area I would like to relate in these concurrences so that the minister may address it is the quite considerable increase in main office expenditures. We have been told that some of this increase will be used in various other offices or areas. I am concerned that the increase may be used for more government advertising rather than to extend the service of this ministry to where it is really badly needed.

This is a substantial increase. We are talking of 100 per cent increase in that area. I am sure the minister would want to reassure those of us on this side who have the responsibility for pointing out these particular areas where the government has made the promise and either changed its direction or altered the commitment to certain areas and certain people.

These are the two areas in particular that are of great concern to us. There are other areas that have been pursued quite diligently during the estimates. There are going to be some considerable cutbacks in galleries, community galleries in particular. I am not going to suggest that in some instances the ministry should not be watching the purse strings just a little more carefully, but I have to think, on the one hand, while this appears to be their reasoning for it, on the other hand, we have a tremendous increase in the main office, which is diametrically opposite to what they talk about when they are talking of the community galleries.

I hope the minister will address herself to the extension of TV coverage and to this substantial increase in the main office expenditure and its relationship to the cutbacks in the community galleries.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I want to take only a few minutes here. Although I am the critic for the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture at this time, as the minister well knows, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) was the critic at the time of the estimates. Therefore, I am personally in the process of gathering the information that needs to be gathered in order to be an effective critic of the ministry. However, I would like to put two or three concerns I have to the minister that no doubt fall into the area of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

I am not sure to what extent the first point is a personal concern of mine; however, I think it is probably more general in its aspect than just a personal, specific concern. It has to do with Wintario. I know Wintario does not come under the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, but that ministry makes use of some of the transfer moneys from Wintario in its granting system to community groups for capital construction, etc.

Basically, my concern is about the Half-Back program which falls squarely under the ministry. As a result of the proliferation of Half-Back programs for Canadian-authored books, for films, for stage productions and for magazine subscriptions, it seems to me I am finding that children in schools are being used as advertising agencies for Wintario.

I want to express this concern. I happened to be in my child's school the other day. The principal came on the public address system in the morning, saying to the children, "Boys and girls, don't forget to ask your parents if they have Wintario tickets" -- of course, they were not winners -- "and bring them to the school so the school can use them" for books, plays or whatever other use the school deems it necessary to make use of those tickets,

Not before this particular time was I struck by this. I am aware of the beginning of the Half-Back program, which easily goes back to about three or three and a half years ago. That was when the Half-Back program came into existence. For the first time I was struck by the fact that my six-year-old son might come home and ask, "Can I have your Wintario tickets?" I would have to say to my son, "I don't buy Wintario tickets."

I wonder to what extent every child in that school and every child in all the schools in Ontario goes home to remind parents whether they have their Wintario tickets and becomes, in essence, an advertisement for the Wintario lottery program. God knows how many times the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) mentioned making use of kids for particular purposes, and I happen to think at this time that this is making use of young kids as advertising agencies for the Wintario program, the Half-Back program or what have you.

3:40 p.m.

While I am not putting this particular point into any kind of deep contextual analysis, I am saying to the minister that I am becoming very concerned about this area, and perhaps she will have some response. Anyway, I just wanted to put that concern to the minister.

My second concern deals with the Royal Ontario Museum. It was not long ago, I remember, that the museum did its renovation, which obviously was needed. Wintario put in, through the Ministry of Culture and Recreation at that time, $10 million or $11 million. The price tag for the renovation was around $20 million or $25 million, if my memory serves me correctly; it was about three and a half years ago.

However, the point is not the renovation of the building. The point is that the reason we went about renovating the building was so that at the end of that process people in Ontario would have a better museum, a museum in which the artefacts could be better protected; a museum whose artefacts, I understood, were kept down in the basement by the ton because of a lack of space to exhibit them.

What I find, to my astonishment and amazement, is that at this point only 25 per cent of that museum is open. Why is that? After we spent so much money, $15 million or $20 million, why do we still have less of the museum open than we had three and a half years ago'? I hope the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) has an answer to that, because basically the longer the museum stays open at 25 per cent capacity the longer children, adults and everyone who would like to attend that museum will be limited in the kinds of things that are exhibited at the museum, and limited in their attendance.

What I understand from some people at the museum is that the reason only 25 per cent is open is the lack of funding to open the remainder of the museum. Is it possible that we spent $20 million to renovate the museum and that after the process the museum has less capacity or ability to be of service and of use to the people of Ontario? If that is the case, I think it is a great shame indeed, and I am looking for some answers.

The next point dealing with the museum has to do with the two exhibits they put on lately, In Search of Alexander and the Treasures of the Tower of London. I might say to the minister that I attended both of them and I thoroughly enjoyed them. However, my understanding, again from some people at the museum, is that those exhibits came in at a deficit. In other words, if the reason the museum was putting on these exhibits was to make some money so they could reopen more and more parts of the museum, it certainly did not achieve its goal.

As a matter of fact, and I could be wrong, I understand that since those exhibits came in at a deficit, the museum is a long way from being fully open -- unless, of course, this ministry begins to put sufficient money in the facilities that would allow it to open its doors at 100 per cent, if it is possible to open and use 100 per cent of the space in the museum. I am looking for answers there as well.

Third, and last, I am sure the Minister of Culture and Citizenship is aware of the six questions I put on the order paper November 2. If the minister is not, I want to inform her that three of those questions deal with multiculturalism as defined by the Premier (Mr. Davis), and by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) when he was Minister of Culture and Recreation a few years back. Basically, it says that, regardless of ethnic origin, people should have access to job opportunity, housing, etc.

Through those questions I want to find out -- and I hope the Ministry of Culture and Citizenship will take a lead in this because, after all, it falls squarely in that ministry -- whether the theory of the policy of multiculturalism gets translated into reality.

Basically, what I am talking about in those questions on the order paper is whether the reality is employment. I want to find out how many people from ethnocultural backgrounds are employed by the different ministries of the government and how many of those people have positions that can be defined as positions of responsibility within the ministries in the government.

We can talk about multiculturalism all we want. We can stand in this House, as the Premier has done on occasion, and as he does every time he goes out to speak to ethnic communities, and talk about the tremendous, fantastic multicultural policy we have, but we and the ethnic communities want the proof of that policy. If it is not there, it is good that we know.

I certainly hope those particular questions will be answered with speed within the 14 days allowed for answering a question on the order paper. I hope the minister is going to be instrumental in making sure, because the minister should make sure that these questions are answered. As I said, it is part and parcel of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

The other three questions deal with our visible minorities and basically ask the same questions. They change the words "ethnic minority" to "visible minority." These questions are not put on the order paper so I can get facts and information from the government in order that I store it away in a drawer in my office. They are put on the order paper because both the ethnic communities and the communities that have visible minorities are asking these basic, fundamental questions. They want to know.

It is not good enough for the Premier of this province to stand up and say discrimination is not tolerated in any way whatsoever by this government; the Premier has to show proof. With those questions on the order paper, the burden of proof is now on the government. I hope the answers will be quickly forthcoming.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity to put these three concerns on the record.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few things about the concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. Let me start by saying that this is the first formal opportunity I have had to congratulate the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) upon her recent elevation to the executive council. It came as no great surprise at all that the member for St. George was elevated. Like the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), she deserves our collective commendation, because she undoubtedly will add a verve and panache that God knows this government can use.

I wish her well in her new responsibilities. I know some of her staff assistants, one of whom is to be found seated to the Speaker's right, underneath the press gallery. I am very confident that with such assistants, Susan Avellar Fish, as Zena Cherry reported from Beijing, will do us proud as our culture czar in Ontario.

I was struck, as I am sure the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) was, that no more than a few days after her elevation, the new Minister of Citizenship and Culture was forced to board a jetliner and travel some 8,000 miles to represent us in the people's republic. In fact, she made a cameo appearance on the national news from that distant, but no less famous, capital.

Mr. Shymko: You blazed the trail for her, Sean.

Mr. Conway: I did indeed blaze the trail for the member, but unlike many over there I paid my own way, all of it. In that respect, unlike the Premier, unlike Clare Westcott and unlike just about anybody else I seem to know over there who has travelled either the Atlantic or the Pacific in recent months --

Mr. Shymko: It's because you are on the wrong side, Sean.

Mr. Conway: For the benefit of the member for High Park-Swansea, who I understand, if I can digress further, has a passing interest in the oak-panelled splendour of the executive council --

Mr. McClellan: But in Ottawa, not here.

Mr. Conway: There is a rumour, to which the member for Bellwoods alludes in his interjection, that not unlike the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), the member for High Park-Swansea is finding the attraction of Ottawa perhaps irresistible. I am sure the member for Bellwoods would agree with me that it would be an extremely inviting rematch out there in High Park-Swansea to see Art Eggleton and the member for High Park-Swansea do battle again.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: One never knows about the future. I do not profess to have the clairvoyance of the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn). Let me say I do wish the --

Mr. Rotenberg: You do not even know who represents your party.

Mr. Conway: I am quite aware of Jesse Fliss's involvement with the party; but we talk about the future and I profess to have no great knowledge of what the future will bring. Since the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) has entered the debate, parenthetically I might encourage him to follow the very skilful lead that was struck by the member for St. George in her path to the executive council. It is known to some of us that the member for Wilson Heights has an interest as well in the executive council, and he has been here for a considerably longer time. Hope springs eternal and I wish him well in that respect.

To conclude that part of my brief remarks, I have to say that for months I used to sit over here with the member for Bellwoods and watch how, almost hourly during House sittings, the member for St. George in her preministerial incarnation used to stand annexed to that second-to-last pillar over there, latched upon John Tory's every movement and upon his left and right ear as they became available. Like his shadow --

The Deputy Speaker: Is the member going to discuss the concurrences of the estimates?

Mr. Conway: -- the member for St. George stuck with it until that day in early July when the phone rang and the doors of opportunity opened before her.

There are two issues I would like to raise with the culture czar -- czarina; pardon me. If you had been careful, Mr. Speaker, you would have picked up on that sexist oversight. I have two interests for the culture czarina, one of which was touched upon by my good friend the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio). A very fine fellow he is, and I am confident he is keeping an eye on these issues.

As the minister will know, and as her predecessors the members for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) and Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey) know from my ongoing discussions with them, we in small-town, rural eastern Ontario feel that a fine provincial educational service, TVOntario, is unhappily unavailable to too many of us.

Granted, I happen to live in that great eastern Ontario community known as Pembroke and, like people living in Petawawa and Renfrew, we have cable service which gives us TVOntario. But in places like Deep River and such areas as the townships of Wilberforce, Alice and Fraser, and Petawawa, to name but a few of several, where there are untold families and many younger people with a keen interest in TVOntario, it is very difficult for them to understand or for me to explain how it is that as contributors to the provincial consolidated revenue fund they cannot derive the great educational and cultural value we all know to be provided by TVOntario.

Quite frankly, I cannot get through a weekend without the offerings of Elwy Yost. It is just not proper to go to bed on Saturday night in this province any more without Elwy's --

Mr. Kolyn: You should be out with girls.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would hope you would restrain that Vesuvius of energy over there, the member for Lakeshore. I do not know what makes him think I would go to the movies alone, but if he knows something about my Saturday night activities that I do not, I will be happy to have the information and the source of same.

The Deputy Speaker: The member would be best to ignore the interjections.

Mr. Conway: I have a great deal of regard for the assistant government whip, and I would not want to disregard his public or private utterances.

Mr. Boudria: The member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) thinks we need more towers.

Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Prescott-Russell makes the point, and I want to reiterate it in the presence of the czarina of culture, that the good member for Northumberland has pointed out the lack of service in rural, small-town eastern Ontario.

I am not worried about the big cities of Ottawa, Kingston, Belleville and Cornwall, because they are by virtue of their size able to bring the service to their residents. But for those tens of thousands of rural, small-town Ontarians who do not have that service, it is a source of ongoing irritation for them and for their members of the assembly, whether they be Liberal or Conservative.

It is not lost on us that the New Democratic Party has yet to elect a rural representative from eastern Ontario, notwithstanding the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis). Cornwall township is not exactly my idea of a full-service rural township, great place that it is, I must say.

Mr. Breaugh: What have you got against Sheffield township?

Mr. Conway: I do not have much knowledge of Sheffield township, to be sure, but I want to say on behalf of those thousands of people in the great heartland of the Ottawa Valley who want very much to have that service called TVOntario, to which they make contributions through their taxes, that we are not happy, as the member for Northumberland is not happy, about the delay and some of the pathetic excuses that are offered up to justify the delay.

We are confident that the minister, with her fast-track, direct line to people like John Tory and the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), she of great insight and greater connections than any of her predecessors, will be able to right these wrongs in the cause of rural Ontario, and do it before the millennium.

4 p.m.

We in Renfrew North have waited through months and years of delay, and I tell them -- because I know the minister, with her friends from places like Mississauga South, would want me to tell them -- that the Ontario government, to its credit, provides through the Ontario Educational Communications Authority an excellent service. And in a bipartisan spirit I often draw that to their attention: I think it is one of the real successes of this government. Some of my colleagues who have been here a little longer might not necessarily agree with my view in its entirety, but in this respect I am a staunch supporter of TVOntario.

It does, I must say, have some idiosyncratic tendencies. For example, as I sit at home and watch TVOntario convey nightly the proceedings of the House of Commons question period I have always wondered, and I am sure my friends from Sheffield township and Oshawa wonder as well, "Isn't it strange that we get in these places" --

Mr. Breaugh: Fellow papists, we call them.

Mr. Conway: He says, "a fellow papist." We may he in our dying days in that connection, but --

Mr. Breaugh: The papist alliance was a temporary one at best.

Mr. Conway: It took nerve over there to invite the cardinal last Wednesday night, and I suppose we ought not to have been surprised. But that is a digression.

The Deputy Speaker: You are right. It was a digression.

Mr. Conway: The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) would share with me, I am sure, a sense of surprise that we could find our Ontario Educational Communications Authority bringing us nightly the proceedings of the House of Commons question period and nothing about the Ontario Legislature other than the propaganda that sometimes might be associated with some of its advertising.

The member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo), who is a far more expert observer on the multicultural scene than I, notes a want of multicultural programming at TVOntario. But I have always thought to myself that it would be extraordinary in rural, small-town eastern Ontario, where it is not always easy to get a good grip on what is happening and what are the burning issues here at the provincial Legislature because we are in the shadow of the national capital -- and understandably that is a great focus for our region

-- if we could have through our provincial educational television authority the daily question period of the Ontario Legislature.

I do not lie awake expecting that to happen, because it is well known that the Ontario Conservative Party is the king of one-party democracies. The other day they were highlighting the events in Albania. Senor Hoxha has been in office for 41 years and there are not very many around like him. But there is one in this great old Upper Canada of ours and we know, notwithstanding the democratic tendencies of the member for High Park-Swansea, that this is a Conservative Party in government -- there is not a great deal of difference, as we see every day in this place -- that does not want in any way any efforts expended to increase public awareness of what happens in this place.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, if the people of Mississauga North could see the daily performance of the first minister on TVOntario? Might you begin to fantasize how they might change their impression of this, the elder statesman of all Ontario if they could, through TVOntario, nightly see his conduct in this question period or in this House? I dare say the good people of Mississauga South, notwithstanding their ancient allegiance to that party, might even begin to raise questions.

This is a government, an agency, that will do nothing to focus public interest or attention on this place. Yes, the cabinet office and its weekly emanations will be of great interest and we will allow the cameras to come in and do great justice to the Premier and the Attorney General, but my gosh, all the culture czarina gets is the top of her head. That is terrible discrimination. Those cameras are representing the culture czarina as some kind of oblong mystery when in fact the Treasurer looks perfectly natural in all his blue-suited splendour.

If nothing else, I would suggest that members watch the nightly news, the cop-beat news on one of the prominent stations here in Metropolitan Toronto. At about 1:15 a.m., after they have been through a litany of rape, murder, fire, traffic accidents and what is new at the stockyards, one will get the Queen's Park report.

At about 1:15 on that particular newscast, one might just see, as I did a couple of weeks ago, the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) asking a perfectly good and important question of his colleague the Attorney General. I hate to say this to my good and dear friend the member for Mississauga South, but I had a difficult time listening to what he was saying, although I had heard it earlier in the day, because I was seized of this incredibly bald head. That is all one got. It was a terrible image, a shot of this balding head. I do not mean to insult the member, but that is the projection.

I thought how unfair it was for him to be projected in that way when the Attorney General looked so much better with the full blue suit and the complete body shot. The poor member for Mississauga South, who raised a very good question about the administration of justice, was represented in a way that did no credit to his very distinguished bearing. I think the member would agree with me it was unfortunate that his representation could not have been as complete and as fair as his friends down the way. That is just the nature of the way this place is organized.

The culture czarina has it within her administrative competence to begin an improvement of that situation. How are the people of St. George to know of her splendid new hairdo if they do not get a better shot than they might under the current arrangements? If TVOntario was able to provide a nightly telecast of the daily question period through the good offices of the culture czarina, the member for St. George, I think she would have advanced the cause of parliamentary democracy in this province in very short order and she would have left a legacy of which her friends in Manhattan could be very proud.

I remember all those Tories from the last campaign saying, "That Smith, you cannot have him running anything in Ontario. He is l'étranger. He is from Montreal. He is even worse." I would not repeat some of what was said. Basically, he is an outsider. He is not part of the main stream. You know, "Vote for me, I am from Main Street, Ontario." One does not necessarily spell "main" m-a-i-n, but I could get myself in trouble if I were to use the spelling that was intended by some of that campaign.

Our elegant member for St. George, the new Minister of Citizenship and Culture, a citizen of the world herself, brings to this new responsibility of hers a cosmopolitan flare that I know impressed the people in Beijing, that has convinced the people of St. George and will do much for this government from bus stops along the election trail to the great enterprises of tomorrow. I encourage her to take hold of the TVOntario issue.

Mr. McClellan: Say that again?

Mr. Conway: I remember those great bus stop ads in the last campaign. Remember the member for St. George and the Premier? The cardinal could not compete with that. He might try but not even he could compete with the élan of the member for St. George. Elected she was and electable she is, surely.

In her departmental responsibility, the minister has an opportunity to improve the fortunes of the Conservative Party in North Renfrew where, God knows, they are historic but not immediate, if one were to believe the polls.

4:10 p.m.

Even Tories come to me and say, 'Tell the new minister..." I remember this summer some very good people, whose politics I do not know about but who holiday up in the Black Bay area of Petawawa township, who really expressed a great surprise that within 100 miles of the national capital itself they could not draw in the signal of TVOntario.

All joking aside, I think it is important that those of us from the rural reaches of this great province, Tory and Liberal alike, give the support to the minister that she undoubtedly will require to convince her friend the Treasurer that the cultural life and times of rural eastern Ontario and the rest of rural Ontario can and will be enhanced if more moneys are allocated to the expansion of the transmittal services of TVOntario.

I understand there is a split jurisdiction and the potentate of all education has under her umbrella of authority certain funds and instruments that have to be taken into account. On behalf of thousands of people in my constituency who very much admire what the government has done in providing a first-rate educational television authority, we want it now or as soon as is possible under the technology available.

In our area there does not seem to be any doubt that the preferred course of action would be the construction of a transmitter somewhere in the centre of Renfrew county, which not only has a very great population living in the townships but also has a great seasonal population cottaging in the green pine groves and along the sandy shores of places like Round and Golden Lake where our summer population is very substantial indeed.

I will watch the minister carefully, as I always do. I am one of her five-days-a-week constituents living in that Ontario Housing unit at 44 Charles Street West. Just the other day I got a marvellous brochure from the member and I sent her a note today congratulating her. She puts out one of the best constituency mailings I have seen anywhere. I say publicly what I wrote to her privately a few minutes ago, she sets a high and good example.

Mr. Boudria: I am her constituent and I did not get one.

Mr. Conway: I am sorry. My clattering friends to my left here in my own caucus just have to build better bridges to the member for St. George.

I am thinking that perhaps I ought not to open the door to this subject, but it is a matter of ongoing interest for me. That is the McMichael Canadian Collection. I was very privileged in the latter part of May to join a couple of my friends in accepting the invitation of the chairman of that board, J. Allyn Taylor, a nonpartisan from London of some seniority and standing, and to have witnessed the official opening of the reconstructed gallery.

The member for Armourdale was just at his absolute best. I have not seen him better since his Frank Drea imitation. I thought it was really incomplete that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) and Ward Cornell could not have been there to give a sense of history of the place. I will never ever be able to go to the gallery again without thinking of the then Minister of Culture and Recreation and his loyal deputy Ward Cornell, whom I can never imagine without Ed Fitkin and Bill Hewett; but anyway he traded Ed Fitkin and Bill Hewett for the minister and the two of them were my introduction to the politics of the McMichael Canadian Collection.

A lot has been done out there. It is apparently quite a splendid place. Michael Bell and his staff are to be congratulated for the way in which they handled us all on that Victoria Day, or the Queen's Birthday as we say in Renfrew.

I wonder if the minister would be able in this concurrence debate to give a report on the experience of the renovated gallery over the past three or four months. For example, can she report on attendance?

This might be available in my mail somewhere; I have not seen it all. I know the gallery sent some very interesting materials to us not that long ago, but I would be interested if the minister could report, either this afternoon or to me directly at an early opportunity, on visitorship over the period of the May 24 weekend through to Thanksgiving. For example, what kind of practical experience has been gained with the new fire doors, the new fire alarms, the new water systems?

I hear from some people that there have been some bugs to iron out. Some people have suggested there have been some unanticipated difficulties; I just do not know. I am reporting a little bit of gossip to the minister and I do not mean to do so in a way that would impair the reputation of the gallery, although I have been a critic of some of what they have done up there in terms of the financial management.

I would ask the minister to avail herself of an opportunity, either during this debate or perhaps at another time in the near future with me directly, to just simply give us a report on the summer experience of the gallery and what practical developments there have been with the new systems, particularly with respect to any problems in that connection.

Mr. Speaker, you have been most indulgent and I want to resume my seat. I see I have set the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) ayawning. That is a signal for me or anyone else to resume one's seat. I do so now, saying what a pleasure it is to see the upwardly mobile member for St. George representing us all in matters of culture and citizenship.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there are just a few matters I would like to raise with the Minister of Citizenship and Culture.

One aspect involves the Wintario program. A number of years ago it was possible, through Wintario, to obtain funds for the renovation of historical buildings. I am referring to churches. The particular case in which I am interested at this time is in the constituency of Prescott- Russell where, as in many other areas of the province, there is a large proportion of the population that is Roman Catholic.

In any case, in my own constituency the most historic buildings, and often the only historic buildings we have, are our churches. As we see, many municipalities in Prescott-Russell---

Mr. Conway: Is the McTeer household not in your riding?

Mr. Boudria: Yes, the McTeer household is in my riding. Perhaps it is considered historic for some but not for others.

Mr. Conway: I find this story exciting.

Mr. Boudria: Okay. If someone thinks it is, who am I to disagree?

Mr. Conway: I am sure Joe Clark thinks it is historic, if nothing else.

Mr. Boudria: Maybe it is a part of the history of Joe Clark.

If I can get back to this topic, the churches of my constituency are the very few historic buildings we have in many instances in the riding of Prescott-Russell. This is probably true in other areas as well.

We are approaching, in our area, the 100th anniversary of many communities in my riding and in eastern Ontario. For instance, next year is the anniversary of the town of Wendover. There will also be the anniversary of the town of Hawkesbury and the year after there are others. I can think of Casselman and so on.

One thing that most of those villages and towns have in common is the desire, the need and the want to improve the appearance of our churches in those areas. I wonder if the minister would consider making it possible to obtain Wintario grants for those purposes, because they are of course in many cases in eastern Ontario and other places the only heritage buildings and the only historic buildings that we have. We consider them very important to our culture, our religion and our ancestry. It is important for us to keep them in good shape and have them in as good a condition as possible.

4:20 p.m.

I would like to bring up another matter with the minister in the heritage area. In my constituency there is a building known as Macdonnell House. Macdonnell House is situated right on the border of Ontario and Québec at Pointe Fortune, but on the Ontario side.

Pointe Fortune is probably the only place in this province where the postal address is in Quebec but most of the village is in Ontario. I have a number of constituents who have their addresses as Quebec but they are in my riding. Macdonnell House is in this category. It is very confusing to some of us, especially the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) when what he thinks is a Quebecker tries to apply for licence plates for his car. He notices that he lives in Quebec and refuses to sell them to him; but the applicant is really a resident of Ontario.

In any case, that is another matter we could get into extensively at some time. One of those buildings that has an address in Quebec and is located in Ontario is Macdonnell House. It is an interesting structure. It was built at about the time of the Constitution Act of 1791, the year in which Ontario was founded, and for which we will be celebrating the bicentennial in 1984. It was the customs house as one entered Upper Canada from Lower Canada. It belonged to a gentleman by the name of Macdonnell. I believe we pronounced it as Macdonnell at that time, or so the local people tell me, but it is now known as Macdonnell, with the accent on the last syllable.

This structure is quite valuable. It is a large facility. About a year ago the Ontario Heritage Foundation invited me to visit the place. I took them up on the offer and found the place very interesting, but the renovations are not progressing. They have only stabilized the building and prevented the rain from entering the premises. That is about all that was done. The centre of the building is sagging towards the earth and it will be only a matter of a few years before the structure will be lost.

I know one of the difficulties the ministry is having is trying to figure out what to do with it. What does the government of Ontario do with a building that is located in Ontario but has to be entered from the Quebec side to have access to it. It is not exactly the most prominent spot in Ontario. That is probably one of the reasons the ministry has not chosen to do much with the building. It is not directly on the main highway from Ottawa to Montreal because Highway 417, the new highway, is approximately a mile from the Ottawa River at that point and, therefore, we cannot see the building from the highway.

I would venture to say it is a very important building in the history of our province. Our province starts at exactly that point, at the western end of la seigneurie de Vaudreuil, at which we planted those monuments in the late 1780s to later establish the province of Upper Canada in 1792.

If the minister could today, or some other day by letter, inform me as to any progress, any new ventures, ideas or plans she has for Macdonnell House I would be interested in knowing them. As I say, it could be a very nice building but it is not in good condition at the present time.

I wrote to the minister's predecessor last year and invited him to visit Macdonnell House with me this summer, but before he could get around to doing that he had changed cabinet positions. Therefore, I would like to extend the same invitation to the minister when she comes to Prescott-Russell. She may want to speak to the local Tory association there or what have you, but when she does come to Prescott-Russell I would like to invite her to come and see Macdonnell House. I think she will find the building positively interesting with its location on the edge of the Ottawa River only a few feet from where the province starts and where our province was formed.

It is a very interesting location. From now until the true bicentennial of 1791 occurs in this province -- if I can call that the second bicentennial; in any case, whenever the real bicentennial of 1791 occurs -- it would be nice if the building was fixed up before that time. Then when we do have our second celebration of our 200th anniversary, we could have some event in that structure which we would hope to put to some use.

This brings me to another subject. This is the minister who informs us about and is in charge of our culture, our citizenship and our heritage, all those fine things. I think I would be really remiss if I did not talk about the bicentennial at this point. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would be really disappointed if I did not, and rightfully so, because it is such an important event and it is approaching rapidly.

I have spoken about this in the past to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture and I have expressed my disagreement with the choice of year which was made. I believe it was made for purely political motives and very little else. Of course, I recognize that if the centennial of the arrival of the Loyalists was celebrated to some extent in 1884, then the bicentennial of the arrival of the Loyalists perhaps should be celebrated in 1984.

I am not sure of that. If one looks back at the history, one will see very little in the way of concrete historic events which happened at that time, with the exception that a larger number of United Empire Loyalists moved into our area, or what was then the province of Canada, in that particular year than in other years. I would suggest there are many other years which have an important historical significance in the history of our province around that particular time.

I would remind the minister that the province we live in, or the province of Canada, really was formed by a couple of different acts and treaties, neither of which occurred in 1784. I can think of the Treaty of Paris in 1763 and the Quebec Act in 1774, which, to a certain extent, really formed this province the way we know it, recognizing the southern boundaries were different and things like that.

We all know, and I am sure the minister knows, that the Constitution Act of 1791 was signed -- you guessed it, in 1791. If this is the date our Constitution Act was passed, it would seem normal that we would perceive this as being the birth year of our province. Therefore, we should be celebrating the bicentennial in 1991.

I believe the minister's government and, I am sure, the minister, being responsible for the area of citizenship and culture, and her colleagues in the social policy area who have been involved with the issue of the bicentennial, have had a few things to deal with which they had not anticipated. First, I do not think they expected any dissenters as far as the bicentennial celebration is concerned. To the great surprise of the government, it found that quite a few people really questioned the validity of the year. They also questioned some of the ways the government went about its preparation for it.

I would like to read a few names of people who sit on the Bicentennial Advisory Commission of Ontario. I will only read a few names from eastern Ontario because I do not really know all the others. I see the name of Mr. Richard Clippingdale of Ottawa. I seem to recall this particular gentleman was a candidate for the federal Tory nomination in 1974, I believe, in the riding of Ottawa West.

I see the name of Mr. Bert Lawrence of Ottawa. I am sure we all remember Mr. Bert Lawrence, a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister of this province. I see the names of Mr. Richard Rohmer from Toronto and Mr. Gordon Smith from Orillia. I am just wondering if this is the same individual who was a Tory MPP at one time. Then I see Mr. Rolland Saumure of Bourget. This is a very interesting name. I will explain who Mr. Rolland Saumure is. because I know members are just dying to find out.

4:30 p.m.

In 1981 my predecessor, Mr. J. Albert Belanger, was challenged for the Tory nomination by of Bourget, and Mr. Rolland Saumure lost the Tory nomination, which is understandable given many things. Mr. Saumure is now the secretary-treasurer of the Prescott-Russell Progressive Conservation Association. Mr. Saumure is also a candidate for the Tory nomination for the next provincial election and he is, of course, sitting on the Bicentennial Advisory Commission.

We are told there are no politics in this; there could not possibly be politics in the way the government is going about doing this. It is just a coincidence that they chose all these Tories we see here, nominated candidates, former MPPs, a future federal nomination hopeful and so on and so forth, to sit on the Bicentennial Advisory Commission.

Mr. McClellan: That gives it a lot of credibility.

Mr. Boudria: That is exactly the point. As the member for Bellwoods says, that gives it a lot of credibility. That is really the problem with the whole thing. It has been messed up in so many different areas that I think it has lost much of the credibility it could have had, notwithstanding the fact that it is the wrong year.

Mr. Breaugh: They only missed by seven years.

Mr. Boudria: The Ottawa Citizen said in an editorial last year, "When we celebrate the bicentennial of 1984, give or take a decade, we will do such and such." I think that was quite accurate. The Honourable Margaret Birch, who was responsible for such matters, wrote me a letter, and a very nice letter it was, I think it was in June 1983, with which she sent me these little decals, I guess they are, of the bicentennial, recommending that I put them on my letterheads.

If I was to put one of these on my letterhead, I do not know which constituency I would send it in because my constituents would not take too kindly to having that on a letterhead I sent them. In any case, she recommended I put these logos on my letterheads. They say "Celebrating Together 1784-Ontario-1984."

Mr. Breaugh: We are celebrating a non-event in two languages. T